Marty
I liked your inclusion of a superposition graph so
much that I included it on my page.
http://www.akwebb.com/gkweather/ambient/selfnoise.html
Do you think these graphs have much use in comparing
different microphones?
As an old retired high school physics teacher, the
discussion of transverse and longitudinal waves makes
me want to break out the wave tanks and slinkys and do
some demos.
I'll resist the urge.
Greg Kunkel
--- Marty Michener <> wrote:
> At 03:55 PM 4/5/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> >As per Walters Advice I tested the Radio Shack
> stereo microphones
> >under a pillow to find the self noise. Here are the
> results.
> >
>
>http://www.akwebb.com/gkweather/ambient/selfnoise.html
> >
> >Comments and observations would be appreciated.
> >
> >Greg Kunkel
>
> Dear Greg:
>
> Good post and web display. Looks to me a bit like
> the RS self-noise
> challenges the incoming sounds at some frequencies,
> but it is a bit hard to
> tell exactly.
>
> I have been reading for weeks everyone shooting down
> shotguns. I have kept
> my mouth shut, knowing lots of real recordists just
> use them and don't
> participate in all the mad-molecular-microphonology.
> I have recently
> remained uncharacteristically mum when posters have
> claimed that shotguns
> do nothing, apparently, whatsoever, that any field
> recordist might ever
> want. ;^) They only shut out sound, not pick it up,
> etc. etc. And you all
> know who you are, the post record has been clear.
> :&0))
>
> So, Greg, in yet another attempt to silence the
> "spend it all" crowd, I
> have tried to mirror your terrific web page (my
> compliments!) using my two
> (not cheap) Sennheiser ME-67s. Repeatedly, I have
> assured this group over
> years that the 67's are more quiet than is ever
> necessary in any real field
> setting for going out and getting a bird's sounds.
> Their portability
> through the puckabrush more than makes up for their
> inability to "gather
> any sounds".
>
> I do NOT use them for studio-quality ambience
> recordings, and on those
> points I do not argue. The only real argument has
> come from one
> participant who, in retrospect, told me he has only
> used Sennheiser's
> forerunners - the ME-80 series, before the quieter
> self-noise technology
> occurred, and never actually heard a ME-66 or 67.
>
> Thanks to Walt's suggestion and to your example, I
> am able to post somewhat
> comparable results at:
>
> http://www.enjoybirds.com/howitworks/micCompare.htm
>
> Please note, the "ambient" recording was with no
> nearby birds singing
> whatever. Bird song would be on top of the ambient
> levels.
>
> While far from CHEAP, the ME-67 are far cheepier
> than the MKH series (USD x
> 3?), and despite dire warnings that you should
> always upgrade to the very
> best, (if necessary I suppose cancelling your car,
> health and house
> insurance to pay for them, or (horrors, learning to
> cope with ebay), many
> of us continue to use them to great satisfaction.=20
> I would love a grant so
> that I could upgrade, meanwhile there are these
> results to look at.
>
> BTW: As a point of reference, a sound 6 to 10 dB
> louder than another sound
> of similar frequency distribution, pretty well
> drowns it out. 12 to 20 dB
> is a terrific margin.
>
> Ok, let the torches blast . . . Compared to this
> winter-reversion we have
> in NH, the heat may do me some good.
>
> my best regards to all, despite the disrespectful
> humor,
>
> Marty Michener
> MIST Software Associates PO Box 269, Hollis, NH
> 03049
>
> EnjoyBirds.com - Software that migrates with you.=20
> http://www.EnjoyBirds.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|