Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.  (Read 22026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline analoghell

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #60 on: October 30, 2007, 06:06:26 AM »
That wasn't my experience at all. These mics have an excellent top end. It's true they are bass light, but nothing extreme.

I wonder if you got a dodgy pair? Many many nature records have been using these for a while and find them very good quality.

digifish - they have a max of 9v power I believe, so you can't phantom power them. I built a mini-XLR->3.5 battery box for mine.

ac

Take a look at the Shure WL183 lavs.

Info here:

http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/Shure-WL183s/index.htm
http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/WiredMicrophones/us_pro_WL183_content
http://www.rockscallop.org/how/183/183mount01.html

Great mics for nature stuff and well within your budget.

ac

Yes I had been reading about those, I was thinking of buying a pair, but wanted to check for compatability with the phantom in my MixPre, I suspect the voltage was going to be a little high from that...haven't checked into it yet. I definitely like the form factor...

digifish

These microphones have HORRIBLE let me say this again HORRIBLE bass response.. And not very good over all frequency response... But if you like that AM radio sound they should be ok :)

Sorry I had a pair for testing and they sounded like someone put them in a toilet...


Offline analoghell

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2007, 06:09:46 AM »
That's so strange! I found that mine piss all over the various Panasonic-based mics i have. I seriously think you got a dodgy pair!!

One mans's trash is another man's treasure...


These microphones have HORRIBLE let me say this again HORRIBLE bass response.. And not very good over all frequency response... But if you like that AM radio sound they should be ok :)

Sorry I had a pair for testing and they sounded like someone put them in a toilet...


That's interesting as it is at complete odds with the field-recordists forums, where the demo recordings sound great, were you recording ambient sounds or rock-concerts?

digifish

No I was measuring them in my lab and comparing them to $3 Panasonic capsules.. AND the Panasonic capsules blew away these mics.. The suck... I am sorry I just dont want to see you waste your money. And I am not NOT trying to sell you something.. The simple fact is I dont have a extremely low noise pair of omni mics to sell you anyway..... But really I found them to be bad sounding mics.. They are designed for a lav mic for voice.. And even for that they are awful.. this is just my opinion. And you know what we say about them dont you :) But I just wanted to maybe warn you.. that's all.



I really feel you could buy some cheap Panasonic capsules and do a better job then these mics would do.

Chris



Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2007, 09:59:39 AM »
That's so strange! I found that mine piss all over the various Panasonic-based mics i have. I seriously think you got a dodgy pair!!

One mans's trash is another man's treasure...


These microphones have HORRIBLE let me say this again HORRIBLE bass response.. And not very good over all frequency response... But if you like that AM radio sound they should be ok :)

Sorry I had a pair for testing and they sounded like someone put them in a toilet...


That's interesting as it is at complete odds with the field-recordists forums, where the demo recordings sound great, were you recording ambient sounds or rock-concerts?

digifish

No I was measuring them in my lab and comparing them to $3 Panasonic capsules.. AND the Panasonic capsules blew away these mics.. The suck... I am sorry I just dont want to see you waste your money. And I am not NOT trying to sell you something.. The simple fact is I dont have a extremely low noise pair of omni mics to sell you anyway..... But really I found them to be bad sounding mics.. They are designed for a lav mic for voice.. And even for that they are awful.. this is just my opinion. And you know what we say about them dont you :) But I just wanted to maybe warn you.. that's all.



I really feel you could buy some cheap Panasonic capsules and do a better job then these mics would do.

Chris




The specs confirm my testing.. And at 17khz they were down 5 db from flat.
Frequency Response
50 to 17,000 Hz

IMHO the top end response is poor.. and the low end response is also poor... They do not give you any noise specs.. That makes me think they might not be great... But really the specs are not good and my testing was not positive ether. I did not have a bad pair both mics were brand new out of the box and the serial numbers were off by 100's of digits I also found that they overloaded quite easily.. Not an issue here, but was a major issue was the fact that they were 10db apart from each other but still had the same BAD response curves when corrected for the 10db difference.. It seems to me the tolerance of this product is nowhere near as tight as AKG, DPA, OR SENNNHIESER.
  so you can end up with a pair of mics that are not matched how do you capture an accurate sound field recording when your using mics that dont match up?

