Topic: Avisoft field recorder noise ranking table

[Ozpeter]

https://avisoft.com/recorder-tests/

I have been revisiting the Avisoft Bioacoustics site, starting at the recorder tests page, which IMHO is  essential reading for anyone interested in comparing field recorders, and understanding when recorder noise matters and when it doesn't. The company is highly respected in the field. They describe how the overall noise floor of the entire recording system comprises the noise floors of the mic and the recorder which add geometrically. They state that no relevant noise is added by any professional recorder as long as a sufficiently sensitive mic is being used. But an insensitive dynamic mic would be more demanding.  My interest is not in studio recordings where system noise is most likely to be noticeable, but in field recordings. That includes concert halls and the churches commonly used for classical music recordings. Here I think that the Avisoft "noisefloors" page comes into play, where they state that "in most practical field recording conditions, however, the inherent noise floor of the recording system will be masked by the more intensive environmental noise floor" - which is my experience with contemporary equipment, even when it is not the most expensive.

Avisoft have not yet evaluated the Zoom H1 XLR, my latest purchase - I hope they do! The much vaunted Zoom F3 is ranked number 6 in their list, and the recorders above it are generally not cheap! So indeed, whether or can be heard or not, it's clearly a very good device at the price in terms of its preamps, or indeed on any basis. Recent Tascam devices including the FR-AV2 are ranked joint number 8 in the list, with the Zoom F6 just above at number 7.  Going just by the manufacturer's specs, the H1 XLR would come in around number 22, next to the much respected Sony M10. But the question remains, with a decent mic, would the difference between most of the recorders in the upper reaches of the Avisoft list be obvious in a blind side by side real world test?

[Joop]

I don't think his list is right. The specs of the Tascam X6 and the Tascam FR-AV2 are NOT the same. So they can't end the same way in this list. Mind that for the Zoom F3 there are no measured specs available on the list, so I wonder if Zoom F3 is really that good, the specs of the Zoom F3 are worse when compared to the Tascam FR-AV2. Next, Tascam FR-AV2 is still not available in Europe, so where did he got those figures?

[TheJez]

I don't think his list is right. The specs of the Tascam X6 and the Tascam FR-AV2 are NOT the same. So they can't end the same way in this list. Mind that for the Zoom F3 there are no measured specs available on the list, so I wonder if Zoom F3 is really that good, the specs of the Zoom F3 are worse when compared to the Tascam FR-AV2. Next, Tascam FR-AV2 is still not available in Europe, so where did he got those figures?

Hi Joop, I got my FR-AV2 from Kamera Express about two weeks ago in the Netherlands. It seems it is now out of stock, so I guess the initial stock has been fairly low.

[Joop]

Hi Joop, I got my FR-AV2 from Kamera Express about two weeks ago in the Netherlands. It seems it is now out of stock, so I guess the initial stock has been fairly low.

Yes, I know, they had only 1 in stock, there is another firm which also has 1 in stock.  Some kind of preview example. But with the big shops you have to wait for about another two months. But I stay with my comment that Tascam X6 or X8 do have lower specs than the Tascam FR-AV2. So the outcome can't be the same in the list ,no way.

[aaronji]

Avisoft shows what they measure at maximum gain, so the picture might be different for more typical taper settings.

[TheJez]

I know, they had only 1 in stock, there is another firm which also has 1 in stock.  Some kind of preview example.

Ah, that explains my serial number 00000000001 

[Ozpeter]

The site doesn't deal in specs - well, they do show them in brackets - they make their own measurments.

"The calculation and filtering procedures were executed by using the Avisoft-SASLab Pro sound analysis software."

Their test of the F3 seem to imply that the published spec is slightly worse than their measurement, though they do say "The errors of the measurements should be less than +-2dB"

[aaronji]

The "quietness" of a preamp depends to a considerable extent on the gain setting that is chosen. If you need to boost the mike signals by (say) 30 dB then you could measure and rank ten given preamps by their noise figures at that gain setting; if on the other hand you need 50 or 60 dB gain then the ranking might be entirely different.

In other words, if someone tests a bunch of preamps while they're set for a gain that's markedly different from the gain that you require, their evaluations might well be misleading and useless for your purposes, even if they're technically correct down to the last decimal place.

You need to know the gain that you will require from a preamp, and the preamps have to be tested at or near that particular gain level. Only then can any comparisons of noise levels start to become meaningful.

--best regards

Not to mention that the available gain varies across recorders as well.