Topic: Externalising the internal mics of the PCM-M10

[pool]

My question in the PCM-10 thread got lost in the discussion about the clock so im posting a new thread here.

To improve stereo separation and eliminate handling noise, is it possible that the internal mics of the PCM-M10 are extended on cables? Has anyone opened the PCM-M10 and can recommend if its possible. Would the actual cables increase noise?

P.S. no, I wont fare easier with having a pre-amp and external mics.  I tape quite music in stealth and extra gear is not possible and i got more hiss when i did even with mics intended for classical music. I cannot use a jeklin disc for stealth for improved stereo separation. My main concern is not stereo seperation only but handling noise. In addition the quite results of the PCM-M10 are fine with me. So please kindly refrain form this option- my question is different.

My questions remains the same as above.

thanks.

[yousef]

With all due respect I think your question is quite bonkers...

I, for one, cannot believe that the self-noise of the m10's cheap microphones can be better than *all* the various external mic and preamp combinations out there. And surely you would be voiding the warranty on your recorder by cracking it open and putting the mics on extensions...

Plus, loads of us stealth in very challenging conditions with recorder + external mics + pre (+ more!) - it's certainly not an impossibility. And I would have to say that having "integral" external mics on a modified recorder would *reduce* its stealth-ability in my eyes: with separate elements you have more options for hiding stuff, keeping them separate and explaining an item away if noticed. If someone spots your M10 with mics dangling from it, how on earth do you explain that?

Not the answer you were interested in, I know, but I think it had to be said.

[pool]

Thanks for your input. I agree that my idea is bonkers and that my questions is not answered.

[vanark]

Thanks for your input. I agree that my idea is bonkers and that my questions is not answered.

If you don't want alternative ideas, I suggest you may be in the wrong place. It is the beauty of this place - the creative ideas that we may not think of ourself.

And, yes, I agree I didn't answer your question.

[yousef]

Thanks for your input. I agree that my idea is bonkers and that my questions is not answered.

Nothing wrong with bonkers ideas - I'm sure they're the bedrock of our hobby in many ways...

But in potentially wrecking a very decent recorder in order to "externalize" its mediocre internal mics, I suspect you might be on your own.

Why not just crack it open and have a try?

[Church-Audio]

My question in the PCM-10 thread got lost in the discussion about the clock so im posting a new thread here.

To improve stereo separation and eliminate handling noise, is it possible that the internal mics of the PCM-M10 are extended on cables? Has anyone opened the PCM-M10 and can recommend if its possible. Would the actual cables increase noise?

P.S. no, I wont fare easier with having a pre-amp and external mics.  I tape quite music in stealth and extra gear is not possible and i got more hiss when i did even with mics intended for classical music. I cannot use a jeklin disc for stealth for improved stereo separation. My main concern is not stereo seperation only but handling noise. In addition the quite results of the PCM-M10 are fine with me. So please kindly refrain form this option- my question is different.

My questions remains the same as above.

thanks.

Can you do this... Yes... will there be handling noise? Yes Why? Because these mics are not built to be mounted outside of the box. So you have to fabricate a mic housing out of brass tube and epoxy.. And you need some nice cable to connect the capsules to the wire. Now if you have never soldered capsules before I would suggest you practice on some other capsules first. Because you will toast a few of them before you get it right. I have been soldering for YEARS, When I started building mics I toasted a few capsules. Today on my CAFS mics I still toast some now and then because they are so fragile..

The other issue is one of a connector.. this will be almost impossible to install because there is not much room inside the box for installing a new 3.5 mm connector to connect to the mics assuming you dont want to use the external mic input.

The last but not least issue is one of overloading. These mics are not designed to handle loud sounds.. and I know you are recording classical.. Classical has a huge dynamic range.  Remember not to try and get it to 0db when you are recording get the average level to -10 to -15 or so then bump it up in post. The internal mics are more sensitive for a reason because they are designed to record all kinds of material. And as for not being able to get "gear" into a show.... lots of people are doing it every day undetected.

