Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.  (Read 22259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline spzkt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2007, 05:12:53 AM »

I'm sorry, that is wrong. 



Obviously I didn't communicate what I meant particularly well. I'll try to restate it logically, but please correct me if I'm wrong:

Lets assume I have two mics with same noise floor, lets say 12dB,  one with 50mV/Pa sensitivity, the other 40mV/Pa.

At 60dBspl the 50mV/Pa mic has an output of -57.8dBu, the one with 40mV/Pa has an output of -59.75dBu

To match with the output level of the 50mV/Pa mic I need to boost the output of the 40mV/Pa mic by 1.95dB

When I apply gain to the output of the 40mV/Pa mic the level of the entire signal including the noise floor is raised by 1.95dB. The effect is that the apparent noise level of the 40mV/PA sensitivity mic is 1.95dB higher (13.95dB) when it is level matched with the 50mV/Pa. 

This is what I meant when I said low sensitivity exacerbates high self noise.

btw I've used 60dB above as that is pretty typical sound level for nature recordings.

cheers
Paul

Offline spzkt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2007, 11:32:03 PM »
Thanks for being patient and explaining this!! I was being particularly dense.

cheers
Paul

Offline scottwu

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2007, 01:11:38 PM »


[/quote]

Um you cant do noise measurements like that.. They must be done in a vacuum or in an anechoic chamber.. But not in a "quiet room" and where is your baseline measurement that shows the noise of your preamp? how are you subtracting your self noise of your signal chain?

Chris

[/quote]

Actually the noise measured in a vacuum will be the electrical noise only. There are excellent white papers from B&K and Knowles on condenser mike noise sources freely available on the web. Since a condenser capsule is a reciprocal device you can actually measure the vacuum-state noise by replacing the capsule with an equivalent capacitance. I think Eric did try to calibrate the mike sensitivities out (IIRC he has access to a B&K calibration chamber) and since the low end is usually dominated by the bias resistor/capsule capacitance noise anyway (non-RF mikes) you can get a reasonable measure of the noise with a little care in isolation from 500Hz and up sources. I also don’t think he was trying to create standards quality reference measurements, just a rough comparison for people with no access to the different mikes or equipment. 

In the end it’s a matter of physics, the noise performance of a small 10pF electret is just limited with respect to a 1” externally polarized capsule. The diaphragm stiffness and mechanical loss of the air load will for the most part determine the noise floor at the high end. At least the noise that no amount of circuit sophistry will reduce. It’s silly to argue on noise alone against the Rode. There are excellent nature recordings around made with them, but I can imagine that they are difficult to manage in the field.

BTW I personally think some of the problems people have in comparing mikes for noise is that the sensitivity is measured at a reference frequency and the actual response has dips and peaks right in the same region where the self noise dominates. I could easily see several dB’s of real difference as well as personal perceptual differences.

Offline spzkt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2007, 07:10:35 PM »
Quote
Another factor to consider specifically for the nature recordist is not to simply go chasing a low noise spec, at least in terms of 1 or 2 dB difference.  Beyond the issues with respect to noise spectrum, it's possible for a manufacturer to manipulate capsule sensitivity and therefore noise rating by changing the bias voltage, for example.  That will affect other factors as well, perhaps to the detriment of the other requirements for the application.

Possibly a dumb question, but does the frequency response of a mic have any impact on the self-noise? The reason I ask is I've been looking at the Sennheiser ME66 and MKH416. The according to the specs the 416 has a 3dB higher noise floor, but the ME66 has a significant LF roll off below something like 650-750Hz whereas the 416 is flat down to about 150Hz, so I was wondering if the earlier LF roll off flatters the ME66 in terms of self-noise .

cheers
Paul

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 #49 on: October 22, 2007, 09:18:26 PM »



Um you cant do noise measurements like that.. They must be done in a vacuum or in an anechoic chamber.. But not in a "quiet room" and where is your baseline measurement that shows the noise of your preamp? how are you subtracting your self noise of your signal chain?

Chris

[/quote]

Actually the noise measured in a vacuum will be the electrical noise only. There are excellent white papers from B&K and Knowles on condenser mike noise sources freely available on the web. Since a condenser capsule is a reciprocal device you can actually measure the vacuum-state noise by replacing the capsule with an equivalent capacitance. I think Eric did try to calibrate the mike sensitivities out (IIRC he has access to a B&K calibration chamber) and since the low end is usually dominated by the bias resistor/capsule capacitance noise anyway (non-RF mikes) you can get a reasonable measure of the noise with a little care in isolation from 500Hz and up sources. I also don’t think he was trying to create standards quality reference measurements, just a rough comparison for people with no access to the different mikes or equipment. 