I would think for nature recording you would want something that would go up to at least 20k... But most of the nature recording guys are pretty old.. I guess the guys that are using these mics cant tell the difference.. I still can   :P
Ps.. remember you need to capture low end as well as high end in order to make a faithful recording of an environment.....

« Last Edit: October 30, 2007, 10:04:33 AM by Church-Audio »
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline digifish_music

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
    • digifish music
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2007, 06:37:33 PM »
I would think for nature recording you would want something that would go up to at least 20k

...

Ps.. remember you need to capture low end as well as high end in order to make a faithful recording of an environment....

20 kHz? Actually no, there is very little above 16 kHz in natural sounds that adds much if anything to the recording. Bats and some birds perhaps, but even then you would need to be critically listening with good gear under well controlled conditions.

Low frequencies, actually field recordings often come out with far too much rumble/low-end for a 'natural' balance, high pass filtering is almost always a good thing here too.

digifish
- What's this knob do?

Offline analoghell

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2007, 09:37:29 PM »
They do distort easily. But that's rarely a problem in ambient / nature recording. I wouldn't recommend them for record gigs. I guess different strokes for different folks.

ac




Offline spzkt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2007, 11:54:22 PM »

I would think for nature recording you would want something that would go up to at least 20k... But most of the nature recording guys are pretty old.. I guess the guys that are using these mics cant tell the difference.. I still can   :P
Ps.. remember you need to capture low end as well as high end in order to make a faithful recording of an environment.....


The WL183 were discussed on the nature recordists list in terms of a CHEAP solution for stealthable recording. The pic of Dan Dugan's rig was you've appended was part of the experimentation that was done with these mics to see what they were capable of. There was no suggestion these were anything than a cheap option to explore.

most ambient recordings are done with a hpf at 80 to 100hz or higher, and there aren't huge amounts of naturally occurring sounds above 16 or 17Khz. so the w183 specs are probably adequate for a lot of tasks. The WL183's aren't particularly quite but the results don't sound bad:

http://www.rockscallop.org/JVp2.html

http://www.dandugan.com/downloads/French_Gulch_Hotel_Frogs.mp3
http://www.dandugan.com/downloads/Joshua%20Tree%202%20samples/01_49_Palms_frogs-rain-jet.mp3

The recordings towards the bottom of Curt Olson's page - the ones towards the top are done with AT3032's discussed earlier in the thread:

http://www.trackseventeen.com/soundscapes/

and btw take a peep at these:

http://www.dandugan.com/
http://svconline.com/mag/avinstall_av_industry_icons/
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 01:11:35 AM by spzkt »

Offline guysonic

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1366
  • WISDOM FOR ALL TIMES
    • Sonic Studios DSM Stereo-Surround Microphone Systems
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #66 on: October 31, 2007, 02:48:23 AM »
A field with scores of socializing birds (for example) WILL have need for wide high frequency recording bandwidth at least to 20K.  Other complex ambient sounds also may require bandwidths exceeding 16K Hz even though individual sounds inside that ambient have much lower frequency content.

Same thing applies to Video Bandwidth as if you have ONLY one simple image (like one person) to show, then video bandwidth can be most modest, but showing an image of the 'class of 2007' with hundreds of people inside the frame' requires much wider bandwidth to maintain resolution of details of same one person, and all the others competing for recorded detail.

Similar stuff happens with audio as bandwidth to record a solo instrument like an oboe, violin, or cello can be modest, but record a piano playing complex cords (many strings at work), or a full orchestra of simple instruments all playing together and the bandwidth requirement to record all this simultaneous sound in best manner far exceeds the human ability of 20K Hz.

