There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: naturalcontemplative
1b. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: Telinga
1c. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: myotisone
1d. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: naturalcontemplative
1e. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: Jonas Gruska
1f. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: 303
1g. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: 303
1h. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: myotisone
1i. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
From: myotisone
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: naturalcontemplative
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 8:16 am ((PDT))
Hi Graham,
You are not the first to be confused by this! It took me weeks to sort it out
for myself. I'll try to explain as best I can, although I know my explanations
are not always the clearest.
But first, I created an Excel spreadsheet a few years ago that makes it easy to
calculate the output noise for any combination of self noise and sensitivity,
and calculate the preamp EIN required not to add any noise to the microphone.
calculations.xls https://www.dropbox.com/s/54xcyl4kdlosf3e/calculations.xls
https://www.dropbox.com/s/54xcyl4kdlosf3e/calculations.xls
calculations.xls https://www.dropbox.com/s/54xcyl4kdlosf3e/calculations.xls
Shared with Dropbox
View on www.dropbox.com
https://www.dropbox.com/s/54xcyl4kdlosf3e/calculations.xls
Preview by Yahoo
OK. Manufacturer's specifications should be considered a guide only, not holy
writ. Your ears tell the tale. But in general the spec that tells you whether
it is a quiet or noisy microphone is either the signal-to-noise ratio or the
self-noise figure. The higher the s/n, the quieter the self noise. For example,
the Line Audio has a s/n ratio of 78 dBA, and a self-noise of 16 dBA. THose two
numbers always add up to 94. So if the s/n is 84 dBA, then the self noise is 10
dBA (of which the Sennheiser ME66 is an example). So the Sennheiser is a
quieter mic than either of the ones you cite, with noise 6 dB lower than the
Line Audio.
The figure I found online for the MBHO is 14 dBA self noise (80 dB s/n), so the
MBHO is a slightly quieter mic than the Line Audio.
That's the easy part. The confusing part is determining what preamp to use.
Here, the sensitivity of the microphone comes into play. Put simply, a
low-sensitivity microphone (like the two you cite) will require a much quieter
preamp than a high-sensitivity microphone. Studio preamps tend to be
lower-noise than the preamps in most portable field recorders. That's where
Raimund's chart of portable recorder preamp noise becomes useful.
Let's take your line audio example. Sensitivity is 6 mV/Pa and self noise is 16
dBA. Total output noise is -120 dBu. That's the total voltage of the noise part
of the microphone's output. In order not to add more noise via the preamp, the
total noise generated by the microphone and the preamp needs to be less than
one decibel greater than the noise of the microphone alone. That calculation
involves the square root of the squares of the two noise figures when added
together. My spreadsheet does that calculation for you. The simple rule of
thumb is that the preamp noise should be about 7 dB lower than the microphone
output noise. So, for your Line Audio, you need a preamp EIN of -127 or lower.
You can see on the Avisoft page that only the top four recorders meet that
specification.
If we look at the Sennheiser ME66, it has a sensitivity of 50 mV/Pa and self
noise of 10 dBA. Total ouput noise is therefore -108 dBu. The total output
noise is much higher than the Line Audio (-108 compared to -120), but that
means it will work well with a much wider range of preamps. Now we need a
preamp with EIN of -115 dBu or better, of which there are many.
Even though the total output noise voltage is higher in the ME66 than the Line
Audio, so is the signal voltage. The self noise of the ME66 is still much lower
(10dB) than the Line Audio (16dB) so it is still a much quieter microphone.
In summary, self-noise tells you how quiet the microphone is. Total output
noise tells you how quiet your recorder preamp has to be in order not to add
more audible noise to the noise already coming from the microphone.
I hope that makes some kind of sense to you. Play around with different
sensitivity, noise and preamp EIN figures in the spreadsheet. You'll get the
idea.
best wishes,
John Crockett
Westminster, Vermont
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: "Telinga" klasstrandberg
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 9:49 am ((PDT))
Hi John, long time no see....
I think your efforts to explain mic noise on this list have been great!
The really difficult part is when you add noise spectrum and microphone
coloring. A combination of microphone and recorder may sound nicer and
more low noise than another combination, even if it measures 2-3 db
poorer.
Now add the topic of the coloring of your loudspekers / headphones and
how the recording displays details, cathing your attention, making you
disregard 2-3 db extra self noise.
There are good people on the web who are totally fascinated about the
DPA4060, even though the self noise figures are not that impressive.
