if you think about it, all dynamic mikes of a given impedance should have t=
he same noise. what set them apart was output. the md 421 and the beyer m88=
were "low noise" because they had high output.
i have published my poems. you can read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/=
From: Raimund <>
>Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2011 2:59 AM
>Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] parabolic mics + recorder noise
>> > Which means: IF you connect a modern microphone to a modern
>> > recorder,
>> > this microphone will provide such a powerful output signal, that it
>> > is the microphone noise that will be disturbing.
>> Yes, agreed, and that is why I use MKH series mics. The 416 had a spec
>> of 21dB excess noise over thermal noise weighted CCIR 468-3. This is
>> the noise you can hear but you can't compare this in any way with
>> different noise quotes and different weightings, especially ones
>> measured with the capsule disconnected. In fact the only noise figure
>> which counts is the one measured by your ears in your typical
>> environment. The 21dB '468 weighted' mic I quoted is one of the
>> quietist that you will find.
>Hi Klas and David,
>While I agree that the recorder preamp noise issue is often overestimated,=
I'm however afraid that it can still be an issue even with current microph=
ones in combination some of the most recent recorders.
>The Sennheiser MKH60 (40mV/Pa, 8dB(A), 18 dB(CCIR 468-3), noise voltage: -=
112dBu) would for instance require a preamp noise voltage below at least -1=
18 or even -121dBu. So, the TASCAM DR-100 (-113dBu) for instance would unfo=
rtunately introduce additional noise in a quiet environment. Other micropho=
nes such as the Sennheiser K6/ME66 (-108dBu) or the discontinued MKH816 (-1=
06dBu) are less demanding in this regard.
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>Yahoo! Groups Links