naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

7. Re: Impressed!

Subject: 7. Re: Impressed!
From: "sounds.images" sounds.images
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:57 am ((PST))
I guess the impression I got for the 4060s was from a couple of slightly no=
isy recordings ans a discussion on a music recording board, however, having=
 done some listening on Soundcloud I now realise this is not strictly acura=
te and liked what I heard.

I did prefer the SSM over the SASS I had a dig through Soundcloud last week=
 for examples.
Loved the comparison file Vicki, Both are lovely clear and clean recordings=
, the SSM also looks easier to transport if walking any distance, would you=
 agree with that?

I also really like the styling of it too, almost too stylish for fluffy cov=
ers!

I think I would be torn on purchasing decions right now if I was about to b=
uy something, a dish or something else.

I look forward to hearing more of your work Vicki.

Regards

Simon
--- In  vickipowys <> wrote:
>
> This comparison between the Telinga SSM and my DIY SASS Lite may also =

> be of interest.  Both rigs use the same mics in their construction,
> i.e. 2 x Primo EM172s per channel.  My article first appeared on the
> Boundary Mics group blog, and I have now added it to my own website.  =

> The rigs are both using PIP from Olympus LS10 recorders.
>
> http://www.caperteebirder.com/index.php?p=3D1_35_Telinga-SSM-vs-DIY-SASS
>
> Vicki Powys
> Australia
>
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2013, at 6:47 AM, Dan Dugan wrote:
>
> > Klas Strandberg, Bernie Krause, and I did an A/B test on Bernie's
> > deck comparing a Telinga SSM stereo array with DPA 4060s into a
> > Sound Devices 788T with Naiant phantom-to-PIP adaptors for the SSM. =

> > The 4060s were clipped to the sides of the SSMs' windscreens. Level-
> > matched, the SSMs were audibly quieter. After (in post) equalizing
> > the SSMs to flat-on-axis (they have a presence boost) their noise
> > spectra diverged around 2KHz. The SSMs were 3dB quieter 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, of 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 17db, though i've not found the self noise to be an issue
> >> even recording empty (very, very quiet) buildings for example.
> >>
> >> --- 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 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 the noise floor of the recording. In these
> >>> cases quieter mics will be better.
> >
> >
>








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • 7. Re: Impressed!, sounds.images <=
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