So yes it can be done but will it give you what you want? Doubtful.

[pool]

vanark  wrote:
> If you don't want alternative ideas, I suggest you may be in the wrong place.

Ideas already stated by myself are not alternate ideas.

Church-Audio wrote:
> you have to fabricate a mic housing out of brass tube and epoxy

understood

> Because you will toast a few of them before you get it right.

understood.

> this will be almost impossible to install because there is not much room inside the box for installing a new 3.5 mm connector

I'm not thinking of having any connector. Just permanent extensions.

mshilarious wrote:
> Why not get a pair of PIP micsand use the mic input?
because ive tried. using external mics (ok i havnt used shoeps!) in mic input is noisier. I mean for god's sake i have had many recorders and i dont kow what the M10 does or if it sheats but at low setting (or even high) quite performances are DEAD quite in terms of background hiss and no the ambient noise would have masked it if it produced hiss. No software hiss removal would apporximate it the results and you can call them cheap mics or whatever.

[yousef]

I'm not thinking of having any connector. Just permanent extensions.

I think this would be fraught with problems in itself - unless you found a way of relieving the strain on your solder connections.

I mean for god's sake i have had many recorders and i dont kow what the M10 does or if it sheats but at low setting (or even high) quite performances are DEAD quite in terms of background hiss and no the ambient noise would have masked it if it produced hiss. No software hiss removal would apporximate it the results and you can call them cheap mics or whatever.

I know the M10's mics have received praise for their low noise but I still can't believe that (given the total price of the recorder) they can be really *that* great. Which is to say, that for minimal outlay I imagine you could get equivilent external mics - which means you wouldn't have to start modifying your recorder and would still have the option of not running "external" mics.

My recommendation would be for a pair of DPA 4060s bought second hand on Ebay and soldered to a single 3.5mm jack plus a Sounds Pros 9v battery box. That way, you've got a fabulous pair of mics, the option of running your unmolested M10 on just the internals and the only extra gear you need to carry is the size of a 9v battery. Actually, my recommendation would be for those mics plus a Church 9100 pre amp but you seem to be looking for the absolute minimum of extra gear.

And have you tried asking around the Team Classical Music thread for mic recommendations?

I can understand your frustrations but I think you're looking for a rather extreme solution -and one which is fraught with compromises and pitfalls- to a problem many people have already found a very satisfactory solution to.

Maybe you'd get some more responses if you lost a bit of the attitude?

[pool]

thanks for the info. why is short, sweet and factual always mistaken for attitude?

I think going mic-in using external mics would be noisier.

Going line-in would require a pre-amp and only high end, big pre-amps are capable of no hiss.

[Church-Audio]

thanks for the info. why is short, sweet and factual always mistaken for attitude?

I think going mic-in using external mics would be noisier.

Going line-in would require a pre-amp and only high end, big pre-amps are capable of no hiss.

Actually I would be quite surprised if it was a separate circuit for the internal mics... I think they are going to share the same mic preamp internally. One of the pairs of mics I make called the CAFS has a self noise of 23 db and would work via the mic input with little to no noise over the internal mics and provide much better sound quality furthermore you would be hard pressed for find mics that are smaller.. They are 1/4 the size of DPA 4060. I think in all honesty this could be a good match. You would get better performance with a battery or my ugly preamp + the mics.. But to start that could be a good option. I also think that just because the internal mics are quiet inside the m10 does not mean they will be quiet on the outside. As a matter of fact unless they are properly shielded there could be much more noise there is no guarantee until you do it.. Also the fidelity of these mics will chance when you mount them outside the m10 housing was designed to work with these capsules. Once you pull them out that may sound so pleasant.

Chris

[Artstar]

I think going mic-in using external mics would be noisier.

Based on what? I'm waiting for the arrival of a schematic diagram for my PCM-M10 so I can work out what's going on with the time clock issue. But what I can say, from an electronics engineer's viewpoint, is that if I were to design a piece of audio hardware (and I often do) which had two microphone sources to be used in a mutually exclusive configuration (as is the case between the internals and external mics for our PCM-M10's), I would have them both passing through the same op-amp. It simplifies the design, lowers parts count and more importantly, gives the user a common denominator to work with so that the only remaining variable is the microphone of choice.

