At 7:12 AM +1000 8/15/09, vickipowys wrote:
>
>
>Rob,
>
>you wrote:
>
>> Before we can reach the conclusion. "that the higher self noise level
>> at SENSE LOW and 16 bit is still sufficiently low for these
>> microphones," I think Vicki would have to use the ideal record gain
>> settings for the LS-10 and make recordings in a quiet room using both
>> the SASS [10 dB(A) self noise] and her Telinga [higher self-noise].
>> If the LS-10's pre is sufficiently quiet, there should be a very
>> audible noise jump when going from SASS to Telinga. Might be wise to
>> include other mics in the test too.
>
>Problem is, Rob, that I cannot use the SASS set up with the LS-10,
>due to the mics requiring phantom power.
Hi Vicki-
If you don't have a portable phantom power supply like an Art Phantom
II or Rolls PB224 for the SASS->LS-10 and the urge burns within you,
can do this test with another mic as long as its rated 14dB(A) or
lower self-noise. I know you'll wake up early just to get started :-)
;-)
> I guess what I was
>originally trying to show was a. that the LS-10 COULD pick up low
>rumbles of thunder (despite predictions that it could not), and
The thunder around here lately has such high concentrations of very
low frequency energy that I would be very surprised if some of the
energy passed through a recorder's pre with no mic connected. :-)
...
>I agree that the LS-10, even with optimal settings (low sense, volume
>10) has more noise than the SD-702 and SASS.
And with robust sounds this should not become an issue.
The conditions under which people use the gear vary so much that I
feel a silly obligation to maintain some clarity in the conclusions
we reach. I wasn't so much trying to confirm the pre noise difference
between the recorders but whether the input noise in the LS-10 is
sufficiently low for the two mentioned mics.
>By the way, I didn't change any of the levels in post, for my
>examples. And have been very impressed at the sensitivity of the
>Telinga.
That's helpful to know. The resulting saturation levels suggest to me
that one person's "ambience" might be another person's "fairly loud
bird event." :-) Thanks for filling in the clues. I suppose some or
all of the choppiness in the background ambience could have been from
mp3 encoding, too. Rob D.
>best wishes,
>
>Vicki
>
>
--
|