I think that makes sense - hadn't thought of the noise.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:13 AM, hartogj <> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> The specs show the 183 to be the best of the three regarding self-noise (=
WL183: 22.5, WL184: 27.0, WL185: 28.0 dB SPL.) =A0None of those figures are=
very good for nature recording, still some of my favorite soundscapes reco=
rdings I made with two WL183 strapped to the trunk or large limb of a tree.=
Many others turned out not so great because of the self noise.
>
> Besides the lower self noise of the omnis, I think it is also easier to b=
ury that self noise because sounds from all directions contribute to the su=
bstance of the recording. I am not saying you won't get excellent results w=
ith the directional capsules, but you may have to work harder to get them, =
especially with several more dB of self noise.
>
> Your distance question is hard to answer because that depends on the dyna=
mics of the specific natural setting, but I think the difference in self no=
ise may be more important than polar pattern or array.
>
> John Hartog
>
>
> --- In Steve Duncan <> wrote:
>>
>> What do you suppose the relative differences would be between an ORTF ma=
de with either Shure WL184 (super cardioid) or WL185(cardioid) mics, or a b=
oundary system (ala Curt Olson) using WL183's?
>>
>> Seems like the 183's might be more versatile overall (i.e. in other appl=
ications), but the ORTF might make a smaller package.
>>
>> Any thoughts? Is one going to be better for short or long distances (say=
3m vs. 30m)?
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Steve Duncan | www.swduncan.com
|