naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

4. Re: OLYMPUS LS-10 VS DAT RECORDINGS UPLOADED

Subject: 4. Re: OLYMPUS LS-10 VS DAT RECORDINGS UPLOADED
From: "Rob Danielson" danielson_audio
Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:48 pm ((PDT))
Hi Vicki--
I was curious how the noise from each set-up would compare with the
playback levels matched so I made a movie: http://tinyurl.com/544flb
The movie compares only the "background ambience" taken from segments
in-between the loud calls so the noise component can be more evident.

The movie seems to confirm your assessments. The LS-10's mic pre
seems to be adding noise on top of the ME-67's self-noise, 10dB(A).
This is consistent with earlier estimates that the LS-10's mic pre
noise should be fairly inaudible with mics whose self-noise is about
14-16dB(A) or higher. Mics with less than 14dB(A) self-noise should
benefit from a quieter mic pre like those in the TCD-D10 or Fostex
FR2-LE

Its difficult to characterize the color of the noise from the LS-10's
built-in mics because the other tests use Low-Cut filtering in the
field.

Note that the two ME-67 tests are monaural; the built-in mics are
stereo. Rob D.

  =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D

At 9:48 AM +1000 6/26/08, Vicki Powys wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I have uploaded three mp3 files (all less than 1 MB) to the members
>files area. The subject is a Superb Lyrebird recorded in the forest
>at Mt. Airly in NSW. In each recording I was about 10-15 metres
>away, with little or no breeze. No filtering has been used, so that
>you can compare the raw result for three different recording
>combinations. With the LS-10, I recorded as WAV 44/16, and high
>sensitivity mode.
>
>1. LS-10, built in mics, low cut on, recording volume 5
>
>2. LS-10, Sennheiser ME67 mic, low cut on, recording volume 2
>
>3. Sony TCD D10 DAT with Sennheiser ME67 mic, recording volume about
>2-3.
>
>There is more system noise in (1) but the sound quality is still very
>good. I had the low cut switched on because of occasional breeze.
>The addition of the ME67 to the LS-10 in (2) was an improvement and
>there was less system noise, altho the quality of the sound would
>have been less thin with the low cut switched off. The DAT recording
>(3) has less system noise and the best sound quality.
>
>I might add that using the LS-10 with built in mics was a dream for
>stalking the elusive and shy lyrebirds! I could carry it in my
>pocket and had no tangle of leads and mics and monopods. The results
>are very acceptable for scientific study. I have had to make a
>better windshield for the inbuilt mics, but otherwise I am very
>pleased with the LS-10.
>
>Has anyone tried the LS-10 with lavalier mics e.g. WL183s?
>
>Vicki Powys
>Australia
>
>


--









"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    
    

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<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