At 1:56 PM +0000 9/2/06, scottsherk27 wrote:
>Thanks Klas, Bernie, Rob and Gianni for your helpful responses. My
>concerns emerged from using new equipment in an unfamiliar recording
>environment. I took the MKH 40/30 rig to Maine, which is such a
>quiet environment=97compared to Pennsylvania at this time of year. I
>found that I needed to push the gain on the Sony RH10 way beyond what
>I usually do in order to get what I considered adequate saturation.=A0
>This was necessary because of the quiet environment, and also because
>of the apparently less sensitive chain of MKH 40/30 to Rolls to Hi-
>MD, compared to my more familiar Telinga EM23's to PIP Hi-MD.
This should not be the case and it may be an important clue.
>
>Listening to my Maine recordings I was surprised by the high-end
>noise that I was hearing. After reading your posts I have
>reconsidered the whole dilemma and have concluded that the issue is
>related to low SNR due to lower sensitivity.
I'm sure this is not your problem if all of your
components are working as designed. The the self
noise on the mkh's is lower than the em-23'a
(less hiss); the sensitivity of the mkh's is
higher (more volume) and any noise the Roll's
generates is much, much lower than the mhk's.
Trouble shooting can be complex because you have
a _system_ of three components involved (four if
we include the EM-23's low Hz emphasis problem--
but I suspect that is related to the extra noise
with the MKH's).
You have to create other gear combinations to
isolate the faulty component before you can
figure out how to fix it.
> I repeated the crude
>test that I was doing with the clock and substituted a metronome=97much
>louder than the very quiet clock. I carefully normalized the
>recordings to the peaks of the clicking and then listened carefully
>to the valleys.
Normalizing peak transients doesn't match
apparent playback volume of a recording of a room
very well for some fairly complicated reasons.
That's one reason I asked or the raw files.
> The valleys with the MKH rig are significantly
>quieter. I believe that what I was experiencing in the earlier test
>was a mistake: the clock was so quiet that I was normalizing
>unequally and getting an inaccurate comparison, as Klas suggested.=A0
>I've posted this new comparison again on my test page at:
>http://tinyurl. com/hx9nq
dysfunctional link?
Unless you got different results, I don't need these.
>
>What I'm beginning to conclude is that my current set-up of MKH 40/30
>to Rolls to Hi-MD is much less sensitive than I had expected. I have
>no way of comparing this to equipment other than what I have. This
>question emerges: should an MKH 40/30 pair be significantly less
>sensitive than EM23's which are rated at 10-11.55 mV/Pa? Is this an
>anomaly of my equipment=97possibly the Rolls?
With just the EM-23's/mkh's Rolls and Hi-MD to
test with, one could come to this conclusion, but
its highly likely that one or more of these
components is compromised, way compromised.
Check all HiMD recorder
settings/cables/connectors again. Because the
EM-23 signal also has that odd Low Hz emphasis,
the recorder is suspect #1 based on what I can
tell.
You could try to get together with another
recordist in your area. You could post that
interest on this list. Off the top of my head,
one test:
1) run the mkh mics intro a normal mixer with bal inputs an into headphones=
,
2) run another pair of mics into the same set-up
3) run mkh-> rolls-> same mixer->Headphones
4) run another pair of mics through the same set-up
5) run mkh->rolls->Hi-MD->headphone outs
6) run another pair of mics through the same set-up
Rob D.
>
>
>Thanks,
>Scott
|