Audio dilemma: no noise vs no quality

A. J. deLange · July 2nd, 2008, 05:19 PM

The Crystal Partners website is kind of interesting. In their how-to video (which has terrible sound and a MIDI version of America the Beautiful playing over and over and over again beneath it) they claim that baseball broadcasts employ 6 of their Big Ears and a couple of the small ones. They don't say anything about equalization but the units do come with a preamp which could have the equalization built in as there are a couple of "clarity" controls mentioned but not really described.

I also thought about the wind screening question. The dish itself might give good shielding if it were pointed down or cross wind and perhaps even up wind as the mic element is inches from the back of the dish where the air is going to be stagnant. OTOH any "squirrel" that works on the mic in free space ought to work on it when it is at the focus. The more interesting question (assuming the mic itself cab be shielded) has to do with the spectral distribution of wind sound energy in the ambient (i.e. rushing through trees, around buildings etc.) vis a vis the gain of the parabola with frequency. This would be really interesting to experiment with but at the price I think I leave that to someone else.

Jeff Kellam · July 3rd, 2008, 01:38 PM

Im a newbie, but to me the OPs thinking "Buy an expensive mic (like a Senheiser M66)" dosen't sound right. We pay $3K to $9K for a camera and then think a $500 mic is expensive? It seems entry level to me. Of course my wife thinks Im completely crazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Beisner

What's he supposed to do, capture the birds and bring them into the studio to mic 'em? Haha!

Im thinking more along the lines of only film on calm days. That should allow at least a weeks worth of shooting per year.[sarcasm off]

Steve Siegel · July 3rd, 2008, 07:57 PM

Can I ask another question here? I am totally clueless about this. My XLH1 supplies +48 V phantom power and accepts an XLR cable. The Sennheiser ME66/67 ($400+ at B&H) includes a phantom power supply which accounts for well over half the price. The capsule itself must screw into the the power supply and has no XLR connector (which is in the power supply).
The Audio Technica AT875 ($200 at B & H) apparently has XLR connectivity of itself, without a separate phantom power unit. Am I missing something here? Why not just plug in a $200 Audio Technica instead of a $400 Sennheiser with its extra power supply. Does the Audio Technica need some extra part that I am not understanding? Price is key here, I'm sure that any of these will give the extra audio quality over the XLH1's built in that I need.

Thanks again, guys.

Ty Ford · July 3rd, 2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Siegel

Can I ask another question here? I am totally clueless about this. My XLH1 supplies +48 V phantom power and accepts an XLR cable. The Sennheiser ME66/67 ($400+ at B&H) includes a phantom power supply which accounts for well over half the price. The capsule itself must screw into the the power supply and has no XLR connector (which is in the power supply).
The Audio Technica AT875 ($200 at B & H) apparently has XLR connectivity of itself, without a separate phantom power unit. Am I missing something here? Why not just plug in a $200 Audio Technica instead of a $400 Sennheiser with its extra power supply. Does the Audio Technica need some extra part that I am not understanding? Price is key here, I'm sure that any of these will give the extra audio quality over the XLH1's built in that I need.

Thanks again, guys.

No Steve. You pretty much have it. There is s big spectrum of mic prices. Some are modular and have a power module and different capsules. Some are complete and can't be taken apart. Almost any separate mic will sound better than a built in mic, but the there is a very wide quality spectrum for these mics.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Chris Soucy · July 3rd, 2008, 08:54 PM

The Sennheiser K6 battery/ amp*/ connector module is sold seperately to the microphone and is necessary to make the mic's work.

However, you only need one K6 to run all ME (and some others) series mic's, so in theory, if you only need one ME series mic out of a collection (I've a 64/ 66 & 67) you could get away with buying only one K6.

As I'm a lazy sod I actually bought 3.

Don't know anything about the AT so can't shed any light on it.

The 66/ 67's are great for bird sounds, tho' I prefer the 67 for it's greater forward selectivity.

Mind you, a 67 in full Rycote zeppelin and outer dead cat, with an attached transmitter on a 2 metre boom arm atop a 2 metre mic stand is SOME BIT OF GEAR!

CS

PS: * Just in case some WA queries this, the K6 has a 0 db throughput, despite having a switchable low pass filter AND transformerless balanced outputs. Can't see how that happens without some electronics in the signal path, ergo, an amp.

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser...nsf/root/03279

Steve Siegel · July 4th, 2008, 07:46 AM

All of these posts have really helped me to understand some basics about these mics. Thanks. I have noticed one thing especially in looking and listening, and wonder of others have heard the same thing. In a couple of the sites where mics are actually tested:

http://www.dvcreators.net/shotgun-shootout/#

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage..._brockett.html

the Audio Technica products seem to have noticably more background hiss than the others.
Is that a generally recognised phenomenon?

Ty Ford · July 4th, 2008, 09:17 AM

Hi Steve,

The Audio-Technica 4073a has a kick like a mule and while sensitivity and selfnoise are, in fact, separate issues that, in addition to the headroom of the circuitry in the mic, combine to yield the final S/N, no practical information exists to sugggest that AT mics are noisier.

I have heard other mics that are a lot noisier than AT mics. I review mics for a living, so I'm pretty tuned in to that sort of thing. To the dismay of some manufacturers. I test for selfnoise in the quiet of the studio. Some say that's unfair because shotgun mics are seldom used there and any selfnoise will be covered by the ambinet noise in a "real environment."

While that's true, you may find yourself in a quiet location or with a quiet sound source that requires that you pump up the gain to get a good level. The more you do that, the more selfnoise you hear.

The capsule of a condenser mic has a very high impedance. Too high for a mic level input. A circuit in the mic converts the impedance to a lower figure that's more friendly to a mic preamp input. Among condenser mics with the same diaphragm diameters, cheaper mics are usually noisier because cheaper parts are used in the impedance converting circuitry.

That shows up even within one manufacturer. If you look at (or listen to) a Sennheiser 66/67 and compare it to an MKH 416 or 60, you'll notice a difference. Pretty much same capsule diameter, different prices, different noise figures.

The 66/67 are frequently found in schools that teach location sound as part of a film study course. Students sometimes mistakenly think they are better than they are because that's the mic they have been given to use and they haven't heard better.

Circumstances don't always present themselves to allow for direct comparisons. Even if they did, the compromises of low quality mixers and camera audio inputs MAY well make the difference less dramatic. I've "been there, done that."

Great mics with great preamps do make a profound difference; especially when used to best advantage.

Regards,

Ty Ford

July 3rd, 2008, 08:54 PM	#20
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,691 Images: 18	Hi Steve........... The Sennheiser K6 battery/ amp/ connector module is sold seperately to the microphone and is necessary to make the mic's work. However, you only need one K6 to run all ME (and some others) series mic's, so in theory, if you only need one ME series mic out of a collection (I've a 64/ 66 & 67) you could get away with buying only one K6. As I'm a lazy sod I actually bought 3. Don't know anything about the AT so can't shed any light on it. The 66/ 67's are great for bird sounds, tho' I prefer the 67 for it's greater forward selectivity. Mind you, a 67 in full Rycote zeppelin and outer dead cat, with an attached transmitter on a 2 metre boom arm atop a 2 metre mic stand is SOME BIT OF GEAR! CS PS: Just in case some WA queries this, the K6 has a 0 db throughput, despite having a switchable low pass filter AND transformerless balanced outputs. Can't see how that happens without some electronics in the signal path, ergo, an amp. http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser...nsf/root/03279 Last edited by Chris Soucy; July 4th, 2008 at 12:24 AM. Reason: +