I have a simple recording of piano/violin concert done with DSM mics/preamp at 10 foot distance showing significant recorded information (mostly from the violin) exceeding 35,000 Hz at times. 
"mics? I no got no mics!  Besides, I no have to show you no stink'n mics!" stxxlth taper's disclaimer

DSM HRTF STEREO-SURROUND RECORDING SYSTEMS WEBSITE: http://www.sonicstudios.com

Offline digifish_music

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
    • digifish music
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #67 on: October 31, 2007, 04:00:58 AM »
A field with scores of socializing birds (for example) WILL have need for wide high frequency recording bandwidth at least to 20K.  Other complex ambient sounds also may require bandwidths exceeding 16K Hz even though individual sounds inside that ambient have much lower frequency content.

...


We are on different wavelengths, I was talking about the resulting listening experience, not the actual frequencies present.

If you think ultrasound is important you may like to read this...

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/

particularly...

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

digifish
- What's this knob do?

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #68 on: October 31, 2007, 06:56:31 AM »
A field with scores of socializing birds (for example) WILL have need for wide high frequency recording bandwidth at least to 20K.  Other complex ambient sounds also may require bandwidths exceeding 16K Hz even though individual sounds inside that ambient have much lower frequency content.

...


We are on different wavelengths, I was talking about the resulting listening experience, not the actual frequencies present.

If you think ultrasound is important you may like to read this...

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/

particularly...

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

digifish


It looks like your looking for an argument.. Unfortunately sound is subjective.. But I WILL say this.. I have tested these mics and found them wanting... They in my opinion SUCK. I would not use them to mic a fart.

But that's just one mans opinion but before you just write me off. I build mics for a living I listen to mics for a living I have been a sound engineer now for over 20 years. And worked with some of the best microphones in the world.. I am not NOT trying to sell you something..

I dont think you can say that these mics are great because you have heard a sample.. If you dont have a reference to compair it too... Now you might be able to say hey.. These sounded good to my ears.. But with out having a real mic in the same space and time recording the same event.. How do you really know what the quality of the capture really is?

And I strongly disagree with you about anything past 17k being of any importance to nature recording.. LOL Harmonics above and below 20khz are being effected when your mics dont go that high.. So your capture is not as good as it could be. That's the bottom line.. And for the price of these mics there are a lot of mics that would be better. But again.. that's one mans opinion.

Just remember we cant all be wrong.. And just because a bunch of people are using them does not make them a good mic. Lots of people still think a  Beta 58 is a good vocal mic.. but most sound man have come around to realizing they are not. One last bit of advice.. If there is anything I have learned in the last 20+ years its this.. Don't believe everything you read....

To quote you "We are on different wavelengths, I was talking about the resulting listening experience, not the actual frequencies present."

excuse me.. But aren't these one and the same? I mean sure you can have a mic that sounds ok with a frequency response of 200hz to 14k but wouldn't you rather have one that works from 20hz to 20khz and just use a high pass filter on it? so you can make up your own mind as to what low end you need for a given situation? instead of having the mic dictate that to you? Just my opinion.



Chris



« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 07:03:10 AM by Church-Audio »
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline digifish_music

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
    • digifish music
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2007, 07:21:49 AM »
excuse me.. But aren't these one and the same? I mean sure you can have a mic that sounds ok with a frequency response of 200hz to 14k but wouldn't you rather have one that works from 20hz to 20khz and just use a high pass filter on it? so you can make up your own mind as to what low end you need for a given situation? instead of having the mic dictate that to you? Just my opinion.

No they are not the same. I am also not advocating deliberately selecting a mic with a limited bandwidth, but I am experienced enough from music production side of things to know the <40 and >16 kHz components of the mix have negligible impact on the perceived quality of a track.

I also know that there is no evidence from any well conducted study that humans can hear ultrasound

I don't know anything about the mics in question, except the recordings that I have heard sound great.

So here is an example I recorded just the other day...



Top spectral analysis shows the effects if filtering outside 40-16 kHz

Filtered field recording

The bottom spectral analysis shows the original recording of 20-20 kHz

Original field recording

Now...not exactly what I would call a startling difference

Here's the filtered components in isolation for the interested...



You can download the file below, crank the volume and really hear what <40 and >16 kHz sounds like...

Filtered components

digifish
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 08:25:23 AM by digifish_music »
- What's this knob do?

