Recorder: Edirol R09HR
Mic: 2 x Em158N
Obs: Battery box (2 x 6.8 K, 9V battery, 2.2uF decoupling caps -> Out)
1 Sec Gap
Recorder: FR2-LE
Mic: 2 x Em158N
Obs: Battery box out -> FR2-LE - Preamp Max Gain, Rec Level Max Gain
Recorder: FR2-LE
Mic: 2 x Em158N
Obs: Battery box out -> FR2-LE - Preamp 3-Oclock, Rec Level Max Gain
I then tested a converted Edirol CS-15 Mic:
Recorder: FR2-LE
Mic: Converted CS-15, Left Channel =3D 3 x Em158N - Right Channel =3D UEC1=
4 Figure 8.
Obs: Battery box out -> FR2-LE - Preamp Max Gain, Rec Level Max Gain
Recorder: Edirol R09HR
Mic: Converted CS-15, Left Channel =3D 3 x Em158N - Right Channel =3D UEC1=
4 Figure 8.
Obs: PIP Power, Max Level, Gain Hi.
No leveling / matching has been made - the flac contains the original cropp=
ed audio
placed into the sequence as described above.
BR,
Mike.
--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> 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://url=
me.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>=
com,
> >Rob Danielson <type@> 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=
one
> >> >> 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.
> >>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
|