naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: M10 noise removal, was Sony PCM-M10 vs Zoom H4n best for outdoor

Subject: Re: M10 noise removal, was Sony PCM-M10 vs Zoom H4n best for outdoor
From: "Peter Shute" pshute2
Date: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:21 am ((PST))
I don't know why we're seeing different things in the frequency analysis. P=
erhaps it's to do with the (Audacity) settings I used to do the analysis - =
I left them on the defaults, as I don't understand what they do.

They were:
- Algorithm: spectrum
- Function: Hanning window
- Size:512
- Axis: linear

I've just fiddled with the size parameter. If I change it to 128 then I see=
 a much more detailed graph going all the way up to 21500Hz! This is from t=
he original wav file.

Apologies to those who had to record it from Soundcloud - I didn't realise =
the default was to prevent downloading. Thanks for taking the trouble, to t=
hose who did.

Peter Shute

From:   O=
n Behalf Of hartogj 
Sent: Sunday, 12 February 2012 6:44 AM
To: 
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: M10 noise removal, was Sony PCM-M10 vs Zoo=
m H4n best for outdoor



Hi Peter,
I think David gave a good characterization of the noise in your samples.

I'm not sure why your frequency analysis shows it all below 9khz, because l=
ooking at it and listening to it with Audition 1.5 and apQualizr the record=
er/mic noise clearly extends to where the mp3 chops off around 14k. The hig=
h point in the noise appears to me centered around 4k at the top of a wide =
bulge that tapers off to several dB less above 10k.

Still, the background ambiance in your nature recording example blends with=
 and somewhat masks the 4k noise, so to my ears the >8k noise is still what=
 sounds the most noticeable.

Consider natural background sounds that can mask that <8k noise. Some wind =
in the trees or water flowing somewhere nearby can make all the difference =
with fairly noisy mics like these.

Here is an old example from my Sound Journal. Using Sure wl-183(~20 dB self=
-noise) microphones mounted to a tree, thanks to the wind in the pines, a s=
mall nearby stream, and post eq on the high hiss(>8k?) this one sounds pret=
ty good - to my ears anyway.
http://rockscallop.org/ear/jh-060529_fry-dawn02.mp3

John Hartog
rockscallop.org

--- In <naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=
ps.com>, Peter Shute <> wrote:
>
> I've posted a "noise only" sample to Soundcloud. I'll stop calling it his=
s for now:
> http://soundcloud.com/petershute/120202-01pcmm10silence
>
> I haven't had time to take the recorder anywhere truly quiet to record a =
better sample, so this was done at home with doors and windows closed, sand=
wiched between two cushions with a blanket over the top. I'm sure there's p=
lenty of sound from outside in the recording, but at least I've reduced it.
>
> The spectrum analysis in Audacity says it's all below 9kHz, with a peak b=
elow 500Hz which might be noise from outside that I couldn't block. Very in=
terested to hear opinions about the nature of the noise.
>
> I also did a similar recording with the level turned right down. There wa=
s similar noise, but of much, much lower volume. I assume this proves it's =
not preamp noise?
>
> I've also uploaded the latest attempt at reducing the noise:
> http://soundcloud.com/petershute/111229-03nr5
>
> With 30dB reduction, I've not been very gentle with the recording, so I'm=
 interested to know what others find wrong with it. The untouched recording=
 for comparison is at:
> http://soundcloud.com/petershute/111229-03brandyck
>
> Concerning my hearing, I took my audiologist's word that I've got little =
hearing above 8kHz, but I played with tone generation in audacity just now,=
 and I can hear up to 15kHz, but I can't really quantify how well except th=
at it's nowhere near as good as at 8. I note that she didn't test above 8.
>
> Perhaps I'm playing it back louder than she would have in a test too. Int=
erestingly, at a level at which I can clearly hear 15000Hz, 15100 is just n=
ot there. I'm probably running into equipment limitations too.
>
> Peter Shute
>
> ________________________________
> From: <naturerecordists%40yahoogro=
ups.com> <naturerecordists%40yahoog=
roups.com>] On Behalf Of Avocet 
> Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012 10:19 AM
> To: <naturerecordists%40yahoogroup=
s.com>
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: M10 noise removal, was Sony PCM-M10 =
vs Zoom H4n best for outdoor
>
>
>
> > Peter mentioned on his Soundcloud example, the hiss he was concerned
> > with was mostly below 5kHz. To my own ears the problematic
> > microphone hiss noise in that recording was most prominent from 8 to
> > 10 kHz.
>
> John,
>
> In my previous email I indirectly defined "hiss" in my HPF
> specification as being 4KHz and above, in other words the top two
> octaves. "Thermal" (root f) mic hiss goes right up as high as you
> record and to my ears anyway sounds different. The bottom end noise
> (the bottom four octaves?) is "rumble" but I can't think of a
> universal name for mid range noise except "mid range noise". :-)
>
> I'll back you up on annoying hiss being 8 to 10 Khz and this is
> recognised in the "468" weighting for background noise measurements.
>
> BTW at my fairly advanced age of 71 my own frequency response still
> goes from 10Hz to 12KHz which is not bad. That's still over 10
> octaves.
>
> David
>
> David Brinicombe
> North Devon, UK
> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
>









<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU