naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Mic Terminology

Subject: RE: Mic Terminology
From: "Martyn Stewart" <>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:02:23 -0800
>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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU