Hi,
I'll chime in here with my "Holiday Mic test" - not intended to be a sc=
ientific test and wasnt intended for release but I think others may find it=
interesting. - Im just debating which (air) mics to take on holiday.
Avoid the H2 if you can its mic-pre's are hiss factories. (i own one) - lin=
e in is reasonable, LS-10 is a much better choice.
Heres a quick test where all mics are normalized to roughly the same level.=
- This may give some indication of a lower noise mic (NT4 at around 16 dBA=
) vs multiple Electrets in a DIY mic costing < 80 dollars. Its noise figure=
is perhaps around 18-19dBA. The sphere has ~13 dB more output than the NT=
4 under the same conditions.
http://urlme.net/audio/fr2le-nt4-sphere-r09hr-sphere-nt4.mp3
Not a brilliant time to recording in the garden due to the traffic noise - =
I wanted to get some impression of how the different rigs sounded as Ive ne=
ver tried this combination.
I have tried the EM158's (used in some binaural mics) in an Semi-Anechoic c=
hamber - given the 22+dBA self noise there wasnt a significant benefit to =
using either the Fostex or Edirol due to the amount of noise. Besides facto=
rs such as the size of the recorders / no battery box etc for the Edirol...
Recorded Sequence as follows:-
FR2-LE with NT4 from its battery.
FR2-LE with DIY Sphere Mic (Polyethylene Marine Buoy + 3xEM158 capsules on =
each channel) - running via a DIY battery -> XLR box.
plus me moving around to orient the sphere towards the birds.
Edirol R09HR with NT4 from its battery -> Mic / PIP OFF / Gain High & Max l=
evel.
Edirol R09HR with Sphere via the same battery box.
BR,
Mike.
--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> At 5:36 PM +0000 7/1/09, Tom wrote:
> > > If one is only going to use noisy mics (as Klas points out), then on=
e
> >> can save money and buy an Zoom H2. An LS-10 provides no real
> >> advantage and still has more input noise than most recordists like
> >> when they discover the important role mic-self noise can play. :-)
> >
> >Having had personal experience of both these recorders I'd have to
> >say that the LS-10 does have significant advantages over the H2. If
> >you keep the "Mic Gain" switch in the low range the input noise is
> >low enough that it doesn't impinge on recordings made with a K6/ME66
> >with a reasonable degree of ambient sound (wind, birdsong, insects
> >etc.)
> >
> >The H2 on the other hand had a pretty awful mic input which was
> >significantly noisier than using the built in mics. The only way
> >you'd want to use the H2 would be with an external mic preamp which
> >would negate the cost saving over the LS-10!
> >
> >These are just subjective observations, and I can't directly compare
> >the two as I sold the H2 in order to trade up to the LS-10 - if
> >anyone has the means to directly compare the mic inputs on the two
> >units I'd be interested to see the results.
> >
> >Tom W.
> ><http://www.pterodaktyl.co.uk/>http://www.pterodaktyl.co.uk/
> >
>
> Hi Tom--
> Listening for "quality" is inherently "subjective," so such
> observations are equally, if not ultimately, more important. A
> technical note to support your observation: An ME-66 mic with
> ~10dB(A) self-noise _should_ show-up the pre differences in the H2
> and the LS-10. However, if one plans to use electret mics of the type
> that Paul asked about (with more than 22dB[A] self-noise) any pre
> difference would not be audible. This might be an important fact if
> one knows that one will only use the electret or other noisier mics
> with the recorder. Rob D.
>
> --
>
>
>
|