naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

2. Re: LS-10 vs 702, ambience

Subject: 2. Re: LS-10 vs 702, ambience
From: "Raimund Specht" animalsounds
Date: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:27 am ((PDT))
Rob, you wrote:

> 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.

When we compare the absolute self-noise level of the Sennheiser K6/ME66 (-1=
10dBu) with the noise level that I measured for the LS-10 at SENSE LOW, 10,=
 16Bit (-113dBu) then the K6/ME66 noise would (theoretically) not completel=
y mask the preamp noise. However, it might be that the Telinga microphone i=
s more sensitive (in terms of the mV/Pa specification) and would therefore =
safely mask the LS-10 noise.

Depending on the specific recording situation, I would say that the preamp =
noise is often not that important. Personally, I wouldn't care much about a=
n increase of the overall self-noise level of lets say 1 or 2 dB that might=
 be caused by the poor preamplifier. I would just accept this minor disadva=
ntage for the small size and weight of a particular recorder. For instance,=
 I'm quite happy with the rugged TASCAM DR-1 (-115dBu on MIN IN 2) in combi=
nation with the K6/ME66 for recording individual animals.

Regards,
Raimund







<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • 2. Re: LS-10 vs 702, ambience, Raimund Specht <=
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