--- In Vicki Powys <> wrote:
>
> On a calm day, using the Olympus LS-10 with recording level on 5, I
> recorded some ambience with small birds, comparing head-mounted Shure
> WL-183 mics with the built-in mics. The WL-183s were MUCH quieter,
> although they did not boost the volume of the calls. The best result
> was with the WL-183s and low cut ON. (The WL-183s were powered using
> the LS-10s plug-in-power, turned on in the menu.)
>
> For anyone interested I will upload a file with a medley of 3 clips,
> to the group web page:
>
> 1. quietest, WL-183s, low cut on, vol. 5
> 2. medium, WL-183s, low cut off, vol. 5
> 3. noisiest, LS-10s built-in mics, low cut off, vol. 5
>
> Conclusion: The WL-183s made a very worthwhile improvement in sound
> quality.
>
> Vicki Powys
> Australia
>
Hi Vicki--
Thanks! Very instructive. Your WL183 rig does seem like a significant
improvement whenever one wants to be able to quickly capture some sound.
In terms of frequency response, I detect significantly reduced low
frequency (LF) content even with the low cut filter set to "off" with
the LS-10's built-in mics. The Shure WL183's, known for moderate, not
excessive LF response, exhibit much more response under 100 Hz. There
also appears to be a lower mid-range rise starting at 125 Hz and
extending just short of 2K Hz that seems to be producing the
comparative, "roaring" quality in the LS-10's built-in mics. This
"rise" sounds like there is an ocean surf to the right a few hundred
yards away.
I know that some recordists prefer to focus mostly on the bird calls
and are less interested in LF response, but LF can be critical when
depth and distance are desired in the imagery. The lack of LF in the
LS-10's mics also makes the lower mid-range "roar" of the built=in
mics seem more imbalanced.
In terms of stereo imaging, there is definitely more horizontal
expanse to the bird calls with your 183 rig. The LS-10's imaging seems
quite asymmetrical. You write, "head mounted." Are the 183 capsules
facing forward? A photo of your 183 rig? Rob D.
|