(Well, they are, considering the size of the diaphragm, but that is
another story.)
Thanks again and have a great day!
Klas.
On 2016-08-01 17:16, [naturerecordists] wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> You are not the first to be confused by this! It took me weeks to sort
> it out for myself. I'll try to explain as best I can, although I know
> my explanations are not always the clearest.
>
> But first, I created an Excel spreadsheet a few years ago that makes
> it easy to calculate the output noise for any combination of self
> noise and sensitivity, and calculate the preamp EIN required not to
> add any noise to the microphone.
>
> calculations.xls [1]
>
> [1]
>
> calculations.xls [1]
> Shared with Dropbox
>
> View on www.dropbox.com [1]
> Preview by Yahoo
>
> OK. Manufacturer's specifications should be considered a guide only,
> not holy writ. Your ears tell the tale. But in general the spec that
> tells you whether it is a quiet or noisy microphone is either the
> signal-to-noise ratio or the self-noise figure. The higher the s/n,
> the quieter the self noise. For example, the Line Audio has a s/n
> ratio of 78 dBA, and a self-noise of 16 dBA. THose two numbers always
> add up to 94. So if the s/n is 84 dBA, then the self noise is 10 dBA
> (of which the Sennheiser ME66 is an example). So the Sennheiser is a
> quieter mic than either of the ones you cite, with noise 6 dB lower
> than the Line Audio.
>
> The figure I found online for the MBHO is 14 dBA self noise (80 dB
> s/n), so the MBHO is a slightly quieter mic than the Line Audio.
>
> That's the easy part. The confusing part is determining what preamp to
> use. Here, the sensitivity of the microphone comes into play. Put
> simply, a low-sensitivity microphone (like the two you cite) will
> require a much quieter preamp than a high-sensitivity microphone.
> Studio preamps tend to be lower-noise than the preamps in most
> portable field recorders. That's where Raimund's chart of portable
> recorder preamp noise becomes useful.
>
> Let's take your line audio example. Sensitivity is 6 mV/Pa and self
> noise is 16 dBA. Total output noise is -120 dBu. That's the total
> voltage of the noise part of the microphone's output. In order not to
> add more noise via the preamp, the total noise generated by the
> microphone and the preamp needs to be less than one decibel greater
> than th e noise of the microphone alone. That calculation involves the
> square root of the squares of the two noise figures when added
> together. My spreadsheet does that calculation for you. The simple
> rule of thumb is that the preamp noise should be about 7 dB lower than
> the microphone output noise. So, for your Line Audio, you need a
> preamp EIN of -127 or lower. You can see on the Avisoft page that only
> the top four recorders meet that specification.
>
> If we look at the Sennheiser ME66, it has a sensitivity of 50 mV/Pa
> and self noise of 10 dBA. Total ouput noise is therefore -108 dBu. The
> total output noise is much higher than the Line Audio (-108 compared
> to -120), but that means it will work well with a much wider range of
> preamps. Now we need a preamp with EIN of -115 dBu or better, of which
> there are many.
>
> Even though the total output noise voltage is higher in the ME66 than
> the Line Audio, so is the signal voltage. The self noise of the ME66
> is still much lower (1 0dB) than the Line Audio (16dB) so it is still
> a much quieter microphone.
>
> In summary, self-noise tells you how quiet the microphone is. Total
> output noise tells you how quiet your recorder preamp has to be in
> order not to add more audible noise to the noise already coming from
> the microphone.
>
> I hope that makes some kind of sense to you. Play around with
> different sensitivity, noise and preamp EIN figures in the
> spreadsheet. You'll get the idea.
>
> best wishes,
>
> John Crockett
> Westminster, Vermont
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/54xcyl4kdlosf3e/calculations.xls
> [2]
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/naturerecordists/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYjJrYmNzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjY4NjAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNjYzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQ3MDA2NDU2Mg--
> [3]
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/naturerecordists/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZGFmZWZ1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjY4NjAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNjYzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzE0NzAwNjQ1NjI-
> [4]
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYXZzc2ZmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIxMjY4NjAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNjYzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDcwMDY0NTYy
> [5] https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
> [6] https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: myotisone
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 9:56 am ((PDT))
Thanks John,
I think the issue was that I was thinking in terms of the noise being recorded,
and not the preamp requirerements
Essentially the total output noise (-7) is telling you how quiet your pre-amp
needs to be if you want to take advantage of how quiet the mic is.
