Re: Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal mics comparison.

["Peter Shute" pshute2]

If the M10 is ok apart from the poor sound stage, I wonder how small one co=
uld build external mics for it that do better. Ie small enough to leave per=
manently attached and still be able to fit it in your pocket.=0D
=0D
Would the SASS design many of us use with EM172 capsules scale down?=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
=0D
--------------------------=0D
Sent using BlackBerry=0D
=0D
________________________________=0D
From: =0D
To: =0D
Sent: Mon Jul 16 04:56:00 2012=0D
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal mic=
s comparison.=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
Yes, Robin, I agree. This is why I have not yet decided on a small recorder=
 to replace my minidisc. None of the currently-produced, low-cost units get=
s it quite right for me. The LS-5 might do it if it were available in the U=
S. The LS7 would if it had a line input.=0D
=0D
Marco, I have found these tests very helpful, especially to have both the e=
arlier test to demonstrate sonic image, and the later test to demonstrate s=
elf noise. The earlier test clearly showed the inferior image from the PCM-=
M10 and Roland R-05. Very quiet, but very monophonic. Did either recorder d=
isplay more than one Brini-sonel?=0D
=0D
John Crockett=0D
Westminster, Vermont=0D
=0D
--- In <naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=
ps.com>, "robin_parmar_sound" <> wrote:=0D
>=0D
> vickipowys wrote:=0D
>=0D
> > In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)=0D
> > my choice is 1. M10 2. LS7 3. LS5. The M10 has much lower noise=0D
> > levels than both the Olympus models.=0D
>=0D
> Yes, but it also has a sound stage that is, for me, unusable. The closely=
 spaced omnis act to record in something closer to mono than stereo.=0D
>=0D
> A good recorder, but only if using external mics.=0D
>=0D
> -- Robin Parmar=0D
>=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D