Hi Gene--
Welcome to the list!
If you are sure you are going to use low self-noise condenser mics
down the road, folks also look at the Fostex FR2-LE. It has phantom
power and is less bulky, most feel, than pairing a portable phantom
supply with the Sonys (search Rolls PB224 or Art Phantom II). Two
rubs: the Fostex is larger and it has no PIP mic input.
ww.sonicstudios.com should be able to provide a phantom powering
adapter for the DSM-6s, but this might be the best overall solution.
One of most sought-after field audio products is a tiny omni mic with
very low self-noise. To record ambience in the quietest settings,
most folks learn to appreciate mics with less than 10dB(A)
self-noise. Presently, about the best you can do quality/price-wise
is Klas's EM-32 and possibly his new "Clip-on" mics. The EM-23 on
this comparison test has about 14dB(A) self-noise which should have
substantially less self-noise than DSM-6's http://tinyurl.com/ycz3rwq
Klas has described the noise performance of his new "Clip-On" mics as
comparable. Mike Wall has posted some recent examples and may post
some more soon, http://tinyurl.com/yckz5o7
Another, lower-cost popular moderately quiet electret mic on par with
DSM-6s are Shure WL183s. http://tinyurl.com/yck7ck9 The capsules are
about the size of your little finger from the tip to the first
knuckle and have been measured at 22 dB(A) self-noise-- a possible
improvement over the DSM-6s self-noise rating. The 183's come in DIY
PIP and Phantom, but you may have to look around a bit for a pair of
the Shure MX1BP's.
If you're on a tight budget and portability and low profile are high
priorities, the DIY WL183's(PIP) -> M10 combination can provide
impressive recordings in robust settings. Maybe by the time you are
ready to look into a mic upgrade, we'll have a comparison test
including DSM-6s, EM-23's, "Clip-On's" and WL183's you can use to
decide whether these improvements or even lower noise mics make the
most sense to you.
If you think you'll be wanting to make stationary recordings using
lower noise mics more often than "comfortably record[ing] my
surroundings when I travel," in the near future, perhaps the Fostex
is the better investment. But, if stationary recording will be the
exception, its not that much fuss to pull-out a phantom supply and
some external mics to use with either Sony unit. The quality between
all three recorders should be very close even with the quietest mics.
I think the Sony's are easier to use for accommodating very long
takes. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 4:25 PM +0000 4/6/10, renberg19z wrote:
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm new to field recording and am shopping for a recorder and was
>hoping for some advice. I think I've narrowed it down to the Sony
>PCM-D50 and the PCM-M10. Here's what I make of it:
>
>PCM-M10, pros: compact enough to fit comfortably into a jeans
>pocket, $200 or so cheaper, cons: weaker preamps and internal mics
>than its big brother.
>
>PCM-D50, pros: better sound quality (or so I gather...), cons:
>bulkier, more expensive.
>
>Pros for both: both are much praised for near-prof. quality at a
>sub-$500 price point. Cons for both: lack of XLR inputs and phantom
>power.
>
>I am probably going to couple one of them with the DSM-6s binaural
>ear-mounted mics at first, so I can just comfortably record my
>surroundings when I travel. I am not in the market for an
>interviewing device, my interest is in natural environmental sounds
>and travel/nature recording so quality is the biggest consideration.
>So I'd like for my setup to be extensible, i.e. when I feel ready to
>invest in a really good mic for quiet nature recordings, I'd like to
>be able to use the same recorder. The lack of XLR/phantom is
>worrisome in this respect. Has anyone used these with other mics for
>nature recordings?
>
>Also open to opinions on other recorders.
>
>Thanks for the help!
>
>gene
>
--
|