However, Jezz Riley French wrote:
"There’s a myth about the 4060’s that is often stated by some nature
recordists, who claim that the self noise rating of them means they are
unsuitable for nature recording - this is incorrect. Yes, they have a higher
self noise rating than some other mics but they’re also more sensitive, meaning
the gain doesn’t need to be turned up on ones recorder. "
which suggests that the higher sensitivity is still having an effect on the mic
noise recorded, because the mic self noise has less amplification for any
given sound level.
So to me there still seems to be a variable missing if trying to estimate
recorded noise between mics.
But I think I am now much clearer about what table 3 at the Rane site (and your
spreadsheet) is showing.
Thanks again,
Graham
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: naturalcontemplative
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 6:04 pm ((PDT))
Hi Graham,
I didn't want to get into all of the other factors that affect the end result.
The mic noise, mic sensitivity, preamp noise issue is confusing enough, and I
am no expert! For me, the confusion that comes with the microphone output noise
figure is that it is easy to forget that the output signal figure also rises or
falls along with it. With a more sensitive mic, both the signal and the noise
are higher. With a less sensitive mic, both are lower. It's the ratio of signal
to noise that matters.
As to the question of a more sensitive microphone being better because it
allows less gain in the recorder, I can't say that aligns with my experience.
My recorders, primarily the LS-11 and the FR2LE, seem to perform optimally at
their highest gain setting. Higher gain is certainly not a problem. I sometimes
prefer a less sensitive microphone (with low self-noise). For example I am
currently recording a lot of insects, and a nearby katydid can clip my
LS-11/EM172 rig even when it is set to the Low-10 gain setting that normally
yields the best result in terms of signal-to-noise. My FR2LE/AT3032 rig handles
this better because the 3032s are less sensitive than the EM172s while still
being very low noise.
I've never used the 4060, and I confess that I don't understand how a mic with
a self-noise level of 23 dBA can be useable in a quiet natural setting, unless
as Klas suggests it has to do with the frequency spectrum of that noise. I
don't see how it can have anything to do with the sensitivity. Happy to be
corrected on that!
John
---In <> wrote :
Thanks John,
I think the issue was that I was thinking in terms of the noise being recorded,
and not the preamp requirerements
Essentially the total output noise (-7) is telling you how quiet your pre-amp
needs to be if you want to take advantage of how quiet the mic is.
However, Jezz Riley French wrote:
"There’s a myth about the 4060’s that is often stated by some nature
recordists, who claim that the self noise rating of them means they are
unsuitable for nature recording - this is incorrect. Yes, they have a higher
self noise rating than some other mics but they’re also more sensitive, meaning
the gain doesn’t need to be turned up on ones recorder. "
which suggests that the higher sensitivity is still having an effect on the mic
noise recorded, because the mic self noise has less amplification for any
given sound level.
So to me there still seems to be a variable missing if trying to estimate
recorded noise between mics.
But I think I am now much clearer about what table 3 at the Rane site (and your
spreadsheet) is showing.
Thanks again,
Graham
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: "Jonas Gruska" mrqwa
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 6:22 pm ((PDT))
Hello everyone,
I noticed you’re discussing the noise floor of DPA 4060. I had a
chance to test these side-by-side the other day against the mics I am
making (Usi, based on Primo EM172 capsules).
Here is the recording: https://lunar.audio/temp/DPA4060vsUsi.WAV
Left channel is DPA 4060, right channel Primo EM172
Recorded with Sound Devices 722, with gains matched by hand on the
recorder. I consequently normalized the recordings to -3 dBFS in post to
be sure.
You can hear the DPA 4060 have bit more detail but also significantly
higher noise floor.
(The background noise is rain on rooftop).
Here is a snapshot of the spectrogram where you can see it as well:
http://i.imgur.com/cDrpFGF.png
So this is basically what Klas was mentioning - some people might prefer
the clarity of DPA and sacrifice the noise floor and vice versa.
Personally I record very quiet sounds and cannot stand the hiss of DPA,
but probably would go with 4060s if I’d be doing concert recording for
example (also for their good SPL handling).
Regards,
Jonas Gruska
✺ ✺ ✺
http://jonasgru.sk
On 2 Aug 2016, at 3:04, [naturerecordists] wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> I didn't want to get into all of the other factors that affect the end
> result. The mic noise, mic sensitivity, preamp noise issue is
> confusing enough, and I am no expert! For me, the confusion that comes
> with the microphone output noise figure is that it is easy to forget
> that the output signal figure also rises or falls along with it. With
> a more sensitive mic, both the signal and the noise are higher. With a
> less sensitive mic, both are lower. It's the ratio of signal to noise
> that matters.
