Actually it is, regarding the improvement to a good microphone - stick it i=
n an acoustic collector / tube / resonant cavity / fog horn :) / parabolic =
mic etc and compensate the response change electronically.
regarding, tiny sounds, is Jrf trying to improve the contact mics as shown =
on the recent BBC documentary listening to critters? - PZT isnt the way to =
go if your trying to do that.
For air mics even with low self noise the only way to improve the SNR is wi=
th a mechanical focus / parabolic mic, or resonant cavity - which will affe=
ct the final frequency response and polar pattern which most likely doesn't=
resemble the original at all anymore.
Placing a small omni mic into an ear brings all the benefits of an ear plus=
the whacky EQ needed to correct it to "normal sounding" again, but you do =
gain the mechanical amplification provided by the ear.
Talking of creative - PIPMICS Rainbar V2 is nearly ready - its submersible =
(in water) and works as normal in air. Finally a mic you dont have to worry=
about getting wet. Rainbar V1 was water resistant but not submersible like=
a hydrophone, V2 is both without much impact to the in air sound of the mi=
c when used above the water line.
-Mike
--- In Gregory O'Drobinak <=
.> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Raimund.
>
> It's pretty obvious that it's impossible to improve the noise performane =
of a
> good microphone and I agree with you.
>
> What we are looking for is just more gain than what is normally available=
on the
> stock mic preamps, as clean as we can get it.
> You and Rane have very well characterized the mic self-noise and stock mi=
c
> preamp noise floors and one can't refute that fact of life (and physics!)=
.
>
> Assuming the mics are are the order of a TLM-103 [7 dBA self-noise, -117d=
Bu], as
> we increase the gain on a 'perfect' preamp, at some point the self-noise =
of that
> mic will be audible and of course the dynamic range of the recorder
> is compromised and the clipping level is greatly reduced. OK, that's fine=
. One
> can argue [and folks already have] that at some point things begin to be=
> sub-optimal according to the 'norm' that people follow for nature recordi=
ng.
>
> But, we will deal with the consequences as we need to when amplifying 'ti=
ny'
> sounds. I believe that it is important for all of us to respect one anoth=
er's
> approach to doing whatever they feel is important to accomplish their wor=
k.
> Diversity is good, I've learned many things from "the other side of the f=
ence".
> Let's keep creativity alive.
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
> - Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Raimund <>
> To:
> Sent: Sat, April 21, 2012 3:15:13 PM
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] extreme amplification
>
>
> Hi Greg and Jez:
>
> Unfortunaetly I'm currently too busy with other things. We have discussed=
these
> noise issues several time here during last few years and I already tried =
to
> explain the theoretical background
> (http://www.avisoft.com/tutorial_mic_recorder.htm).
>
>
> To summarize it: For theoretic reasons, it is just impossible to improve =
the
> noise performane of a good microphone (lets say a Sennheiser MKH or whate=
ver you
> like) and a recorder such as a SD 7xx series or even a Fostex FR2-LE by a=
dding
> an additional (even zero-noise) amplifier. Once the noise floor of the
> microphone exceeds the noise floor of the inbuilt preamp of the recorder =
by lets
> say 10 dB, an additional preamp will make things only worse. It would jus=
t
> reduce the available dynamic range (increasing the risk for introducing
> clipping).
>
>
> Regards,
> Raimund
>
> --- In "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be up for an e-conversation about this subject. I'd be interested t=
o know
> >more about the pre-amps you've built too Greg.
> >
> > on the chat subject: is there a chat room for folks like us anywhere ? =
if not,
> >perhaps....
> >
> > --- In Gregory O'Drobinak <gmodrobina=
k@>
> >wrote:
> > >
> > > Raimund:
> > >
> > > Re-read what Jez said about recording architectural spaces, then mayb=
e it
> >will
> >
> > > make more sense. Unless you've been there, it is difficult to underst=
and.
> > >
> > > I am an EE myself and I have built a number of low-noise mic preamps.=
Looks
> >like
> >
> > > I'll be building yet another, soon, for this purpose. I'll probably i=
nclude
> >some
> >
> > > charge amps to accommodate the accelerometers I just acquired.
> > >
> > > If you'd like to continue in the 'extreme amplification' topic, perha=
ps you
> >and
> >
> > > Jez & I can correspond off-line.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Raimund <raimundspecht@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sat, April 21, 2012 4:50:32 AM
> > > Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Sanken mics
> > >
> > >
> > > The specifications reports a noise floor of 17dB(A), which is indeed =
not
> > > exceptionally quiet, just mediocre:
> > >
> > > http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/spec.cfm/9.1001000
> > >
> > > Bye the way, as an (electronics) engineer, I don't understand why fol=
ks
> >always
> >
> > > demand more gain on the recorder. According to my experience and from=
my
> > > perspective, there is no real need for that.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Raimund
> > >
> > > --- In "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > now i'm puzzled too - according to the specs on the Sanken site its=
very
> >quiet
> >
> > > >+ my first test with it also confirms that. What is it in the specs =
that
> >makes
> >
> > > >you think its not too quiet ?
> > > >
> > > > my motivation in terms of looking at Sanken was because i've never =
heard
> > > >anything negative about their mics.
> > > >
> > > > ta.
> > > >
> > > > --- In Gregory O'Drobinak <gmodro=
binak@>
>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jez:
> > > > >
> > > > > According to the specs, this is not a particularly quiet mic.
> > > > > What was your motivation for buying it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just curious,
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
|