At 9:00 AM +0000 11/12/09, Raimund wrote:
>
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>according to my own measurements, the noise floor of the M10 line
>input is approximately -92 dBu(A), measured at the maximum recording
>level setting (position 10) that provides a clipping level of -2
>dBu. This confirms the specifications provided by SONY, which says
>that the S/N Ratio should be 87dB or greater.
>
>Subjectively, I can also confirm that the built-in mics of the M10
>are indeed quieter than the those of the D50:
>
><http://tinyurl.com/ybrpjan>http://tinyurl.com/ybrpjan
><http://tinyurl.com/yzkopq2>http://tinyurl.com/yzkopq2
Raimund and Robin--
Sorry, I did not see that Sony provided this info. Just grabbed the
manual. The M10's mics are only ~3dB(A) noisier than Klas' EM-23's.
~5dB(A) lower than WL-183's. Looks like there are some peculiarities
for an omni polar pattern but its still big improvement over the
D50's and D1's. The off-axis peak at 90 degrees probably improves
the front/center (and rear center?) imaging if the capsules are
opposing. (In regard to Ernst's reservations the other day, the M-10
looks like the engineers could have given considerable attention to
on-board mic design and performance.)
>
>So, I would say that the M10 is a great recorder for its small size
>and moderate price. I agree with Robin that there is probably no
>reason to worry about the fact that the EIN of its microphone input
>is not superior.
Jerry White is planning to do some comparison tests including his
M-10. Maybe we'll figure out a way to include some popular external
arrays like AT-3032's in a parallel boundary so we can make the
differences more concrete for our ears.
I'm all for simplicity if quality is not sacrificed-- even for a bit
less quality if there's a LOT more simplicity. More connectors =3D
more risk.
17dB(A) self-noise capsules suggests that Sony could be turning an
ear to our needs. How about an M11 model with detachable capsules
that can be placed in other, small external arrays with 6' foot
extension cables?
>
>One should always keep in mind that very quiet microphones (such as
>the Rode NT1A or the Sennheiser MKH's) are usually quite bulky (not
>to mention the additionally required tripods and windscreens). So,
>if one needs the lowest possible EIN, then there are already a
>number of suited recorders available (Fostex FR-2LE, TASCAM HD-P2
>and of course the SoundDevices 7xx series recorders).
One can detect the faint input noise of the Hi-MD recorders at -124
dBu (A-weighted) when used with NT1-A's. If the D-50's input noise is
-126 dBu (A-weighted), it might be inaudible with NT1-A's (when used
with a Rolls/Art Phantom II).
The audible difference between 6-10dB(A) self-noise and 17 dB(A)
self-noise is breath taking in a recording of a quiet setting. I feel
its important to make sure one's end-product-goals are well defined
and equipment selected accordingly.
It is possible for convenience to inhibit skill development. Not to
suggest that any of the refined skills of the recordists on this list
would be compromised with a smaller recording system, but convenience
can disrupt the decision-making processes if one is not alert. When
video camcorders were introduced, beginners thought much less about
making shots. Having to set-up a mic stand makes one really think
about mic position-- critical. Its not easy to make good recordings
as we are always pushing the limits of the gear. For me, "quality"
must be consciously created on several levels.
I'm not at all concerned about a few extra pounds if they serve my
purpose. :-) Rob D.
>
>Regards,
>Raimund
>
--
|