At 8:30 PM -0500 12/8/07, Steve Cox wrote:
>Hi Rob, yes I did see that and just about everything else on your
>site! Great information there.
>However, I wasn't sure they were the same mics. These did say Bedford
>Technical Bi-158, not Primo EM-158 so if these really are the same
>mics you could see my confusion. There are more differences than
>I was hoping that they were not the same mics because I wasn't overly
>impressed with the performance on the test. I was hoping for less
>noise, as the description indicates.
They're the same capsules. There's chance the 158's could perform a
tad better with more PIP voltage. The Primo literature states the
EM-158's have 20dBA self noise, which, I agree, should sound less
noisy. In comparison to WL-183's with 22 dB(A) self-noise, one might
hope for a slight improvement. A change of .3 to 1dBA is about the
smallest "step"we can hear. Gerald's test, and others like it, have
told me that all electrets, with the exception of Klas's EMKS-23, are
not ideal for recording ambience in quiet locations.
Electret mics have many, fantastic applications, but I suspect any
nature recordist comparing quiet location performance of a condenser
mic with 17dB(A) or under self-noise to that of inexpensive electret
mics would share your disappointment.
Klas' EMKS-23 are based on Primo EM-23 capsules with an amp he has
crafted. Considering that one would have to invest at least $700 per
capsule for DPA, Schoeps, MBHO and other small-profile comparables,
the EMKS-23 are reasonably priced. Recordists are always looking, but
I do not think there are any low-cost, low-noise, small mics that
will run on PIP.
As the Sony PCM-D50 only has a PIP external mic input and the Fostex
FR2-LE only has 48 volt phantom inputs, perhaps we should dig-up the
simple mods allowing electret mics tp run on 48v. For low-profile,
stereo imaging and other flexibiilities, I'd much rather have
head-wearable EM-158's or WL-183's than X-Y recorded mounted
electrets. Rob D.