Hi,
I hear what you're saying and can understand its use as a 'cheat sheet' for=
other recordists who for whatever reason are unable to experiment or inter=
pret manufacturers' specifications to achieve the best match. Unfortunately=
, this results in a compromise, enabling the use of mismatched microphones =
& recorders by the unwary. What then happens is disappointment with the cap=
tured audio and belief that the recorder being used is unsuitable for that =
particular use; not helped by frequent comments aired about how noisy one r=
ecorder is to another, when in fact it's the use of an inappropriate microp=
hone system.
--- In "Mike Rooke" <> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> " I find it a rather pointless exercise expounding the virtues of a pa=
rticular
> microphone system with different audio recorders. It would be far better =
finding
> a microphone system which provides the best match for a particular record=
er."
>
> This was the point of posting the information, to match the mics (in this=
case
> from Primo and Shure)
>
> "Reference comments made about better noise levels at particular gain set=
tings,
> it is known that with modern amplifier chips, the best signal to noise ra=
tio
> 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 equiv=
alent input noise[EIN (A)] at approx. -122dBu with maximum gain settings 'H=
igh 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 th=
at 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 co=
mparable 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 mat=
ches level y on the M10.
>
> "The possible reason for capturing better low noise recordings (for low l=
evel
> ambience) at particular gain settings far removed from high gain, requiri=
ng the
> use of post-edit-amplification to make up the difference, is most probabl=
y 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 r=
eaders to use as a reference when using the same capsules on different reco=
rders.
>
> Eyeballing a VU meter doesnt quite work if the recorder drops below or fa=
ils to show
> the dB value in a quiet location, turning the gain up may result in clipp=
ing once things get going - hence we learn what works for a particular reco=
rding system and mic. That process is repeated if the recorder changes even=
if the mics remain the same. In the case of recorders that do meter correc=
tly the above is all hot air of cause :)
>
> -M
>
>
>
>
> --- In "Microscopica" <microscopica@> w=
rote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 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 th=
e Shure capsule.
> > >
> > > The low noise omni (notice I still don't give the part number?) capsu=
les 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 th=
e limiter and its very versatile.
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > In terms of the LS10, 94 dB will show -1dB full scale at gain level 2=
when HIGH sense is
> > > used, and around -23dB FS at the same level with LOW sense for the ca=
psule I measured
> > >
> > > Thus LOW level 3 gives around 20dB headroom above 94dB. OR without re=
ducing the noise floor, gain level 7 will show -5dB Full scale re 94dB SPL =
@ 1Khz.
> > >
> > > The Sony D50 is still quieter / has a more pleasing noise when using =
the low noise omni capsules than the Olympus LS10. Which i suspect is due t=
o 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 parti=
cular microphone system with different audio recorders. It would be far bet=
ter finding a microphone system which provides the best match for a particu=
lar recorder. Reference comments made about better noise levels at particul=
ar gain settings, it is known that with modern amplifier chips, the best si=
gnal to noise ratio will be when the amplifier is being fully driven, ie. a=
t maximum gain. Both the PCM-M10 & LS-XX discussed have virtually identical=
lowest equivalent input noise [EIN (A)] at approx. -122dBu with maximum ga=
in settings 'High 10', but the LS-XX can run with a 60% 'hotter' microphone=
input than the PCM-M10, hence the need for a different microphone system f=
or the LS-XX compared to the PCM-M10.
> > The possible reason for capturing better low noise recordings (for low =
level ambience) at particular gain settings far removed from high gain, req=
uiring the use of post-edit-amplification to make up the difference, is mos=
t probably due to the fact that the microphone is not best matched to the r=
ecorder.
> >
>
|