So unless you have a schematic to indicate otherwise, I think my assumption is the correct one based purely on my experience.

Going line-in would require a pre-amp and only high end, big pre-amps are capable of no hiss.

As an engineer, I'll safely say that's bullshit. Yes, high end components and careful design all contribute towards a truly high quality preamp but these days, size matters as much as three-fifths of bugger all.

[(Evan)]

because ive tried. using external mics (ok i havnt used shoeps!) in mic input is noisier. I mean for god's sake i have had many recorders and i dont kow what the M10 does or if it sheats but at low setting (or even high) quite performances are DEAD quite in terms of background hiss and no the ambient noise would have masked it if it produced hiss. No software hiss removal would apporximate it the results and you can call them cheap mics or whatever.

Who said anything about Schoeps? Can you please tell us what external microphones you have tried that yielded so much noise? I've played around with the M10's internal mics on several occasions, and I know for a fact that they are not any less noisy than say AT853's. The 853's are much cleaner and more smooth sounding than the M10's internal microphones.

I'd also be interested in what type of venue you're recording in that it is SO integral for you not to have extra pieces of gear. Having your internal microphones on wires will take up no less space than having external microphones, so the only added space for gear you'd really need would be for a small battery box. You can find some battery boxes that use 12v batteries that are about the size of a pack of gum.

I just simply don't believe that these options wouldn't work for you; I think you're just hard headed. 

[pool]

The venues are small ensambles were often one is a meter away from players, in churches and very small halls. If it summer and youre practically wearing nothing (even in a church :-) yes difficult to hide things. As i said ive tries OKM-II for classical and have tried other mics and pres. Plus, i want a low cost solution that is comparable to the internal mics of the M10.

It is understood therefore that the M10 uses 1 pre. If that is so does anyone know what is the noise and output (sensitivity?) of the M10's internal mics so that any external mics (like the AT853/DPA's) i might try are compared with it?  - thanks

[kleiner Rainer]

Hi pool,

there is a data sheet for the mics in the M10 on the Sony Pro homepage:

http://ws.sel.sony.com/PIPWebServices/RetrievePublicAsset/StepID/SEL-asset-177183/original/PCM-M10%20Microphone%20Characteristics.pdf

A short check on the Primo homepage http://www.primomic.com/ did not show any match in the omni section. Maybe someone with a service manual could post the designation of the internal mics? OTOH, Sony is known for manufacturing their own capsules for decades.

What about those mics for stealthing? http://images6.thomann.de/pics/prod/246418_manual.pdf
They look and work like headphones. Or you could declare them as hearing protection ;-)

Maybe you could do some DIY around the Primo EM173
http://www.primomic.com/products/pdf/EM173.pdf .
If I can get hold of a handful of those (they seem to have an office in Germany), I will give them a try in my old Sennheiser "Kunstkopf" aka artificial head mike whose mics are worn out after 25 years of outdoor use.

Greetings, and keep that solder flowing!

Rainer

[johnferrier]

Also desiring to extend the M10 mics with something comparable, I recently ordered Primo 172 microphones from frogloggers . . .
http://www.frogloggers.com/FORMgallery4.htm



(Though without microphones at the moment, the solder will be nice and hot within the hour, on another project.)

[PeteJE]

Also desiring to extend the M10 mics with something comparable, I recently ordered Primo 172 microphones from frogloggers . . .
http://www.frogloggers.com/FORMgallery4.htm



(Though without microphones at the moment, the solder will be nice and hot within the hour, on another project.)

This is what I was going to suggest - these are the M10 capsules, I believe.  Buy several pairs and experiment.

[NOLAfishwater]

Many experts have chimed in and it is apparent that you only believe tearing your m10 apart is the way to go. So, I say go ahead and ruin your deck and send us all pics

[pool]

...are there mics with the SAME sensitivity (hence no use of additional pre-amp required) and noise as the m10 (call them cheap) ?

[pool]

mshilarious - thank you.  if using the frogglers/EM172 one builds external mics and uses the line or mic in jack would the result be more noise or less sensitive then the current internals of the M10? I dont know if the path of the internals, the mic-in and line-in jacks with the pre are the same.....??!!!!!

[landshark]

I use Chris Church's CAFS omnis with my PCM-M10, direct with no battery box.  I think the PCM-M10 mics are great, but I think the CAFS's are quieter, and sound like they have better dynamic range.  I'm sure part of the sound improvement is that I can better position the mics as compared to the fixed internals.

I would be shocked if cracking open the PCM-M10 and jury-rigging some microphone extension could in any way improve the sound of recordings as compared to the comparably simpler and less expensive alternative of buying some CAFS's (or Countryman B3's) and just plugging them in. 

[sunjan]

I think going mic-in using external mics would be noisier.

I think a dozen of tapers here will be able to prove you wrong.
Properly powered CAFS, Countryman B3, DPAs etc going mic-in would beat the internal mics of the M10, especially if you intend break them out DIY.

Did the OP download samples to compare?
There are a few here:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=139109.0
http://www.archive.org/details/seven2010-07-13.seven2010-07-13.ca14.flac16
http://www.archive.org/details/matisyahu2010-09-20.flac

[illconditioned]

The venues are small ensambles were often one is a meter away from players, in churches and very small halls. If it summer and youre practically wearing nothing (even in a church :-) yes difficult to hide things. As i said ive tries OKM-II for classical and have tried other mics and pres. Plus, i want a low cost solution that is comparable to the internal mics of the M10.

It is understood therefore that the M10 uses 1 pre. If that is so does anyone know what is the noise and output (sensitivity?) of the M10's internal mics so that any external mics (like the AT853/DPA's) i might try are compared with it?  - thanks

I have cracked open the Sony PCM-M10.  It has 10mm omni microphones, two-wire connection, rated self-noise 18dBA.  These are quite good mics, especially for quiet recordings.  They are *excellent* for voice, but find the quality insufficient for (serious) music listening.  Also, they *may* overload a bit at loud levels, though I have not experienced this myself.

I would recommend you use external mics, but no battery box or preamp.  With careful selection, you can get very good performance.

What capsules to use?  If you can tolerate higher self noise (say 24dBA), I would get a pair of Countryman B3 lavalier mics.  Wire these directly to a miniplug and you will be astonished by the clarity and realism of these mics, both for ambient and music recording.  If you're worring about connectors, get a right-angle miniplug and tack it on with some hot melt glue, then cover with gaffers tape.  Start recording, set levels, lock unit, and gaffers tape over the level control and you can tolerate any stealth situation.

If you need lower than 24dBA, then you will *probably* need some more effort.  But to be honest, 24dBA is pretty quiet.  Even if there is a (slight) hiss, it is nothing when played back on a recording with full dynamic range.  You really only need to go lower for either nature recording, or (quiet) spoken voice recording.  Any "performance" venue, theatre or music, will have acoustics and/or sound reinforcement suitable for getting over this pretty low noise floor.

Now, that said, please do not tear the mics out of your M10.  These always serve useful in cases of impromptu or "point and shoot" recording where you don't have time to setup gear.

  Richard

[wmacky1]

Yes, no need to tear up the recorder when you can buy the internal caps (Primo 172's). Plugging them in the mic in, is no different than the internal convention.  That said, why are some here dogging the internal caps? The 172's have self noise comparable to the Rode NT4 used by the nature guys. On other forum they seem to be rated as the best internal mics available in any portable. These are the same caps as the expensive Telingas.

[illconditioned]

Yes, no need to tear up the recorder when you can buy the internal caps (Primo 172's). Plugging them in the mic in, is no different than the internal convention.  That said, why are some here dogging the internal caps? The 172's have self noise comparable to the Rode NT4 used by the nature guys. On other forum they seem to be rated as the best internal mics available in any portable. These are the same caps as the expensive Telingas.

Those Primo mics are great.  I've tried EM171 (10mm cardioid) and EM173 (10mm omni).  I've also tried EM158 (6mm omni).  Very low noise, but the sound itself is not perfect.

But , if I had a choice between Sennheiser KE4 (5mm, omni, 27dBA self noise) and Primo EM17x, I would choose the Sennheiser.  There is something ("warmth", "detail", "definition") that the Senns have that Primo is missing.  The only thing I can imagine is the diaphragm thickness/tension/material.  The Senns use a gold vaporized diaphragm, while Primo uses Ni/Cr plating (I believe).  It may also be the thickness.  The absolute best sounding mics are Geffel, DPA, etc "measurerment mics", that use 1 micron solid metal diaphragm (Nickel or Stainless steel).  By the way, Countryman B3 are stainless diaphragm.  One of the few lavalier mics that are.  Most others (eg., Sennheiser, Audio Technica, etc, are gold vaporized).

  Richard

[Ozpeter]

That said, why are some here dogging the internal caps?

I guess I'm the chief critic of the M10 internals here, but that's purely on the grounds of the poor stereo image.

What would be interesting would be if someone was brave or daft enough to attempt to replace them with the equivalent cardioid capsules, albeit into a case not designed for cardioids.  I'm not planning to...

[illconditioned]

I would guess it's the hole pattern in the case, those apertures cause the bumpy stuff in the Primo's HF response (as shown in their specs).  This is why I've shied away from the Primos; I don't want to be troubled with modding the cases to fix that.  Also, the primos spec as -10dB at 20kHz, whereas WM61As will be up at 20kHz . . . which is easy to correct with EQ; the Primo's peaks and nulls would require a lot of narrow bands to correct.

Obviously I have my biases . . .

I'm not sure it is the holes that cause the 'bumps'.  The holes are over an area of something like 1/4" diameter or less.  Many mics have an opening larger than that, even small capsules.  My *guess* is the holes are there to allow a fairly large opening that is both mechanically strong and inexpensive to produce, and the same could be accomplished by bigger hole with a mesh.  Also, many people will tell you that many mic response curves are smoothed, so there might be bumps in other mics as well.  I think the main limitation of these (and other similar capsules) is the diaphragm, and not the opening on them.

...but I'm open to correction.  Does anyone out there understand the physics of this stuff???

  Richard

[Church-Audio]

I would guess it's the hole pattern in the case, those apertures cause the bumpy stuff in the Primo's HF response (as shown in their specs).  This is why I've shied away from the Primos; I don't want to be troubled with modding the cases to fix that.  Also, the primos spec as -10dB at 20kHz, whereas WM61As will be up at 20kHz . . . which is easy to correct with EQ; the Primo's peaks and nulls would require a lot of narrow bands to correct.

Obviously I have my biases . . .

I'm not sure it is the holes that cause the 'bumps'.  The holes are over an area of something like 1/4" diameter or less.  Many mics have an opening larger than that, even small capsules.  My *guess* is the holes are there to allow a fairly large opening that is both mechanically strong and inexpensive to produce, and the same could be accomplished by bigger hole with a mesh.  Also, many people will tell you that many mic response curves are smoothed, so there might be bumps in other mics as well.  I think the main limitation of these (and other similar capsules) is the diaphragm, and not the opening on them.

...but I'm open to correction.  Does anyone out there understand the physics of this stuff???

  Richard

Diaphragm tension and thickness and closeness to the backplate among about 10 more parameters determine max frequency response. But lately a few companies have been using a technique of phase plug to "correct" frequency response. Most of the small holes in front of the capsule are as you say cheaper to make then using a mesh screen. But in some cases these small holes are an attempt to fix frequency response issues. The other thing that small series of holes vs a bigger hole give you is better shielding in front of the capsule for reduced induced noise.

