naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

[Nature Recordists] Digest Number 6638

To: "" <>
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Digest Number 6638
From: "" <>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:24:33 +0000
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/
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [Nature Recordists] Digest Number 6638, naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com <=
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