naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "Real world" self-noise of BP4025?

Subject: Re: "Real world" self-noise of BP4025?
From: "Magnus Bergsson" icelandnature
Date: Mon May 5, 2014 8:55 pm ((PDT))
I am so bad in English it is hard for me to answer your comments David. So
I will not beat your technical skills :-)
But you mentioned about some attachment...?

"I'm attaching the three power spectrums and a 1KHz warble tone which you
can
play on any device outside to give a reference signal for sensitivity
tests."

I can not find this attachment....or probably I misunderstand something

My stereo mic test is not perfect, it is just a comparison between this
three mics.
I did it mostly for my self to figure out the difference between this three
mics.
VP88 and NT4 have quiet similar sound quality and character (I figure out
in other test). I can use them both for music and spoken word.
But BP4025 is different. It have different frequency response (even
strange), so I would not chose it for music recordings
The VERY low noise and the transparency for smallest details is
outstanding. It is almost possible to measure the size of the space in the
recording place.
BP4025 is therefor perfect for most very quiet nature recordings. Narrow
stereo is a down side, but that is usual for all XY microphones.

The radio was in so low level I could barely hear it was turned on. Same as
with the clock. To hear clock ticking, I have to stop breathing.
In background is a "water flow noise" in a radiator.  BP4025 pick up this
noise quiet well and did not mesh it up with internal self noise.

I have already make similar test between mics as MKH20, MKH8020, MKH40,
MKH8040 and NT!a, but was not satisfied.
I will do it again and then hopefully also with AT 4022.

Magnus Bergsson


Bestu kve=F0jur / Best regards

*Magn=FAs Bergsson*Tel: + 354 6162904
http://fieldrecording.net


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, <> wrote:

>
>
> > There is something about the sonic character of the BP4025's self noise
> which makes it much more transparent than others of similar noise rating.
> Who knows...could be voodoo.
>
> Jamie,
>
> No mystery, no voodoo, it's the noise spectrum which is different.
> Weighting
> is supposed to equalise this but most manufacturers quote "A" weighting
> which doesn't correspond to the average ear at low noise levels. ITU-R 46=
8
> weighting is better but still far from perfect and it gives higher noise
> figures because the curve is defines differently, so it is not used for
> selling mics to lay persons.
>
> The low level noise which is most objectionable is in the lower kilohertz
> region, but it varies person to person. That's why you can get different
> opinions and a lot of confusion. Now consider stereo noise as opposed to
> mono noise from each section of a mic, and you've got a load more
> variables
> to cope with. I think this is what you might be hearing.
>
> David Brinicombe
>
>
>





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
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