naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SP-TFB-2 with Edirol R-09HR or Olympus LS-10?

Subject: Re: SP-TFB-2 with Edirol R-09HR or Olympus LS-10?
From: "Rob Danielson" danielson_audio
Date: Wed Jul 1, 2009 2:30 pm ((PDT))
At 7:47 PM +0000 7/1/09, picnet2 wrote:
>Hi,
>I'll chime in here with my "Holiday Mic test" - not intended to be a
>scientific test and wasnt intended for release but I think others
>may find it interesting. - Im just debating which (air) mics to take
>on holiday.

Hi Mike--

re:

>Avoid the H2 if you can its mic-pre's are hiss factories. (i own
>one) - line in is reasonable, LS-10 is a much better choice.

If one is going to use low-noise mics? Your test seems to provide an
example of the importance of this distinction (see below).

>
>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 NT4 under the same conditions.
>
><http://urlme.net/audio/fr2le-nt4-sphere-r09hr-sphere-nt4.mp3>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 never tried this combination.
>...
>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 level.
>Edirol R09HR with Sphere via the same battery box.

If performing to the manufacturer's self-noise spec of 16 dB(A)
(which I doubt based on this test ands other comparisons I've made:
http://tinyurl.com/6zhyxx) the NT-4 _should_ be on the cusp of
revealing some input noise difference in the pre performance of the
recorders.

I took the closest matching segments from your four gear combinations
and approximately matched the playback levels:
http://tinyurl.com/kn596f

This "hiss" is fairly well matched in segments 1,2 and 3 suggesting
that these three mics/powering conditions have similar noise
performance that is audible above the recorders' pre noise,...
HOWEVER, what happened to the "hiss" in section #4?

This discrepancy suggests to me the "hiss" in tests 1, 2 and 3 is
environmental and not mic-self noise audible above the pres.  (Or
another, yet accounted for change in the results Test 4).

You'll probably need to do such comparisons in a much quieter/more
controlled location and, better yet, use/include your NT-1A's for
reference.  Probably best that all of the combos be recorded at max
or close to max gain too. Rob D.


>BR,
>Mike.
>
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m,
>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 o=
ne
>>  >> 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/><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.
>>


--









<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: SP-TFB-2 with Edirol R-09HR or Olympus LS-10?, Rob Danielson <=
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU