Hi,
" I find it a rather pointless exercise expounding the virtues of a part=
icular
microphone system with different audio recorders. It would be far better fi=
nding
a microphone system which provides the best match for a particular recorder=
."
This was the point of posting the information, to match the mics (in this c=
ase
from Primo and Shure)
"Reference comments made about better noise levels at particular gain setti=
ngs,
it is known that with modern amplifier chips, the best signal to noise rati=
o
will be when the amplifier is being fully driven, ie. at maximum gain."
Thats true when using insensitive mics or recording 150 Ohm resistors.
"Both the PCM-M10 & LS-XX discussed have virtually identical lowest equival=
ent input noise[EIN (A)] at approx. -122dBu with maximum gain settings 'Hig=
h 10', but the LS-XX
can run with a 60% 'hotter' microphone input than the PCM-M10"
I understand this as meaning there more preamp gain with the LS10 than that=
provided by the M10.
"hence the need
for a different microphone system for the LS-XX compared to the PCM-M10"
My understanding is that the gain of the LS-XX needs setting to give a comp=
arable recording level vs the same content on the M10. If the content is a =
reference tone you can get a good indication that level x on the LSxx match=
es level y on the M10.
"The possible reason for capturing better low noise recordings (for low lev=
el
ambience) at particular gain settings far removed from high gain, requiring=
the
use of post-edit-amplification to make up the difference, is most probably =
due
to the fact that the microphone is not best matched to the recorder."
True which is why the level values were mentioned to give some idea for rea=
ders to use as a reference when using the same capsules on different record=
ers.
Eyeballing a VU meter doesnt quite work if the recorder drops below or fail=
s to show
the dB value in a quiet location, turning the gain up may result in clippin=
g once things get going - hence we learn what works for a particular record=
ing system and mic. That process is repeated if the recorder changes even i=
f the mics remain the same. In the case of recorders that do meter correctl=
y the above is all hot air of cause :)
-M
--- In "Microscopica" <> =
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In "Mike Rooke" <yg@> wrote:
> >
> > Since we were discussing the Shure WL183 / MX391O:
> >
> > The Sony D50 set to gain 5 will show -1dB Full scale re 94dB. with the =
Shure capsule.
> >
> > The low noise omni (notice I still don't give the part number?) capsule=
s require gain 4.3 to show the same, thats about 10dB less.
> >
> > For future reference when using the low noise omni capsule, a gain of 3=
is sufficient for the Sony D50 to capture the full dynamic range, add the =
limiter and its very versatile.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > In terms of the LS10, 94 dB will show -1dB full scale at gain level 2 w=
hen HIGH sense is
> > used, and around -23dB FS at the same level with LOW sense for the caps=
ule I measured
> >
> > Thus LOW level 3 gives around 20dB headroom above 94dB. OR without redu=
cing the noise floor, gain level 7 will show -5dB Full scale re 94dB SPL @ =
Message: 1Khz.
Subject:
> >
> > The Sony D50 is still quieter / has a more pleasing noise when using th=
e low noise omni capsules than the Olympus LS10. Which i suspect is due to =
its lower pip voltage which results in a less sensitive capsule.
> >
> > In summary LOW and gain 7 is sufficient for field recording if there is=
no sound pressure above 100dB.
> >
> > I prefer Ribbon Mics when the SPL gets going.
> >
> > BR
> > Mike.
> >
> I find it a rather pointless exercise expounding the virtues of a particu=
lar microphone system with different audio recorders. It would be far bette=
r finding a microphone system which provides the best match for a particula=
r recorder. Reference comments made about better noise levels at particular=
gain settings, it is known that with modern amplifier chips, the best sign=
al to noise ratio will be when the amplifier is being fully driven, ie. at =
maximum gain. Both the PCM-M10 & LS-XX discussed have virtually identical l=
owest equivalent input noise [EIN (A)] at approx. -122dBu with maximum gain=
settings 'High 10', but the LS-XX can run with a 60% 'hotter' microphone i=
nput than the PCM-M10, hence the need for a different microphone system for=
the LS-XX compared to the PCM-M10.
> The possible reason for capturing better low noise recordings (for low le=
vel ambience) at particular gain settings far removed from high gain, requi=
ring the use of post-edit-amplification to make up the difference, is most =
probably due to the fact that the microphone is not best matched to the rec=
order.
>
|