Hi Rob,
OK since you asked! I will upload to the naturerecordists web page,
my LS-10 beeper test that compares 16 bit with 24 bit.
I was using an ME67 with the LS-10, set 3.5 metres from an
electronic metronome. Settings were Low sensitivity, record volume
was on 10. Meter was registering around -18 dB. Low cut was off.
First clip is 44/16, second clip is 48/24, as set via the LS-10
menu. After the transfer to my computer, I boosted the volume of
both files by 10 dB (using Peak), then converted the 48/24 file back
to 44/16. I combined the two files, with a brief silence to separate
them. Then converted to MP3.
At every stage of this process, I could not detect a difference in
noise levels between the two files.
The first section is 44/16, the second section is 48/24.
If you can suggest a different way of doing this test, I am happy to
try it!
Vicki Powys
Australia
On 09/07/2008, at 2:42 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
> Hi Vicky--
>
> Thanks for the carefully confirmed findings. I'm sure those with
> LS-10's are following along closely. Is there a chance you could
> share short clips of your low sensitivity level "10" recordings made
> at 16 and 24 bits? Do you happen to recall what the record meter
> activity was like at Low Sens "10." Its possible that one could push
> the improved noise performance at Low Sens level "10" even a tad
> further. Rob D.
>
> At 10:51 AM +1000 7/9/08, Vicki Powys wrote:
>> Rob & Raimund,
>>
>> With the ME67 and LS-10 recorder, I've now tried comparing volume 3
>> and volume 4 at high sensitivity setting, against volume 10 at low
>> sensitivity setting, boosting the low-10 file (by 5-6 dB) to match
>> the levels of the other two files.
>>
>> It does seem to me that you are still better off to use LOW SENS
>> setting on 10, there is less noise, compared to 4 or less on high
>> sens.
>>
>> I then compared Low 10 at 24 bit and 16 bit settings but could not
>> really detect any big difference in noise levels for the 2 settings.
>>
>> I might add that using the ME67 with the LS-10, on low sensitivity
>> (if you have a good signal), really does give an excellent result,
>> comparable to what I could get with my old TCD D10 DAT recorder (the
>> DAT still has a slight edge but the LS-10 is a hell of a lot
>> lighter!)
>>
>> Vicki Powys
>> Australia
>>
>> On 07/07/2008, at 6:26 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>>
>>> Vicki--
>>> Based on your tests so far, is this rule of thumb correct for
>>> when to
>>> use High of Low Sensitivity on the LS-10?
>>>
>>> Use the High Sensitivity setting on the LS-10 if the meter (in High
>>> Sens mode) indicates that level of "4" or higher is required. Use a
>>> Low Sensitivity setting of "10" if the meter (in High Sens mode)
>>> indicates a level of "3" or lower is required. Rob D.
>>>
>>> = = = = =
>>>
>>> At 4:51 PM +1000 7/7/08, Vicki Powys wrote:
>>>> Sorry that my last message to Rob was not quite right! I herewith
>>>> make a correction.
>>>>
>>>> More indoor tests today (using a softly beeping electronic
>>>> metronome): For loud sounds e.g. lyrebirds, if you have a strong
>>>> signal at high sensitivity volume 2, you will get a better (less
>>>> noisy) result if you switch to low sensitivity and volume 10. The
>>>> signal will be about the SAME, but the noise a lot less. This rule
>>>> applies if you are using ME67, WL-183s, or built-in mics.
>>>>
>>>> However if you need the recorder on high sensitivity volume 5
>>>> to get
>>>> a decent signal, it is not worth trying to use low sensitivity on
>>>> volume 10 then boosting the signal later (if you do, the noise
>>>> levels
>>>> will be very roughly the same).
>>>>
>>>> I have done more tests with the WL-183s, on high sensitivity
>>>> volume 5
>>>> (a good average level for recording birdsong). They give a very
>>>> slightly LESS strong signal than the built in mics, but when the
>>>> signal levels are equalized, the 183s are still a bit less noisy.
>>>> The 183s seem to work best (less noise) with the low cut ON,
>>>> alternatively they need a bit of low roll off below 500 hz.
