>Citations about actual places, their sound levels, instrument specs
> and associated sound files like Klas's would be a great addition to
> an FAQ page wouldn't they?>
Added :)
http://www.naturesound.org/nature_recording%20Q&A.htm
Martyn
Martyn Stewart
Bird and Animal Sounds Digitally Recorded at:
http://www.naturesound.org
N47.65543 W121.98428
Redmond. Washington. USA
Make every Garden a wildlife Habitat!
425-898-0462
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Danielson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:24 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Mic Terminology
>
>
> Citations about actual places, their sound levels, instrument specs
> and associated sound files like Klas's would be a great addition to
> an FAQ page wouldn't they?
>
> Another key factor that might also be added to the discussion about
> self noise is "sensitivity." The MKH's have both low noise and high
> sensitivity. The KM-23, though it has a very respectable rating of
> 16dB(A) self noise, also has high sensitivity. The Sony MS-957 has a
> considerably higher value of noise @ 25 dB(A) but the presence of
> this noise in the signal is more apparent because its sensitivity is
> only ~6 mV/Pa and the record gain in quiet locations must be
> increased for sufficient record volume. The Shure WL-183 has
> 22.5dB(A) self noise but its high sensitivity of 40 mV/Pa allows it
> to take greater advantage of its moderate self noise. The ideal
> combination of low self noise and high sensitivity contribute to a
> mic's ability to perform well under "very quiet" conditions. So,
> high "mV/Pa" numbers are good and low "dB(A)" numbers are good. Any
> number above 20mVPa is very good; any number below 10dB(A) is very
> good. Mic manufacturers' testing methods vary considerably, so the
> published numbers should only be regarded as ballpark "estimates"
> until proven in the field. Many terrific recordings have been made
> with modest gear that is perfectly suited for the situation--
> including sound levels. The placement of the mics in the sound field
> can make the recording sing or seem dull. Rob D.
>
> = = = =
>
> At 11:32 AM +0100 2/15/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
> >A general statement which is almost true:
> >
> >Considering "sound quality", all microphones today are as good as the
> best
> >ones 20 years ago.
> >So don't worry about sound quality, frequency response etc. It's good
> enough.
> >
> >Then the noise problem:
> >
> >Listen to "My Garden" on telinga.com, click sound gallery.
> >The microphones in question had an inherent noise level of some 8-9 dbA.
> >That's low.
> >
> >In this category of mic's you will find the Sennheiser MKH series, the
> >telinga MPS1 series and all those recently marketed low-noise mic's using
> >the same China-made 1 inch capsule, like the CAD 179 for example. (Those
> >China capsules are very different from one another! You need to match
> them
> >to get a stereo pair!)
> >
> >If you replay such a recording at a reasonably low level, like in reality
> >or a bit louder, 10 dbA will not be audible at a recording like "my
> garden".
> >16 dbA will be audible, but not disturbing.
> >23 dbA will be disturbing and something which you will try to filter
> away.
> >Roughly.
> >
> >Considering an owl, 50 meters away, deadly silent around - 16 dbA will
> not
> >only be audible, but also disturbing.
> >
> >Noise is related to size. The bigger the membrane is, the easier it is to
> >make it low noise.
> >All 5 mm electrets have a noise level about 30 dbA or worse. All 10 mm
> >capsules have a noise level at about 26 dbA or worse. (All except one)
> >All 20 mm capsules, like Sennheiser ME-series and Telinga EM23, make
> about
> >16 dbA noise, or worse.
> >The Sennheiser MKH and Telinga MPS1 are here exceptional. They have 20 mm
> >membranes, but a noise which is only 10 dbA or better.
> >
> >Hope it helps a bit.
> >
> >Klas.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >
> >
> >At 04:33 2005-02-13, you wrote:
> >
> >>Im one those who Walter refers in a previous thread
> >>
> >>"It could be very easy for this group to become nothing but technical
> >>discussions. But that would not be very attractive to new folks to
> >>nature recording. We need to get them hooked before we drop the ton of
> >>technological bricks on them. You can record well without understanding
> >>the terminology, though it's easier if you do understand the
> >>implications of that stuff."
> >>
> >>Even after followering to the group for several months now I still
> >>having a lot of trouble appreciating what is a good mic and how that
> >>relates to the dollar sign. From recent messages I'm not the only one.
> >>Some of this is terminology and unfortunitly I can not access the link
> >>on the groups home page which may help. Then there are varous
> > >specifacations one reads for example self noise, is very important but
> >>the difference between a mic with 25dB and 40dB are still figures.
> >>Something that I could relate to is how much closer am I going to get to
> >>that bird for the same recording. The some for self noise (how much
> >>extra hiss I'm going to hear in the background with an extra 10dB ) and
> >>there is sound to noise ratio. Other specifications such as output
> >>Impedance and Dynamic Range are just figures.
> >>
> >>I have looked at a number of sites that has a general advise on tools
> >>and methods. Also there have been a number of references on what makes
> >>a good mic in this group but there is hell a lot of messages to read to
> >>get a grasp of it all. I'm asking the impossible, can there be a set of
> >>guidelines amongst the group that would make an ideal mic, one that
> >>would do the job and those that will disappoint you for individual calls
> >>vs ambiance recordings. There is no need to mention specific makes of
> >>mics or other additions such as barriers as one needs to get a grasp of
> >>the basics befor being side tracked down another path. Some one could
> >>explain in practical terms what the varies specifications are. This
> >>maybe a useful reference for the home page.
> >>David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/05
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Microphones are not ears,
> >>Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >>A listening room is not nature."
> >>Klas Strandberg
> >>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> >S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> >Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> >email:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Microphones are not ears,
> >Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >A listening room is not nature."
> >Klas Strandberg
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rob Danielson
> Film Department
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|