Hi Vicki--
I couldn't find your rig photo/folder quickly. I'll look more later.
Yes, Klas offered to make up some EM21's specifically for the LS-10.
At ~14dB(A) self-noise, they should be much quieter and a very good
match for the LS-10's pre. I'm curious about some myself. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
At 6:08 PM +1000 7/1/08, Vicki Powys wrote:
>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
>><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
om,
>>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=3Din
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
|