Offline guysonic

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1366
  • WISDOM FOR ALL TIMES
    • Sonic Studios DSM Stereo-Surround Microphone Systems
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2007, 03:40:34 PM »
A field with scores of socializing birds (for example) WILL have need for wide high frequency recording bandwidth at least to 20K.  Other complex ambient sounds also may require bandwidths exceeding 16K Hz even though individual sounds inside that ambient have much lower frequency content.

...


We are on different wavelengths, I was talking about the resulting listening experience, not the actual frequencies present.

If you think ultrasound is important you may like to read this...

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/

particularly...

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

digifish


Reference page as a ton of research topics, but unless I missed something, no direct arguments against extended recording bandwidth. 

The 'power point' page on inter-modulation (I think) was not looked at as I have an allergic reaction to such presentations, especially in file form, so maybe you can explain what you found as in this as technically against high bandwidth margins for complex sound recordings in a concise manner?

BTW how did you 'hack into' your profile to never show an increase in posting after first 63 posts even though you show being a member since sometime in 2006 and have posted in this thread several times with no post # change?  This might be most handy for blocking tickets, maybe looking forever like a newer member with 'cleaner' record than might otherwise be credited to your screen name.  Care to comment?
"mics? I no got no mics!  Besides, I no have to show you no stink'n mics!" stxxlth taper's disclaimer

DSM HRTF STEREO-SURROUND RECORDING SYSTEMS WEBSITE: http://www.sonicstudios.com

Offline digifish_music

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
    • digifish music
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2007, 08:10:55 PM »

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

The 'power point' page on inter-modulation (I think) was not looked at as I have an allergic reaction to such presentations, especially in file form, so maybe you can explain what you found as in this as technically against high bandwidth margins for complex sound recordings in a concise manner?

BTW how did you 'hack into' your profile to never show an increase in posting after first 63 posts even though you show being a member since sometime in 2006 and have posted in this thread several times with no post # change?  This might be most handy for blocking tickets, maybe looking forever like a newer member with 'cleaner' record than might otherwise be credited to your screen name.  Care to comment?


PPT conclusions...

Conclusions -

1. Adding ultrasonics to a recording technique does not improve time resolution of typical signals – either for imaging or precision of tempo. The presumption that it does is based on a misunderstanding of both information theory and human physiology.

2. Karou and Shogo have shown that ultrasonic harmonics of a 2kHz signal are NOT audible in the absence of external (non-human) intermodulation distortion. This BTW: means they can't be heard in the real world and that filtering them from the recording is a good thing as they can only do harm.

Again BTW I will note that I am not advocating limiting your mics to less than 20hz-20kHz. However if your mic droops 6 dB at 18 Khz I would not be concerned. My observation from years of mixing and producing music is that <40 and > 16 kHz just doesn't add anything *dramatic* to the recording. Unless of course you are using the <40 Hz to drive sub-sonic subs for the mechanical vibration effects.

My demonstration above shows that to be so. Just listen to the filtered component in isolation...

3. Their experiments put a limit on the possibility that a physiological non-linearity can make ultrasonic harmonics perceptible. They find that such a non-linearity does not exist at ultrasonic sound pressure levels below 80dB.

4. All commercial recordings tested by the author as of 6/1/03 contained either no ultrasonic information, or ultrasonic harmonics at levels more than 40dB below the fundamentals.

5. Our experiments suggest that the most important source of audible intermodulation for ultrasonics is the electronics, not in the transducers.
Some consumer grade equipment makes a tacit admission of the inaudibility of frequencies above 22kHz by simply not reproducing them. Yet the advertising for these products claims the benefits of “higher resolution.”

6. Even assuming ultrasonics are audible, loudspeaker directivity creates an unusually tiny sweet spot, both horizontally and vertically

About my profile, I didn't hack anything, you are just paranoid :)

digifish

« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 01:30:29 AM by digifish_music »
- What's this knob do?

Offline guysonic

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1366
  • WISDOM FOR ALL TIMES
    • Sonic Studios DSM Stereo-Surround Microphone Systems
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #72 on: November 01, 2007, 02:47:17 AM »

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

The 'power point' page on inter-modulation (I think) was not looked at as I have an allergic reaction to such presentations, especially in file form, so maybe you can explain what you found as in this as technically against high bandwidth margins for complex sound recordings in a concise manner?

