naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: PIP Mics Booster Pres Test

Subject: Re: Re: PIP Mics Booster Pres Test
From: Klas Strandberg <>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:59:50 +0200
Thanks a lot for the explanation!

One must consider that each (condensor / electret) microphone already has a=

built in microphone preamplifier!!!

The most simple one is a Field Effect Transistor (FET) , but there is
usually (always?) a condensor over the source resistor an voila! - you have=

gain! You have a microphone amplifier! Usually there is much more than just=

a simple FET. The capsules which I use with Telingas have a three leg
FET-IC, probably with a lot of active and passive components inside of it.=

The signal from the FET-IC is then handled by a base filter and a source
follower, to give 200 Ohms output impedance. The PRO6 also has a voltage
stabilizer.

I guess one could put it this way:
"If the built in microphone preamp is good enough, why should you connect
an extra one??"
By "good enough" I mean enough output voltage with low enough self noise.

Remember, that all this text written about preamp noise, was written when
most recordists connected a dynamic microphone! The dynamic microphone is
just a membrane, a magnet and a coil - no internal preamp!
In those days you were always in trouble, with preamps not fitting the
microphone in question.

Today, I dare claim again, - with modern equipment - you only get into
mic-preamp noise problems when the output of the microphone (+ it's
internal preamp!! ) is too low.

My "antique" Tascam DA-P1 has quite average mic inputs. Still, when I
connect a MKH20, which self noise is as low as 10 dbA, all I hear is mic
noise, not Tascam noise..

Klas.


At 17:41 2005-04-15, you wrote:

>I'll try, though I imagine there'll be some debate about the
>interpretation of the results.
>
>Rob recorded a ticking clock and egg timer using various microphones,
>preamp gain settings, and in several cases, supplementary amps between
>microphone and recorder's preamp.
>The recordings were made using a MD recorder then transfered to a
>computer (I take it) and their overall sound levels were adjusted so
>that sound levels in the recordings are all about the same.
>
>In one comparison that I found informative, the same microphones (Rode
>NT4 XY) were used with different preamp gain settings (18 and 28,
>whatever that means) then received +24dB and +20dB in "post". The noise
>levels in these two recordings sound about the same to my (admitedly
>inexperienced  --- plus I listened on cheapo speakers connected to a PC)
>ears. I take this as evidence in favor of your (Klas's) assertion that
>the preamp noise isn't as much of a problem (isn't heard as much) as the
>noise from the microhpone.
>
>In some recordings an additional +20 dB "booster" was used. I didn't
>notice a lot of improvement as a result.
>
>The quietest of all the samples was from Rode NT1A microphones, an MP2
>preamp and MD preamp gain of 28. Again, I conclude that the MD preamp
>isn't a problem but that the noise is primarily from microphones. (I
>don't know but I suspect that these NT1A's are more expensive/ higher
>end than most of the other microphones in this comparison. I certainly
>think this is the kind of recording I'd like to be able to make!)
>
>I hope this helps a little and will try to go into more detail if people
>want me to. I'm also looking forward to hearing other people's thoughts
>about this study and more than willing to agree that I'm just a novice
>at this sort of thing!
>
>I join others in thanking Rob for his efforts. The results were nicely
>presented and I feel he's done us all a great service by making this
>study available.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Steve P
>
>
>Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
> >For us antique modem users, can anyone tell in words what this test was =
all
> >about and what the results were?
> >
> >Klas.
> >
> >At 15:47 2005-04-15, you wrote:
> >
> > >Once again, Rob Danielson treats us to truth:
> > >
> > > > http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/Mic&PreTransparencyTests/med=
ia/
> ><http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/Mic&PreTransparencyTests/media/>
> > > > TransMic&PreTestsSor3_01.mov
> > >
> > >And again we see that TRUTH HURTS! This will take some serious
> > >pondering...
> > >
> > >Curt Olson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"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*
> >
> >    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
> >
> >    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >      
> >
> <=3DUnsubscrib=
e>
> >
> >    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Servic=
e
> >      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>"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: 
        




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<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