>
> As to the question of a more sensitive microphone being better because
> it allows less gain in the recorder, I can't say that aligns with my
> experience. My recorders, primarily the LS-11 and the FR2LE, seem to
> perform optimally at their highest gain setting. Higher gain is
> certainly not a problem. I sometimes prefer a less sensitive
> microphone (with low self-noise). For example I am currently recording
> a lot of insects, and a nearby katydid can clip my LS-11/EM172 rig
> even when it is set to the Low-10 gain setting that normally yields
> the best result in terms of signal-to-noise. My FR2LE/AT3032 rig
> handles this better because the 3032s are less sensitive than the
> EM172s while still being very low noise.
>
> I've never used the 4060, and I confess that I don't understand how a
> mic with a self-noise level of 23 dBA can be useable in a quiet
> natural setting, unless as Klas suggests it has to do with the
> frequency spectrum of that noise. I don't see how it can have anything
> to do with the sensitivity. Happy to be corrected on that!
>
> John
>
>
> ---In <> wrote :
>
> Thanks John,
>
> I think the issue was that I was thinking in terms of the noise being
> recorded, and not the preamp requirerements
>
> Essentially the total output noise (-7) is telling you how quiet your
> pre-amp needs to be if you want to take advantage of how quiet the mic
> is.
>
> However, Jezz Riley French wrote:
>
> "There’s a myth about the 4060’s that is often stated by some
> nature recordists, who claim that the self noise rating of them means
> they are unsuitable for nature recording - this is incorrect. Yes,
> they have a higher self noise rating than some other mics but
> they’re also more sensitive, meaning the gain doesn’t need to be
> turned up on ones recorder. "
>
> which suggests that the higher sensitivity is still having an effect
> on the mic noise recorded, because the mic self noise has less
> amplification for any given sound level.
>
> So to me there still seems to be a variable missing if trying to
> estimate recorded noise between mics.
>
> But I think I am now much clearer about what table 3 at the Rane site
> (and your spreadsheet) is showing.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Graham
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: "303" quies_still
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 6:35 pm ((PDT))
I’ve got a question for the technical wizards.
Is it technically possible to make a small lavelier mic like the DPA 4060 that
has all that detail over 1kHz and less of the noise?
I haven’t listened to or used Jonas’ mics (i am curious though) but other smal
lav mics I’ve tried do sometimes have less noise than the DPA but it seems to
be because they are simply less sensitive in the higher frequency range. It’s a
bit cheeky of course...
Anyhow, really curious as to whether this whole noise issue is quite simply a
technical limitation or not?
thanks
Peter
> On 2 Aug 2016, at 11:23, 'Jonas Gruska' [naturerecordists]
> <> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I noticed you’re discussing the noise floor of DPA 4060. I had a chance to
> test these side-by-side the other day against the mics I am making (Usi,
> based on Primo EM172 capsules).
> Here is the recording: https://lunar.audio/temp/DPA4060vsUsi.WAV
> <https://lunar.audio/temp/DPA4060vsUsi.WAV>
> Left channel is DPA 4060, right channel Primo EM172
>
> Recorded with Sound Devices 722, with gains matched by hand on the recorder.
> I consequently normalized the recordings to -3 dBFS in post to be sure.
> You can hear the DPA 4060 have bit more detail but also significantly higher
> noise floor.
> (The background noise is rain on rooftop).
>
> Here is a snapshot of the spectrogram where you can see it as well:
> http://i.imgur.com/cDrpFGF.png <http://i.imgur.com/cDrpFGF.png>
> So this is basically what Klas was mentioning - some people might prefer the
> clarity of DPA and sacrifice the noise floor and vice versa.
> Personally I record very quiet sounds and cannot stand the hiss of DPA, but
> probably would go with 4060s if I’d be doing concert recording for example
> (also for their good SPL handling).
>
> Regards,
> Jonas Gruska
>
> ✺ ✺ ✺
> homepage <http://jonasgru.sk/>
> On 2 Aug 2016, at 3:04, <>
> [naturerecordists] wrote:
>
> Hi Graham,
>
> I didn't want to get into all of the other factors that affect the end
> result. The mic noise, mic sensitivity, preamp noise issue is confusing
> enough, and I am no expert! For me, the confusion that comes with the
> microphone output noise figure is that it is easy to forget that the output
> signal figure also rises or falls along with it. With a more sensitive mic,
> both the signal and the noise are higher. With a less sensitive mic, both are
> lower. It's the ratio of signal to noise that matters.
