Rob, we should need that malt and a night's conversation before we agreed
on the terminology and other stuff. Measuring methods, for example. I don't=
think I understand what you mean and what you base your observations on.
That doesn't mean that you are wrong.
Finally, with help from your tests and Oryoki's summary, it seems that I
have made my point in a way that can be understood. Thanks, all.
It is strange how difficult it is to put a new microphone outside, to leave=
it there, in rain and wind. I mean, - I bought the NT1- A only for that
purpose, but every night when I am going to put it there, under the small
rainshield, I seem to forget it.... It feels strange to do such a thing.
Klas.
At 22:37 2005-07-28, you wrote:
>At 9:31 PM +0200 7/28/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
> >At 20:47 2005-07-28, you wrote:
> >>Let me try to re-state Klas' message:
> >>
> >>1. Each mic has a self-noise level, produced by the components in its
> >>design.
> >>
> >>2. The recorder pre-amp cannot cancel or compensate for the mic
> >>self-noise level. This mic noise level will always be part of the
> >>recording.
> >>
> >>3. The recorder pre-amp has a self-noise level of its own. This noise
> >>is also added to the recording.
> >>
> >>4. If the mic output signal is strong (i.e., has high mV/Pa), it can
> >>over-ride the noise of the recorder pre-amp.
>
>Yes! Excellent. A couple of nit pic "real circumstances" extensions,..
>
>If the self noise of the mic is higher than the "effective self
>noise" of the pre (and most of the time this is true with or good
>pre like the 722 or, as we found, even the lowly HIMD if properly
>out-fitted and no longer compromised), then, there is very little or
>no noise from the pre to over-ride! That is-- the mic has already
>buried it.
>
>The test I posted seems to indicate the noise from the HiMD pre is
>right around the self noise of the mic, "effectively ~6dBA*." Above
>half of the noise I EQ'd out I could tell was from the mics because
>it was different in each channel. I could also distinquish some very
>narrow bands of noise that seemed to be a 722 contribution, not the
>mics.
>
> [* I say "effectively" because we're listening to/comparing the end
>results and judging the difference not really measuring dBA's of self
>noise in the pre]
>
> > >
> >>5. If you use a mic with low inherent self-noise and strong output,
> >>you can achieve good quality recordings with a recorder that has a
> > >noisy pre-amp.
>
>And I hope people don't confuse price with "noisy" here. The lowly
>HiMD tested is NOT an example of a noisy pre-- it has maybe 1-3dB
>more noise but only at narrow selected bands? That's out of the
>~133dB range.
>
>Also note also that while preamp gain doesn't affect noise the way I
>tested it, at max gain with all wrinkles showing, more gain in the
>sound file under quiet conditions enables more bit saturation and
>more ability to do effective filtering, volume boosting etc in post
>etc. The HiMD has 5dB more gain than the 722 helping one get more
>performance out of 16 bits rather than 24.
>
>Klas, Oryoki, anyone,.. Clobber me if you think I'm wrong on any
>point(s). This is important stuff to get straight. Rob D.
>
>
>
> >Thanks, excellent summary!
> >
> >>In practice, this seems to be true. The Marantz PMD670 is a prime
> >>example of a recorder with noisy preamps (Marantz claims s/n -65dBA),
> >>but Martyn Stewart's recordings using Sennheiser MKE and Telinga mics
> >>sound great.
> >
> >Also in theory. It is just logics.
> >
> >>I guess the place I'm having trouble is in the notion of "over-riding"
> >>the recorder preamp. Klas, do you mean that when a mic has a high
> >>mV/Pa, you don't have to turn up the volume of the recorder pre as much=
?
> >
> >Yes. Exactly. If enough gain is produced by the "optimized" pre in the m=
ic
> >(minimum self-noise!!) - you don't need so much gain in the recorder pre=
amp.
> >
> >Klas.
> >
> >
> >>--oryoki
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"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:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|