[illconditioned]

I would guess it's the hole pattern in the case, those apertures cause the bumpy stuff in the Primo's HF response (as shown in their specs).  This is why I've shied away from the Primos; I don't want to be troubled with modding the cases to fix that.  Also, the primos spec as -10dB at 20kHz, whereas WM61As will be up at 20kHz . . . which is easy to correct with EQ; the Primo's peaks and nulls would require a lot of narrow bands to correct.

Obviously I have my biases . . .

I'm not sure it is the holes that cause the 'bumps'.  The holes are over an area of something like 1/4" diameter or less.  Many mics have an opening larger than that, even small capsules.  My *guess* is the holes are there to allow a fairly large opening that is both mechanically strong and inexpensive to produce, and the same could be accomplished by bigger hole with a mesh.  Also, many people will tell you that many mic response curves are smoothed, so there might be bumps in other mics as well.  I think the main limitation of these (and other similar capsules) is the diaphragm, and not the opening on them.

...but I'm open to correction.  Does anyone out there understand the physics of this stuff???

  Richard

Diaphragm tension and thickness and closeness to the backplate among about 10 more parameters determine max frequency response. But lately a few companies have been using a technique of phase plug to "correct" frequency response. Most of the small holes in front of the capsule are as you say cheaper to make then using a mesh screen. But in some cases these small holes are an attempt to fix frequency response issues. The other thing that small series of holes vs a bigger hole give you is better shielding in front of the capsule for reduced induced noise.

Can you explain what you mean by "phase plug"?
Also, how do small holes change the frequency response (as opposed to a single, larger opening)?
I would be grateful for some references (even just to others who say/use these terms).

I *do* know that adding a tube to increase the cavity size in front of a circular diaphragm increases the HF response.  Countryman B3 and DPA 406x both use this technique with "response grids" (generate peaks around 8kHz).  It is also done by adding little "spouts" on hearing aid type microphones such as the Knowles Acoustics FG series.  The things with these modifications is that they typically introduce a single peak, and not several bumps that Primo reports.

In terms of diaphragms it seems that the thinner the better (while still strong enough to hold the tension, I guess).  You'll often see boasts of "low mass diaphragm" that "accurately captures transients".  This typically refers to a 3 micron or so gold vaporized (or gold plated) diaphragm we expect to see on high end gear.

  Richard

[Church-Audio]

I would guess it's the hole pattern in the case, those apertures cause the bumpy stuff in the Primo's HF response (as shown in their specs).  This is why I've shied away from the Primos; I don't want to be troubled with modding the cases to fix that.  Also, the primos spec as -10dB at 20kHz, whereas WM61As will be up at 20kHz . . . which is easy to correct with EQ; the Primo's peaks and nulls would require a lot of narrow bands to correct.

Obviously I have my biases . . .

I'm not sure it is the holes that cause the 'bumps'.  The holes are over an area of something like 1/4" diameter or less.  Many mics have an opening larger than that, even small capsules.  My *guess* is the holes are there to allow a fairly large opening that is both mechanically strong and inexpensive to produce, and the same could be accomplished by bigger hole with a mesh.  Also, many people will tell you that many mic response curves are smoothed, so there might be bumps in other mics as well.  I think the main limitation of these (and other similar capsules) is the diaphragm, and not the opening on them.

...but I'm open to correction.  Does anyone out there understand the physics of this stuff???

  Richard

Diaphragm tension and thickness and closeness to the backplate among about 10 more parameters determine max frequency response. But lately a few companies have been using a technique of phase plug to "correct" frequency response. Most of the small holes in front of the capsule are as you say cheaper to make then using a mesh screen. But in some cases these small holes are an attempt to fix frequency response issues. The other thing that small series of holes vs a bigger hole give you is better shielding in front of the capsule for reduced induced noise.

Can you explain what you mean by "phase plug"?
Also, how do small holes change the frequency response (as opposed to a single, larger opening)?
I would be grateful for some references (even just to others who say/use these terms).

