Rob and all,
Re my head-mounted WL-183s, I have just now posted a photos of my rig
in the photos section for this group (in my folder for the LS-10).
For the first version I used closed headphones but I just cannot use
these and get really claustrophobic and disoriented with them. I do
need to be able to hear what is happening around me. Hence the
current version with mics mounted on open headphones. The mics are
facing forwards and are held on with bulldog clips, and have extra
thimble-sized furry covers to help with wind. I tried this set up
yesterday for stalking lyrebirds (with the LS-10). It was
wonderful. I could easily push the headphones off my ears to hear
what was happening around me. When recording, of course I cannot
have any volume for the headphones because it will pick up on the
mics, but I can check the recording later to make sure everything is
working OK.
This is my ultimate in stealth recording for the moment!
Maybe Klas's little EM mics would give a better result than the WL-183s?
Vicki Powys
Australia
On 01/07/2008, at 4:43 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
> --- 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
|