naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: 5. Re: OLYMPUS LS-10 VS DAT RECORDINGS UPLOADED
From: "Max Catterwell" oatcruncher
Date: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:51 am ((PDT))
Hi Rob!
Even though this is probably going to be over my head, I'd still like to
be able to access this 'movie'. The link you provided doesn't work for
me; it changes automatically to
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/ME67-D10_ME67-LS10_LS10MicsSo=
r3_Lrg.mov
and gives 'error on page'.
Any suggestions please?
Max


Rob Danielson wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



<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