I *do* know that adding a tube to increase the cavity size in front of a circular diaphragm increases the HF response.  Countryman B3 and DPA 406x both use this technique with "response grids" (generate peaks around 8kHz).  It is also done by adding little "spouts" on hearing aid type microphones such as the Knowles Acoustics FG series.  The things with these modifications is that they typically introduce a single peak, and not several bumps that Primo reports.

In terms of diaphragms it seems that the thinner the better (while still strong enough to hold the tension, I guess).  You'll often see boasts of "low mass diaphragm" that "accurately captures transients".  This typically refers to a 3 micron or so gold vaporized (or gold plated) diaphragm we expect to see on high end gear.

  Richard

I can only find an AES paper on the subject and it relates to proximity effect. But it does also relate to condenser microphones.. The object is to unify the frequency response at a distance. The best example of this is the earthworks M30 measurement microphone. They use a series of grids in front of the capsule to defuse the sound so that it arrives evenly across the diaphragm. They do this by using a series of metal plates with holes in them. This is also one of the principles behind the DPA 4060 the capsule is sideway mounted inside a shell. This orientation gives you a diffused sound over the diaphragm. This helps even out frequency response. Its like a diffuse field microphone. This helps remove the directional aspects of the microphone. They can play with the length of the tube to increase the HFB or High frequency bump in the response as well.


Chris

[pool]

Interesting read but it is too technical now. If using mic jacks is the same path that the internals need, then I need external mics with same noise specs and sensitivty as the intermnal M10's. I am not after the same exact sound of the M10s....but same specs. Other mics with equal specs will be good. As you see im not that hard headed and changed my opinion.

[morst]

Ozpeter's got a good point here. The sound is fine, but the image sucks with omnis packed so close together.  If you're going remote with similar mics, why not try a cardioid pair too? I love ORTF for music recording. I like to go where it sounds good and record from there, sounds like that's what pool's doing.

And as Nolafishwater said - TAKE PHOTOS! if you're gonna bust the thing open, video it and put it on youtube, and link us there. I wanna see!!
:-)

That said, why are some here dogging the internal caps?

I guess I'm the chief critic of the M10 internals here, but that's purely on the grounds of the poor stereo image.

What would be interesting would be if someone was brave or daft enough to attempt to replace them with the equivalent cardioid capsules, albeit into a case not designed for cardioids.  I'm not planning to...

[it-goes-to-eleven]

This thread was way more fun when those internal mics were considered "magical"

[wipeman]

Interesting read but it is too technical now. If using mic jacks is the same path that the internals need, then I need external mics with same noise specs and sensitivty as the intermnal M10's. I am not after the same exact sound of the M10s....but same specs. Other mics with equal specs will be good. As you see im not that hard headed and changed my opinion.

To chip in regarding the M10 and external omni capsules. I built myself a pair using the Primo EM172s for use with my new M10. I have read on a forum somewhere (so not necessarily true ) that these are the same capsules used in the M10 (and I'm certainly not opening it up to find out). They worked out really cheap to make.

See pictures here

I had been after a cheap pair of quiet omni mics but the capsules all appeared quiet noisy (60dB SNR) and I could hear the hiss. Then I saw the noise specs of these.

I got the capsules from frogloggers.com. I also bought some EM158s which are 6mm capsules (the EM172s are 10mm) and while they are also very quiet they sound harsher to me at higher frequencies with much less bass response than the EM172s. Incidentally, both capsule types work fine when powered from the 3-ish volts PIP on the M10.

The specs for both capsules are repeated below (taken from the frogloggers website):

BT-EM158 (6mm)
==============
Signal to noise ratio 75 dB
Sensitivity -32 dB ±3 dB at 1 kHz (0 dB = 1 V/Pa)
Self-noise 19 dB

BT-EM172 (10mm)
===============
Signal to noise ratio 80 dB
Sensitivity -28 dB ±3 dB at 1 kHz (0 dB = 1 V/Pa)
Self-noise 14 dB

The Max input SPLs are 125dB and 122 dB respectively, though not sure at what voltage this is quoted at (probably the upper quoted voltage limit of 9V).

HTH