Thanks for going to that trouble, Tim. I'm in a poor reception area at the =
moment, so I won't be able to listen to them for a few day. I'm very keen t=
o hear others' opinions of the sound quality.=0D
=0D
Regarding the cost, I was thinking the same thing myself. If one needs a re=
liable working solution with these features then this would be a good choic=
e. I notice they can also log the temperature, which would add considerably=
to a home brew solution.=0D
=0D
There must be many other such commercial offerings though. Why this one?=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
Sent from my iPad=0D
=0D
On 24 Sep 2013, at 11:20 am, "<=
nd.net.au>" <<>> wrote=
:=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
Well, that was far harder that it needed to be...=0D
=0D
Anyway, for anyone who's interested, I've put two 1-minute clips up on the =
Nature Recordists area on Soundcloud. I've taken them more or less at rando=
m from the last 24-hour recording I did.=0D
=0D
They are both straight out of the Songmeter, with no editing or filtering w=
hatsoever.=0D
=0D
=0D
They were recorded at 44.1kHz 16-bit, as .wav files. No low cut filter was =
activated on the recorder. The Songmeter was hung on a tree in the middle o=
f a flying-fox camp, with one mic attached directly to the box, and one mic=
extended about 1m away.=0D
=0D
The two files are at 0130, when it's very quiet in the camp - one bat flies=
overhead and lands in a tree, followe dby a bit of an argument.=0D
The second file is just pre-dawn, when the whole camp has returned from fee=
ding and they are all talking together...=0D
=0D
No pretence at artistic merit or anything similar, just to give the people =
who asked some idea of the default sound out of the box...=0D
=0D
=0D
cheers...=0D
=0D
=0D
TIm=0D
=0D
=0D
--- In <=
.com>, <<=
s.com>> wrote:=0D
=0D
=0D
Later this evening, after I've had some dinner, I'll see if I can post an e=
xample from the songmeter so you can see what they are like. I'll extract a=
couple of minutes, totally unedited. As I said previously, it's not the eq=
uivalent of a high end recorder & mic combination, but it's not bad.=0D
And they aren't silly money, when you consider that you are getting a recor=
der, two (interchangeable, weatherproof) mics, a weatherproof housing, and =
a computer to do scheduling...=0D
Out here (Aus) they're used quite a bit for fauna surveys - both microbat a=
nd bird. And my lab uses them extensively for our work with vocalisations o=
f Aus mammals...=0D
Before we had SongMeters I mucked around trying to waterproof stuff - with =
mixed results. These are much easier.=0D
=0D
=0D
tim=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
--- In <=
.com>, <> wrote:=0D
=0D
> The specs say "-115dBV equivalent input noise", which I think might put i=
t in the "ok" bracket. I assume a lot of what you pay for them goes towards=
robustness and programming flexibility.=0D
=0D
Peter,=0D
=0D
Apologies for technical mail.=0D
=0D
"-115dBV equivalent input noise". Equivalent to what? You need the "what"=
=0D
defined. I don't take specs at face value, so I put my "toy" Tascam DR-1=0D
through its digital paces.=0D
=0D
At 16 bits sampling, minus the parity bit and the biggest bit being 50%, I=
=0D
got dither noise on the smallest three bits. This is needed to average out=
=0D
the slight sampling noise if you record very low. That makes 11 bits clean=
=0D
which is 66dBs. That is well swamped by the natural noise in my recordings=
=0D
even when recording low.=0D
=0D
At 24 bits sampling I only found a 20dB benefit which was 4 1/2 bits more=
=0D
than the 16 bit digitiser, not the 8 bits or 48dBs I expected. I'll check=
=0D
out another recorder. However, at the 15 1/2 equivalent (11 plus 4 1/2) bit=
s=0D
available, this toy machine is as good as my low noise MKH mics, and SQN=0D
mixer and the wind in the trees which the birds are singing from.=0D
=0D
Summary. Don't believe all the sales hype. I worked out some figures.=0D
Inevitable thermal noise (from vibrating electrons) drowns out the higher=
=0D
(lower level) bits. A 24 bit - 22 active bits - digitiser goes down to=0D
-132dB which doesn't really exist, but you would feed that expensive=0D
digitiser from a pro mixer which would drown out the noise anyway.=0D
=0D
I've got a pro SQN mixer and I can't fault my DR-1 for noise, but I prefer=
=0D
mu DR-100, still in the "toy" category. It is easier to use, which is more=
=0D
important than theoretical specs.=0D
=0D
David Brinicombe=0D
=0D
=0D
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|