From: Rob Danielson <>
> I've been wondering if we should say "very high" sensitivty. The
> Shure WL-183 is spec'd at 40 dBV/Pa which is on par with the
> Sennheiser mkh 60 isn't it?
Well, I took you up on it, sort of. MKH-60 vs MX183 (the phantom powered
one). It's not at all easy to compare. The MKH-60 as a short shotgun is
taking sound from a fairly narrow field, while the MX183 is a omni
taking things from all around. Superficial comparison indicates (on my
Portadisc metering) readings higher with the MX183 with a all around
sound with no real focus (the wind outside where the MX183 is about
5-10dB higher). But as the sound comes more and more from one source or
one direction the MKH-60 is beating the MX183 by a good 10-15dB. So,
they are somewhere in the same ballpark as to raw sensitivity. But not a
lot else.
Note it happens the two have the same impedance, so this is ok in that
regard. If there is a great difference in mic impedance that would have
to be factored in as well as sensitivity.
I also did a brief test against a MKH-40. Output was fairly similar, but
sound quality was not. Though that can be a matter of taste. But on the
sensitivity side it shows there is more to sensitivity than just that
raw number at 1khz since the MKH-40 should be well less sensitive.
I don't like using extreme terms too much and will stick with good for
the sensitivity of the MX183. I don't have near enough experience with
it to say more. If by sensitivity you mean reach for distant subjects
it's not near as good as the MKH in my brief check. Close in there is
less difference.
>>>
>>> though fairly high self noise
>
>
> ... but lower than any other lower-cost power in plug (PIP) mic we
> know of?
Yes, relative to the field of lavalier omni's it's pretty low self noise.
But, relative to the needs of nature recording it's high. We need to see
a similar mic with at least 6dBA lower self noise. To match the MKH
omni, the MKH-20, it needs to lower it's self noise by 12dBA.
It's always good to know the range of options for what we do. Calling
the MX183 low self noise is very misleading in a nature recordist's
group. It would be less of a problem in, say, a group devoted to
recording rock concerts.
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.
There is also the factor of expectations. I agonize over the details of
my recordings. Then I hand over what I've got with all it's defects to
the audio cavemen, the various biologists I associate with. "Do you like
this version or this one better?" to which as often as not they will say
both are perfect, they can't tell the difference. Though these folks are
very expert at what each frog should sound like so are very good at
pointing out recordings that are off in that way.
> When "what mic to buy" questions specify application, polar pattern
> and whether for "PIP" or phantom, it helps a lot. Rob D.
One thing to remember is that "what mic to buy" questions tend to come
from novice recordists. They often do not understand these terms well
enough to define what they need. That is what they are asking to learn.
Anyone who has been in it a while will have quasi religious opinions as
to "what mic to buy". If folks are more experienced they tend to set the
question in terms of mic "x" vs mic "y".
I'd much rather see specifications of what's to be recorded, and what
expectations there are for the recording. The big dividing line as I see
it is individual calls vs ambiance. But there are other distinctions.
These are the sorts of things that don't require any knowledge of the
craft to say. Those of us who have managed to learn enough to fool some
into thinking we are more advanced can then translate those expectations
into equipment needed and why. The terminology of the craft can be
introduced in a less daunting manner as needed.
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.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|