From: Rob Danielson <>
> Thanks for attempting the best test one could imagine to compare
> phantom and power in plug mics on the same mic pre. Did Dan say the
> 183s' sensitivity was less with the MX(?) configuration compared to
> PIP wiring?
The MX183 is the phantom powered version with balanced XLR connection.
So both mics I was using were phantom powered. To my mind the phantom
power has distinct advantages over pip. Pip is such low voltage that the
connectors and cables have to all be perfect, no added resistance
anywhere. That on top of the balanced vs unbalanced configurations.
By the published specs the MX183 is less sensitive than the WL183.
However, PIP from a MD walkman does not come close to the spec'd voltage
of 5 volts for the WL183, in fact is near the minimum. Has there been a
sensitivity check at this low voltage, I'm sure the published spec is
for 5 volt supply?
The MX183 has lower self noise by a little bit compared to the WL183. It
also has quite a difference in impedance. In that regard I'm a little
surprised at no mention of the WL93, which has a self noise spec of 18dBA.
I don't have a WL183 to compare and it would be a problem as the
Portadisc does not do PIP. But I expect the conclusion would not differ
much. You'd have to factor in the much higher impedance of the WL183.
Somewhere in the same ballpark as to raw sensitivity.
>>>Yes, relative to the field of lavalier omni's it's pretty low self noise.
>
>
> I realized I left Klas's KM-23 omnis out of my comparisons. I believe
> he estimates these mics at 14dB(A) self noise wired PIP. Im overly
> omni-centric, the ME Sennheisers are hot too.
The KM-23 is a bit large to call a lavalier.
Omni's have their place, but they also have their limitations. I've seen
them credited with capabilities they don't have. And seen them used
inappropriately more often than other polar patterns. Simply because, as
you say folks were omni-centric. Pays to keep your options open.
>>>I think fairly high self noise places the MX183 correctly in the range
>>>of mics for nature recording. It is a warning this mic will probably not
>>>be the best choice for quiet ambiance, but for a pond full of noisy
>>>frogs may do fine.
>
>
> Let me know when you find a mic that is ideal for quiet ambience! No
> seriously, Dan's recordings show me that they are very capable
> distant source transparency, maybe not in the quietest locations.
Right now my choices for quiet ambiance would the MKH mics. The
SASS/MKH-20 is good, so is the MKH-60/30 M/S I have set up, or the
MKH-80/80 M/S. Lang's MKH-60 stereo pair is nice too. None of these is
perfect, just better than anything else I've run into.
I got the MX183 for a experimental mic. I've been looking for a lavalier
sized mic for experimenting. I will eventually get a second one and then
do some stereo stuff.
> I see a tie between price, portability, quality and one's continuing
> interest in recording and collecting material. Many good recordists
> make Audio CD's with consumer MD's and DIY WM61A's or comparable mics
> because the system makes great sense to them. I see the 183's as a
> possible quality jump for people in this niche.
This is exactly the niche I see for the 183's. If you are moving
stepwise through the quality choices it's a step up from the WM61A and
such like mics. And below mics like the Sennheiser ME's and MKH's.
The secondary reason for the 183's is small size. This can be useful at
times.
There are a lot of considerations in mic choices. In general I don't
find many who in their early nature recording can find enough commitment
to spend the big bucks. That's probably just as well as most would not
have the experience to make appropriate choices. Most start cheap and
work up either through each step, or as I did it, skipping lots of
steps. I would not buy the expensive stuff until I asked myself if I was
committed enough to justify it and knew enough to choose. In my case I
took a number of years of steady recording to come to that conclusion. I
was tired of the compromises I was making and committed to finding the
money to get the better equipment. It took me many years to do even
then. And I had to do it mostly with used equipment to afford it.
> Yes, I often use omni-directional mics like the 183's when I'm
> interested in acoustic space more than individual callers. I record
> in both remote and urban locations. With this in mind, the 183's give
> me the most quality I've enjoyed with maximum portability and lowest
> profile/hassle per buck. Others are experimenting with them in
> parabolas. Rob D.
The 183's should fit right in with homemade parabolas. Lavalier mics are
a good choice there as far as construction details. And self noise is a
little lower problem due to the extra gain provided by the parabola.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|