Klas Strandberg, Bernie Krause, and I did an A/B test on Bernie's deck comp=
aring a Telinga SSM stereo array with DPA 4060s into a Sound Devices 788T w=
ith Naiant phantom-to-PIP adaptors for the SSM. The 4060s were clipped to t=
he sides of the SSMs' windscreens. Level-matched, the SSMs were audibly qui=
eter. After (in post) equalizing the SSMs to flat-on-axis (they have a pres=
ence boost) their noise spectra diverged around 2KHz. The SSMs were 3dB qui=
eter at 4K and 6dB quieter above 8KHz.
Disclosure: Klas manufactures Telinga mics, and I am a dealer.
-Dan
On Feb 24, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Jez wrote:
> btw. might be helpful (I know its a can of worms !) to list a few mics, o=
f something approaching equal sound quality of the DPA's, that are quieter =
in terms of self noise than 17db.
>
> my own favourite mic right now is the Sanken CUW-180 but that is also 17d=
b, though i've not found the self noise to be an issue even recording empty=
(very, very quiet) buildings for example.
>
> --- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>>
>>> I would (carefully !) take issue with the comment about self noise of 1=
7db not being good enough for nature work as most of the mics that offer tr=
uly stunning recordings in the field have self noise of around this or even=
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 t=
he noise floor of the recording. In these cases quieter mics will be better=
.
|