hmmm, well this kind of depends on the recordings you've heard & the skills=
(or not) of the person making the recordings. The recorder could also have=
contributed a lot of pre-amp noise for example.
It is a fact (& I say that with confidence) that the quality of the 4060's =
mean that you can record more sensitively & their clarity means you can get=
a lot more from the experience.
as with all mics, there is a learning curve in setting the right levels, al=
ong with knowing ones recorder, to get the ideal settings in each situation=
.
the 4060's, along with the Sanken small omni's are, quite simply, the best =
there are & if someone makes a 'noisy' recording with them then they're mos=
t likely either using a recorder with noisy pre-amps or not getting them cl=
ose enough to the subject but whacking the gain up higher to compensate.
--- In "sounds.images" <=
> wrote:
>
>
> I did, I care fully glossed over it! Jez pointed out similar to me in hi=
s reply, I have heard some quite noisy recordings with the 4060s and was s=
urprised considering their price point.. My eBay Lavs seem quieter!
>
> Need to have some clam weather to truly test these Rode mics and will kee=
p everyone updated with my findings.
>
> Thanks for the replies and pointers.
>
> Simon.
>
>
> --- In Dan Dugan <dan@> wrote:
> >
> > > I would (carefully !) take issue with the comment about self noise of=
17db not being good enough for nature work as most of the mics that offer =
truly stunning recordings in the field have self noise of around this or ev=
en higher (such as the DPA4060's).
> >
> > In terms of fidelity I agree with you completely. It all depends on the=
scene. In quiet forest or desert soundscapes 17dBA mic self-noise will be =
the noise floor of the recording. In these cases quieter mics will be bette=
r.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>
|