BTW how did you 'hack into' your profile to never show an increase in posting after first 63 posts even though you show being a member since sometime in 2006 and have posted in this thread several times with no post # change?  This might be most handy for blocking tickets, maybe looking forever like a newer member with 'cleaner' record than might otherwise be credited to your screen name.  Care to comment?


PPT conclusions...

Conclusions -

1. Adding ultrasonics to a recording technique does not improve time resolution of typical signals – either for imaging or precision of tempo. The presumption that it does is based on a misunderstanding of both information theory and human physiology.

2. Karou and Shogo have shown that ultrasonic harmonics of a 2kHz signal are NOT audible in the absence of external (non-human) intermodulation distortion. This BTW: means they can't be heard in the real world and that filtering them from the recording is a good thing as they can only do harm.

Again BTW I will note that I am not advocating limiting your mics to less than 20hz-20kHz. However if your mic droops 6 dB at 18 Khz I would not be concerned. My observation from years of mixing and producing music is that <40 and > 16 kHz just doesn't add anything *dramatic* to the recording. Unless of course you are using the <40 Hz to drive sub-sonic subs for the mechanical vibration effects.

My demonstration above shows that to be so. Just listen to the filtered component in isolation...

3. Their experiments put a limit on the possibility that a physiological non-linearity can make ultrasonic harmonics perceptible. They find that such a non-linearity does not exist at ultrasonic sound pressure levels below 80dB.

4. All commercial recordings tested by the author as of 6/1/03 contained either no ultrasonic information, or ultrasonic harmonics at levels more than 40dB below the fundamentals.

5. Our experiments suggest that the most important source of audible intermodulation for ultrasonics is the electronics, not in the transducers.
Some consumer grade equipment makes a tacit admission of the inaudibility of frequencies above 22kHz by simply not reproducing them. Yet the advertising for these products claims the benefits of “higher resolution.”

6. Even assuming ultrasonics are audible, loudspeaker directivity creates an unusually tiny sweet spot, both horizontally and vertically

About my profile, I didn't hack anything, you are just paranoid :)

digifish



Thank you for taking time to post a very concise PPT summary. 

More possible fuel for your argument against audible benefit of higher frequencies contained in an AES submitted paper summary quoted in a recent post by WifiJeff in thread:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=dc5cb19c3eae03a2a98a47d2a8b6b290&topic=80529.msg1246887;topicseen

PARTIAL QUOTE:

"Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies.


In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), two veteran audio journalists who aren’t professional engineers, E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran, present a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that the two-channel analog output of a high-end SACD/DVD-A player undergoes no audible change when passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor. That means there’s no audible difference between the original CD standard (“Red Book”) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD."
 ...... MORE IN POST......

So you are not alone with such conclusions argued in most recent technical literature.

However, it does seem that tests with stated intention to prove something usually succeed in providing clear evidence making their point.  In the past such test were designed to prove the opposite pro-wider bandwidth argument and seemed to also succeed.

Maybe both arguments hold same amount of truth depending on specific testing condition details, personal perspectives/biases, and real-world live vs. studio multi-track sound recording listening experiences.


In regards to: "About my profile, I didn't hack anything, you are just paranoid :) "  My profile reported by two moderators to maybe been hacked as posts of 'way off my usual posted color' with porn images/links needed deleting on at least one occasion recently, and my signons are often detoured to show "odd images," and/or other members profiles instead of usual sign-on screen.  I've been offered a new account if this continues.  Found changing password not changing occasional detour events.  Yes, maybe a bit paranoid, but also having good reason to be more suspicious than my usual.  Sorry to question your low post count as being odd.
"mics? I no got no mics!  Besides, I no have to show you no stink'n mics!" stxxlth taper's disclaimer

DSM HRTF STEREO-SURROUND RECORDING SYSTEMS WEBSITE: http://www.sonicstudios.com

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.139 seconds with 41 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF