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.)