>
> As to the question of a more sensitive microphone being better because it
> allows less gain in the recorder, I can't say that aligns with my experience.
> My recorders, primarily the LS-11 and the FR2LE, seem to perform optimally at
> their highest gain setting. Higher gain is certainly not a problem. I
> sometimes prefer a less sensitive microphone (with low self-noise). For
> example I am currently recording a lot of insects, and a nearby katydid can
> clip my LS-11/EM172 rig even when it is set to the Low-10 gain setting that
> normally yields the best result in terms of signal-to-noise. My FR2LE/AT3032
> rig handles this better because the 3032s are less sensitive than the EM172s
> while still being very low noise.
>
> I've never used the 4060, and I confess that I don't understand how a mic
> with a self-noise level of 23 dBA can be useable in a quiet natural setting,
> unless as Klas suggests it has to do with the frequency spectrum of that
> noise. I don't see how it can have anything to do with the sensitivity. Happy
> to be corrected on that!
>
> John
>
>
> ---In
> <>, <> wrote :
>
> Thanks John,
>
> I think the issue was that I was thinking in terms of the noise being
> recorded, and not the preamp requirerements
>
> Essentially the total output noise (-7) is telling you how quiet your pre-amp
> needs to be if you want to take advantage of how quiet the mic is.
>
> However, Jezz Riley French wrote:
>
> "There’s a myth about the 4060’s that is often stated by some nature
> recordists, who claim that the self noise rating of them means they are
> unsuitable for nature recording - this is incorrect. Yes, they have a higher
> self noise rating than some other mics but they’re also more sensitive,
> meaning the gain doesn’t need to be turned up on ones recorder. "
>
> which suggests that the higher sensitivity is still having an effect on the
> mic noise recorded, because the mic self noise has less amplification for any
> given sound level.
>
> So to me there still seems to be a variable missing if trying to estimate
> recorded noise between mics.
>
> But I think I am now much clearer about what table 3 at the Rane site (and
> your spreadsheet) is showing.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Graham
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: "303" quies_still
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 6:49 pm ((PDT))
Also, adding to the whole noise rating discussion: I simply don’t trust the
ratings because they don’t reflect my personal experience of using the mics.
Take for instance the DPA’s mentioned with their rating of 23dbA. I used to own
a Rode Nt4, which has a rating of 16dbA. Well, let me tell you, the Rode was
much much much noisier in the field than the DPA’s.
Having that said, like Jones I don’t use the DPA’s for quiet atmos recordings
either.
I’ll use them for almost everything else though.
> On 2 Aug 2016, at 11:23, 'Jonas Gruska'
> <> [naturerecordists]
> < <>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I noticed you’re discussing the noise floor of DPA 4060. I had a chance to
> test these side-by-side the other day against the mics I am making (Usi,
> based on Primo EM172 capsules).
> Here is the recording: https://lunar.audio/temp/DPA4060vsUsi.WAV
> <https://lunar.audio/temp/DPA4060vsUsi.WAV>
> Left channel is DPA 4060, right channel Primo EM172
>
> Recorded with Sound Devices 722, with gains matched by hand on the recorder.
> I consequently normalized the recordings to -3 dBFS in post to be sure.
> You can hear the DPA 4060 have bit more detail but also significantly higher
> noise floor.
> (The background noise is rain on rooftop).
>
> Here is a snapshot of the spectrogram where you can see it as well:
> http://i.imgur.com/cDrpFGF.png <http://i.imgur.com/cDrpFGF.png>
> So this is basically what Klas was mentioning - some people might prefer the
> clarity of DPA and sacrifice the noise floor and vice versa.
> Personally I record very quiet sounds and cannot stand the hiss of DPA, but
> probably would go with 4060s if I’d be doing concert recording for example
> (also for their good SPL handling).
>
> Regards,
> Jonas Gruska
>
> ✺ ✺ ✺
> homepage <http://jonasgru.sk/>
> On 2 Aug 2016, at 3:04, <>
> [naturerecordists] wrote:
>
> Hi Graham,
>
> I didn't want to get into all of the other factors that affect the end
> result. The mic noise, mic sensitivity, preamp noise issue is confusing
> enough, and I am no expert! For me, the confusion that comes with the
> microphone output noise figure is that it is easy to forget that the output
> signal figure also rises or falls along with it. With a more sensitive mic,
> both the signal and the noise are higher. With a less sensitive mic, both are
> lower. It's the ratio of signal to noise that matters.