In the end it’s a matter of physics, the noise performance of a small 10pF electret is just limited with respect to a 1” externally polarized capsule. The diaphragm stiffness and mechanical loss of the air load will for the most part determine the noise floor at the high end. At least the noise that no amount of circuit sophistry will reduce. It’s silly to argue on noise alone against the Rode. There are excellent nature recordings around made with them, but I can imagine that they are difficult to manage in the field.

BTW I personally think some of the problems people have in comparing mikes for noise is that the sensitivity is measured at a reference frequency and the actual response has dips and peaks right in the same region where the self noise dominates. I could easily see several dB’s of real difference as well as personal perceptual differences.

[/quote]

To do real noise measurements you need a real chamber there is no way around that. There is a huge difference between a capacitor and a diaphragm of a mic. Electronically speaking they are the same but there are many other factors besides just replacing the diaphragm for a cap and calling it a day.. The huge problem here is that unless you have a calibrated cap for each mic and you can "unscrew" the diaphragm from the preamp, Not always the case then how can you do a real noise measurement in a nonanabolic environment?

Chris
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline scottwu

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2007, 10:59:00 PM »
Chris,

No disrespect intended to you at all but the physics of microphones has been dealt with extensively in the literature. B&K in particular covers the substitution of real capacitance for diaphragm capacitance in noise measurements. This is not rocket science, but as another poster suggested simply converting mV/Pa to nV/Root-Hertz is so far beyond  the average consumers grasp that hardcore technical discussions are hopelessly over the heads of just about anyone in earshot.

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 #51 on: October 23, 2007, 01:06:26 AM »
Chris,

No disrespect intended to you at all but the physics of microphones has been dealt with extensively in the literature. B&K in particular covers the substitution of real capacitance for diaphragm capacitance in noise measurements. This is not rocket science, but as another poster suggested simply converting mV/Pa to nV/Root-Hertz is so far beyond  the average consumers grasp that hardcore technical discussions are hopelessly over the heads of just about anyone in earshot.

Its ok. I dont think you get my point.. When you have a known mic with a known capacitance. You can substitute it. But when your testing a ECM 8000 how do you know what the capacitance of the diaphragm is so how can you do an accurate noise measurement? You cant.. The test setup works for B&K mics because they know what the capacitance of the diaphragm is.. But when your just a small little lab its very hard to do these measurements with any kind of accuracy.

That was my point. So some of the easy tests to do would be an anechoic chamber or a vacuum.

for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline John Willett

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Gender: Male
  • Bio:
    • Sound-Link ProAudio
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2007, 12:17:19 PM »
Possibly a dumb question, but does the frequency response of a mic have any impact on the self-noise? The reason I ask is I've been looking at the Sennheiser ME66 and MKH416. The according to the specs the 416 has a 3dB higher noise floor, but the ME66 has a significant LF roll off below something like 650-750Hz whereas the 416 is flat down to about 150Hz, so I was wondering if the earlier LF roll off flatters the ME66 in terms of self-noise .

The ME66 is a semi-pro gun mic. and is very good for wildlife recording.

The slightly drooping bass end will help to minimise wind noise.

For Wildlife recording you may find the website of the Wildlife Sound Recording Society useful.

Offline digifish_music

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
    • digifish music
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #53 on: October 29, 2007, 08:06:57 PM »
I've been getting good results with AT-3032 omni's. The members of the naturerecordists group have found they have significantly lower self noise than manufacturers specs.

Cheers
Paul

I just bought a pair, looking forward to experimenting ... so I excitedly tell my wife about them and she looks up from her book and said 'that's nice dear' and goes back to reading :)
- What's this knob do?

Offline analoghell

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25

Offline digifish_music

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
    • digifish music
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #55 on: October 29, 2007, 10:06:55 PM »
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
- 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 #56 on: October 29, 2007, 10:29:53 PM »
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...
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 #57 on: October 29, 2007, 10:32:37 PM »

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
- 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 #58 on: October 30, 2007, 01:45:32 AM »

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
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline spzkt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Mic Suggestions for nature work - Low Noise, < $1000 USD.
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2007, 05:27:39 AM »
I just bought a pair, looking forward to experimenting ... so I excitedly tell my wife about them and she looks up from her book and said 'that's nice dear' and goes back to reading :)

why do they always do that??  ::)

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 40 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF