Hi!
Yes, EM23 is still on the market, please contact Doug about it. You can see=
pictures of two different models at telinga.com
Best wishes,
Klas.
At 16:40 2005-02-16, you wrote:
>Hi Klas--
>
>I agree that people need to understand that the self noise component is fi=
xed.
>
>I'm trying to address the questions we get about which entry level
>mics will produce less noise when recording ambient space with an MD
>recorder. I haven't come across anything specifying equivalent self
>noise for MD mic preamps. Maybe a reader who has both an MS-957 and
>Shure 183's could do a test to give us better sense of the noise
>affects of the MD mic pre (and affects of greater sensitivity) for
>the FAQ. Seems to that many ask about PIP MD mic options that produce
>less noise and why. A follow-up FAQ question might be, "If I spend
>more on expensive mics, what will the improvement sound like?" Its
>more than any of us has the gear and time to do alone but maybe as a
>group we can post some very informative test files.
>
>On a related matter, I just finished a mix for a video soundtrack
>with Rob Yeo who recorded many hours of material with EM-23's and his
>Sharp MD (pip). I was very impressed with the transparency of these
>mics and how little noise there was-- especially in the upper
>frequencies. I almost never touched the eq above 1200Hz even to
>soften the edge on blowing grass etc. Very nice. Are you still
>selling these mics? Rob D.
>
> =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
>
>At 10:35 PM +0100 2/15/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
> >Mic noise is one thing - mic preamp noise is something else.
> >
> >If the output / Pa of a microphone is low, - then you have to use a lot =
of
> >preamp gain to get the signal up, but then you will hear the preamp nois=
e!!
> >- not the mic noise!
> >
> >If a mic has a 23 db self noise, its still has a 23 db self noise, even =
if
> >the output is high.
> >
> >In practice you could be correct: A low output microphone with a good se=
lf
> >noise might give a poorer result than a high output mic with a poorer se=
lf
> >noise. But then it is because of preamp noise, and could be improved by
> >getting a better preamp.
> >
> >The word "sensitivity" is also used by the Japs to describe self noise,
> >instead of dbA.
> >It's very confusing.
> >
> >Klas
> >
> >
> >At 16:24 2005-02-15, you wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >>
> >> =3D =3D =3D =3D
> >>
> >>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 goo=
d
> >> 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, t=
he
> >> >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. (T=
hose
> >> >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 on=
e)
> >> >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 technic=
al
> >> >>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 understan=
ding
> >> >>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 tha=
t
> >> >>relates to the dollar sign. From recent messages I'm not the only o=
ne.
> >> >>Some of this is terminology and unfortunitly I can not access the l=
ink
> >> >>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 too=
ls
> >> >>and methods. Also there have been a number of references on what m=
akes
> >> >>a good mic in this group but there is hell a lot of messages to rea=
d to
> >> >>get a grasp of it all. I'm asking the impossible, can there be a se=
t 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 gras=
p of
> >> >>the basics befor being side tracked down another path. Some one cou=
ld
> >> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >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
>
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|