>
> As to the question of a more sensitive microphone being better because it
> allows less gain in the recorder, I can't say that aligns with my experience.
> My recorders, primarily the LS-11 and the FR2LE, seem to perform optimally at
> their highest gain setting. Higher gain is certainly not a problem. I
> sometimes prefer a less sensitive microphone (with low self-noise). For
> example I am currently recording a lot of insects, and a nearby katydid can
> clip my LS-11/EM172 rig even when it is set to the Low-10 gain setting that
> normally yields the best result in terms of signal-to-noise. My FR2LE/AT3032
> rig handles this better because the 3032s are less sensitive than the EM172s
> while still being very low noise.
>
> I've never used the 4060, and I confess that I don't understand how a mic
> with a self-noise level of 23 dBA can be useable in a quiet natural setting,
> unless as Klas suggests it has to do with the frequency spectrum of that
> noise. I don't see how it can have anything to do with the sensitivity. Happy
> to be corrected on that!
>
> John
>
>
> ---In
> <>, <> wrote :
>
> Thanks John,
>
> I think the issue was that I was thinking in terms of the noise being
> recorded, and not the preamp requirerements
>
> Essentially the total output noise (-7) is telling you how quiet your pre-amp
> needs to be if you want to take advantage of how quiet the mic is.
>
> However, Jezz Riley French wrote:
>
> "There’s a myth about the 4060’s that is often stated by some nature
> recordists, who claim that the self noise rating of them means they are
> unsuitable for nature recording - this is incorrect. Yes, they have a higher
> self noise rating than some other mics but they’re also more sensitive,
> meaning the gain doesn’t need to be turned up on ones recorder. "
>
> which suggests that the higher sensitivity is still having an effect on the
> mic noise recorded, because the mic self noise has less amplification for any
> given sound level.
>
> So to me there still seems to be a variable missing if trying to estimate
> recorded noise between mics.
>
> But I think I am now much clearer about what table 3 at the Rane site (and
> your spreadsheet) is showing.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Graham
>
>
>
.............................................................
peter lenaerts
+61 (0)478 438 445
+32 (0)477 222 081
<>
http://www.surfacenoise.be/peter <http://www.surfacenoise.be/peter>
http://www.surfacenoise.be/recordings <http://www.surfacenoise.be/recordings>
https://www.instagram.com/peter_lenaerts/
<https://www.instagram.com/peter_lenaerts/>
.............................................................
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: myotisone
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 11:27 pm ((PDT))
Thanks again John,
My explanation of the logic for the benefits of the more sensitive mic was that
for a given signal of a particular volume the voltage generated by the more
sensitive mic would be greater than the voltage generated by the less sensitive
mic.
So, to get the same level in the recording, the less sensitive mic might need
(for example) 4 times the amplification of the less sensitive mic. Thus
amplifying the mic noise of the quieter mic 4 times more than the noisier mic,
and removing the advantage of the quieter mic.
Also very useful to hear your comments on the Ls11/FR2Le. as I am currently
using a sony M10 and a pair of EM172s, but have just bought a used Fostex FR2le
and trying to buy some mics for it.
My plan was (is) to just buy a pair of Lom/ usi EM172s, but they aren't
available at the moment, which has taken me down this complex path of trying to
understand the mic specs, and, conflicting comments. The Line audio CM3
looked interesting, but it has been suggested that their low sensitivity makes
them unsuitable for soundscape use. I thought the low noise, very even
response, and ever so slightly cardoid would make them a useful mic for
soundscape.
Cheers,
Graham
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Mic sensitvity and noise
Posted by: myotisone
Date: Mon Aug 1, 2016 11:49 pm ((PDT))
Thanks for this Jonas and interesting that you should join this thread, as you
are to blame for it :-)
I have just bought a used Fostex FR2 le, but have no mics with XLR plugs and
had decided before buying it, that I was going to get a pair of your mics to go
with it, but they are out of stock with no indication of when they might
become available.
This sent me off looking for alternatives and trying to understand the numbers.
Which has in fact been a very useful exercise.
I've actually emailed you via your webpage to see if you have any estimate of
availability to help me decide on whether I wait for stock becoming available
or whether I should look for an alternative.
At the moment I don't have anything to plug into my new/used FR2le, which is a
little frustrating, so good to hear you are currently building new stock.
Cheers,
Graham
Messages in this topic (10)
"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:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
