At 8:07 PM -0500 2/12/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>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.
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?
>
>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.
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.
>
>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.
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.
>
>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.
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. My enthusiasm for
183's kicked in after hearing a side by side test with the NT-4, a
$400 popular upgrade. Klas hasn't been encouraging folks to buy omni
KM-23's.
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.
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>"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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|