WL183's may be better on the M10, the D50 two or more EM172's work very wel=
l.
- Ive used up to 3 capsules per channel. The Shure capsule engineering is b=
etter or rather the capsule / mic housing is far more robust than an alumin=
ium can hanging from a wire. Ive mounted EM172's inside machined brass cyli=
nders.
Comparing two sets of single mics I use.
Shure MX391O capsule removed from its boundary housing and
Primo EM172 mounted inside a brass cylinder to resemble the shure.
Quick summary: The Shures "noise" is below 2Khz its warm, the Primos is abo=
ve 2 Khz and is harsh.
I use them as is, or stuffed inside silicone ears in a blimp. This negates =
most of the noise due to the ears amplification but requires post EQ.
Considering Single capsules:
A single EM172 when using the D50 vs the Shure capsule at the *same* gain l=
evel:
maybe I shouldn't say this but the Shure capsules sound better. Let me subs=
tantiate that.
At 1Khz the EM172 exhibits 4.31dB more output than the capsule from a Shure=
MX391O boundary mic which is essentially the same as the WL183.
So the EM172 is more sensitive. However thats not the whole picture.
Above 2 Khz the EM172's noise floor is 4.74dB ABOVE the Shure capsules, whi=
ch means the sensitivity benefit comes at the expense of noise. This I don'=
t quite follow since by the numbers the EM172 IS lower noise than the WL183=
, except the noise "tone" (to use Robs?) expression sounds far harsher in t=
he EM172 than the WL183 which has a warmer tone.
So what about matching levels... If the EM172 levels are matched to the Shu=
re, so we compare noise floors equally (if thats possible) I'd say they (t=
he EM172s) are nearly identical with a lower noise floor above 15 Khz.
What does all the above mean in a quiet recording location? - > With no sig=
nal at 5khz your listening to the noise of the capsule, and the Shure capsu=
les will have less noise there than the Primo's.
See this graph to visually check what Im talking about:-
http://urlme.net/audio/RedShurePrimoYel.tiff
Red trace is the Shure capsule, yellow is the Primo - the bumps are due to =
environmental noise (household) - this was made at gain level 8 using the D=
Message: 50.
Subject: The noise for the Shures falls off above 2Khz, yet the primo is flat,
o=
k ok - so if we set levels identical where a signal t the primos is at the =
same level when using the shures the noise floor of the Primos will definat=
ely be lower but that flat response region 2-10Khz will still be present an=
d the Shure capsule will sound less harsh in that area.
Thats my experience of the Primo capsule, I first used the capsule back in =
August 2009 and sorry to say I no longer use them favoring the Shure capsul=
e "sound" and even more recently Im using Dynamic mics with the D50 in 96+%=
humidity soaking wet with condensation. Lower noise doesn't always transl=
ate to better sound.
-Mike.
--- In "Kawika" <> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I am re-visiting Guatemala in January (I led a series of tours there in t=
he 1980's) and want to go low-profile with recording gear, leaving behind S=
D702, MKH20 SASS, M-S set-up, and Telinga dish. I will be taking both Sony =
D50 and PCM 10 for recorders, and I'm looking at the Telinga clip-ons to us=
e with either recorder for ambient sounds in quiet forest as well as market=
-places. Can anyone offer recent experience with this set-up?
>
> Here are some notes from some testing work by Rob Danielson et.al. from l=
ast year
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/40053
>
> and more--
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/41343
>
> (for Klas--I can't seem to find out much recent info from your site or el=
sewhere about these)
>
> Many thanks,
>
> David
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> David Kuhn
> www.soundshawaiian.com
>
>
> 808 335 0398
> Cell 808 651 8247
> Mail to: PO Box 1018
> Waimea, Kaua'i HI 96796
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
|