>>>>
>>>> Vicki Powys
>>>> Australia
>>>>
>>>> On 07/07/2008, at 9:17 AM, Vicki Powys wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I have tried lining up two files, one recorded in high
>>>>> sensitivity volume 2, the other on low sensitivity volume 10. I
>>>>> then
>>>>> increased the levels of the low sens. file by 5 dB (also 7 dB) to
>>>>> match the levels (of the recorded bird sounds or whatever) of the
>>>>> high sens. file. The exact amount of increase needed I am still
>>>>> working on, but it seems to be about 5-7 dB. Even with this
>>>>> increase, the noise levels are still lower with the low sens.
>>>>> file,
>>>>> especially the FIZZ noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vicki
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/07/2008, at 2:01 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At 11:52 AM +1000 7/6/08, Vicki Powys wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using an ME67 connected to my LS-10, I have done a bit more
>>>>>>> testing
>>>>>>> in the field (and indoors) of noise levels using high vs low
>>>>>>> sensitivity. For lyrebirds, I do seem to get a better result
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> low sensitivity at volume 10, instead of high sensitivity at
>>>>>>> volume
>>>>>>> 2. There is much less FIZZ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But also, surprisingly, I seemed to get better results
>>>>>>> yesterday
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> recording Regent Honeyeaters (they have a soft melodious call),
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> low sensitivity at volume 10, then raising the levels to match
>>>>>>> what I
>>>>>>> had recorded at high sensitivity at volume 5. Again, much less
>>>>>>> FIZZ
>>>>>>> on low sens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you confirm this with matched playback levels? If not,
>>>>>> place the
>>>>>> tests made with high and low sensitivity one after the other on
>>>>>> different tracks in a time-line. Boost the playback volume of
>>>>>> the low
>>>>>> sensitivity one to match the playback level of the louder (high
>>>>>> sensitivity) one. You should be able to hear the difference
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> "fizz" noise level where the two files join.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems to be a very complex issue! More testing needed!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't tried these tests with the WL-183s, but would
>>>>>>> suspect a
>>>>>>> similar result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps. The WL-183's are fairly sensitive mics but not in the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> ballpark with the ME-67.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re my binaural setup, and your comment Rob (see below), where
>>>>>>> do I
>>>>>>> find Aaron's DSM temple mount set up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron uses a WHB/N Windscreen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <<http://www.sonicstudios.com/access.htm#whb>http://
>>>>>> www.sonicstudios.com/access.htm#whb>http://
>>>>>> www.sonicstudios.com/access.htm#whb
>>>>>> I'm not sure if Leonard
>>>>>> sells just the mount-windscreen or not but you can see how his
>>>>>> design
>>>>>> works in the pictures. Rob D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vicki Powys
>>>>>>> Australia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/07/2008, at 12:31 AM, Raimund Specht wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rob Danielson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A metronome at 5 metres might be a pretty "hot" reference
>>>>>>>>> signal.
>>>>>>>>> Its possible that the "Low Sensitivity" setting might not
>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> sufficient gain for quieter sounds and environments. Its
>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>> further investigation, for sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Coincidentally, earlier today, I thought of Aaron's DSM
>>>>>>>>> temple
>>>>>>>>> mount
>>>>>>>>> preference in relation to your WL-183 rig priorities. Rob D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, this is a relatively loud test signal. Though, I believe
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> this is an adequate model for a loudly singing Lyrebird.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For recording softer sounds, one should perhaps better use the
>>>>>>>> HIGH
>>>>>>>> MIC SENSE setting. The problem with the Lyrebird was obviously
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the REC LEVEL was turned down to 2, which caused the higher
>>>>>>>> overall
>>>>>>>> noise level. In other words, it is not appropriate to
>>>>>>>> attenuate
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> microphone signal and then amplify it again in the next stage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the MIC 2 input of the TASCAM DR-1 also provides a
>>>>>>>> relatively low gain (input clipping level: -28 dBu), while its
>>>>>>>> inherent noise floor (-115 dBu(A)) is still good enough for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> K6/ME6x series.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Raimund
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>>>>> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
>>>>> Krause
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>>> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
>>> Krause
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
|