July 4th, 2008, 09:17 AM	#22
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Hi Steve, The Audio-Technica 4073a has a kick like a mule and while sensitivity and selfnoise are, in fact, separate issues that, in addition to the headroom of the circuitry in the mic, combine to yield the final S/N, no practical information exists to sugggest that AT mics are noisier. I have heard other mics that are a lot noisier than AT mics. I review mics for a living, so I'm pretty tuned in to that sort of thing. To the dismay of some manufacturers. I test for selfnoise in the quiet of the studio. Some say that's unfair because shotgun mics are seldom used there and any selfnoise will be covered by the ambinet noise in a "real environment." While that's true, you may find yourself in a quiet location or with a quiet sound source that requires that you pump up the gain to get a good level. The more you do that, the more selfnoise you hear. The capsule of a condenser mic has a very high impedance. Too high for a mic level input. A circuit in the mic converts the impedance to a lower figure that's more friendly to a mic preamp input. Among condenser mics with the same diaphragm diameters, cheaper mics are usually noisier because cheaper parts are used in the impedance converting circuitry. That shows up even within one manufacturer. If you look at (or listen to) a Sennheiser 66/67 and compare it to an MKH 416 or 60, you'll notice a difference. Pretty much same capsule diameter, different prices, different noise figures. The 66/67 are frequently found in schools that teach location sound as part of a film study course. Students sometimes mistakenly think they are better than they are because that's the mic they have been given to use and they haven't heard better. Circumstances don't always present themselves to allow for direct comparisons. Even if they did, the compromises of low quality mixers and camera audio inputs MAY well make the difference less dramatic. I've "been there, done that." Great mics with great preamps do make a profound difference; especially when used to best advantage. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

July 2nd, 2008, 05:19 PM	#16
A. J. deLange Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: McLean, VA United States Posts: 749	The Crystal Partners website is kind of interesting. In their how-to video (which has terrible sound and a MIDI version of America the Beautiful playing over and over and over again beneath it) they claim that baseball broadcasts employ 6 of their Big Ears and a couple of the small ones. They don't say anything about equalization but the units do come with a preamp which could have the equalization built in as there are a couple of "clarity" controls mentioned but not really described. I also thought about the wind screening question. The dish itself might give good shielding if it were pointed down or cross wind and perhaps even up wind as the mic element is inches from the back of the dish where the air is going to be stagnant. OTOH any "squirrel" that works on the mic in free space ought to work on it when it is at the focus. The more interesting question (assuming the mic itself cab be shielded) has to do with the spectral distribution of wind sound energy in the ambient (i.e. rushing through trees, around buildings etc.) vis a vis the gain of the parabola with frequency. This would be really interesting to experiment with but at the price I think I leave that to someone else.

July 3rd, 2008, 07:57 PM	#18
Steve Siegel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Posts: 840	Can I ask another question here? I am totally clueless about this. My XLH1 supplies +48 V phantom power and accepts an XLR cable. The Sennheiser ME66/67 ($400+ at B&H) includes a phantom power supply which accounts for well over half the price. The capsule itself must screw into the the power supply and has no XLR connector (which is in the power supply). The Audio Technica AT875 ($200 at B & H) apparently has XLR connectivity of itself, without a separate phantom power unit. Am I missing something here? Why not just plug in a $200 Audio Technica instead of a $400 Sennheiser with its extra power supply. Does the Audio Technica need some extra part that I am not understanding? Price is key here, I'm sure that any of these will give the extra audio quality over the XLH1's built in that I need. Thanks again, guys.

July 4th, 2008, 07:46 AM	#21
Steve Siegel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Posts: 840	All of these posts have really helped me to understand some basics about these mics. Thanks. I have noticed one thing especially in looking and listening, and wonder of others have heard the same thing. In a couple of the sites where mics are actually tested: http://www.dvcreators.net/shotgun-shootout/# http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage..._brockett.html the Audio Technica products seem to have noticably more background hiss than the others. Is that a generally recognised phenomenon?