I have a pair of 185 capsules. Their high self-noise renders them
pretty much useless except in very high SPL environments. They are
also painfully prone to wind and handling noise. I regard the cost as
tuition paid.
Curt Olson
Steve Duncan wrote:
> 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.) None of
>> those figures are very good for nature recording, still some of my
>> favorite soundscapes recordings 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 bury that self noise because sounds from all directions
>> contribute to the substance of the recording. I am not saying you
>> won't get excellent results with 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 dynamics of the specific natural setting, but I think the
>> difference in self noise 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 made with either Shure WL184 (super cardioid) or
>>> WL185(cardioid) mics, or a boundary system (ala Curt Olson) using
>>> WL183's?
>>>
>>> Seems like the 183's might be more versatile overall (i.e. in
>>> other applications), 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)?
|