Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Comparing mic noise

I have a pair of mics that claim Equivalent Noise Level of 5dB-A.
Another mic claims 70dB Signal to noise ratio. How can I compare
the noisiness of the two mics?


Thanks,

Tobiah
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Comparing mic noise

In article , Tobiah wrote:
I have a pair of mics that claim Equivalent Noise Level of 5dB-A.
Another mic claims 70dB Signal to noise ratio. How can I compare
the noisiness of the two mics?


You cannot. The first number is actually a measurement of noise floor,
but because it's A-weighted it's going to ignore all the low frequency
noise (and that's primarily what you're going to have in a condenser
microphone).

The second number isn't a measurement of noise floor at all, but is a
measurement of the _difference_ between the noise floor and the overload
point at some unknown frequency.

Neither one of these measurements is measuring what you want to know.
They are measuring two different things, neither of which is what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Comparing mic noise

On 7/13/2017 6:28 PM, Tobiah wrote:
I have a pair of mics that claim Equivalent Noise Level of 5dB-A.
Another mic claims 70dB Signal to noise ratio. How can I compare
the noisiness of the two mics?


Hook them up to two channels of a preamp, bundle them up in a pile of
pillows, put them in a quiet place, then listen to them. If you want to
be studious about it, record the noise and look at it with a spectrum
analyzer program. If you're going to do that, be sure to check the noise
of the preamp first, with its input terminated with a nice quiet 150 ohm
resistor.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Comparing mic noise

On 7/13/17 4:07 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Tobiah wrote:
I have a pair of mics that claim Equivalent Noise Level of 5dB-A.
Another mic claims 70dB Signal to noise ratio. How can I compare
the noisiness of the two mics?


You cannot. The first number is actually a measurement of noise floor,
but because it's A-weighted it's going to ignore all the low frequency
noise (and that's primarily what you're going to have in a condenser
microphone).

The second number isn't a measurement of noise floor at all, but is a
measurement of the _difference_ between the noise floor and the overload
point at some unknown frequency.

Neither one of these measurements is measuring what you want to know.
They are measuring two different things, neither of which is what you want.
--scott




Still, couldn't an experienced individual give me some idea, given these
incompatible statistics, what level of noise I might notice from one to
the other.

The one pair is Rode NT1-A, and the other is an Audio-Technica AT8010.

I don't yet have the AT8010. I was just considering it. I'm trying to
find any omni condenser that has a noise floor that is as close as I can
get to the NT1-A's. Any other suggestions?

Thanks,

Tobiah
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Comparing mic noise

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-4, Tobiah wrote:
On 7/13/17 4:07 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Tobiah wrote:
I have a pair of mics that claim Equivalent Noise Level of 5dB-A.
Another mic claims 70dB Signal to noise ratio. How can I compare
the noisiness of the two mics?


You cannot. The first number is actually a measurement of noise floor,
but because it's A-weighted it's going to ignore all the low frequency
noise (and that's primarily what you're going to have in a condenser
microphone).

The second number isn't a measurement of noise floor at all, but is a
measurement of the _difference_ between the noise floor and the overload
point at some unknown frequency.

Neither one of these measurements is measuring what you want to know.
They are measuring two different things, neither of which is what you want.
--scott




Still, couldn't an experienced individual give me some idea, given these
incompatible statistics, what level of noise I might notice from one to
the other.

The one pair is Rode NT1-A, and the other is an Audio-Technica AT8010.

I don't yet have the AT8010. I was just considering it. I'm trying to
find any omni condenser that has a noise floor that is as close as I can
get to the NT1-A's. Any other suggestions?

Thanks,

Tobiah


May I ask, why are you concerned with "noise"? I've listened to recordings from Pros and I hear magnetic tape and improper EMI shielding being the two MAJOR problems, not the microphones.

Jack


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Comparing mic noise

On 7/13/2017 7:40 PM, Tobiah wrote:
Still, couldn't an experienced individual give me some idea, given these
incompatible statistics, what level of noise I might notice from one to
the other.

The one pair is Rode NT1-A, and the other is an Audio-Technica AT8010.

I don't yet have the AT8010.


Oh, so you want to compare them based on published information, not
actual performance. You should read my series about specifications
published in Recording. The gist of the introduction is that
manufacturers measure products any way they want to, and publish numbers
that they think will look good to the customer even though they're
relatively meaningless out of their own context. Neither of those
specifications can tell you how many milivolts of noise you get out of
the microphone when there's there's no sound going into it.

What you want is a specification that says something like "Self-noise:
-72 dBu (or 0.2 mV). But that's too simple and honest.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Comparing mic noise

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
What you want is a specification that says something like "Self-noise:
-72 dBu (or 0.2 mV). But that's too simple and honest.


There is in fact a push on the part of the AES standards committee SC-04-04
to actually create such a specification with a standard measurement method
that would allow consistency between vendors. AT is one of those vendors,
and their microphones among others were passed around the group comparing
measurements.

So, it IS possible that someday soon we'll have a standardized method that
can be used for comparison.

In the meantime, if you want a quiet mike, try the MKH-20.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Comparing mic noise

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:45:31 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 7/13/2017 7:40 PM, Tobiah wrote:
Still, couldn't an experienced individual give me some idea, given these
incompatible statistics, what level of noise I might notice from one to
the other.

The one pair is Rode NT1-A, and the other is an Audio-Technica AT8010.

I don't yet have the AT8010.


Oh, so you want to compare them based on published information, not
actual performance. You should read my series about specifications
published in Recording. The gist of the introduction is that
manufacturers measure products any way they want to, and publish numbers
that they think will look good to the customer even though they're
relatively meaningless out of their own context. Neither of those
specifications can tell you how many milivolts of noise you get out of
the microphone when there's there's no sound going into it.

What you want is a specification that says something like "Self-noise:
-72 dBu (or 0.2 mV). But that's too simple and honest.


That isn't what you want either. The 5dBA figure is much more valuable
than a simple level with no sensitivity reference to compare it to.

What I do know is that it is a long time since mic noise was actually
an issue. Noisy preamps like RNP are much more where the problem lies.
I use an NT1-A and I can confirm that it is an extremely quiet mic.
What noise it is, as Scott says, is at the bottom end, and most
situations where you need the low noise figure are going to be ones
where you are in any case going to roll the bottom end back because
you are up close.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Comparing mic noise

Tobiah wrote:



Still, couldn't an experienced individual give me some idea, given these
incompatible statistics, what level of noise I might notice from one to
the other.

The one pair is Rode NT1-A, and the other is an Audio-Technica AT8010.


** The AT8010 has a noise spec of " 70dB, 1kHz at 1 Pa"

1 Pascal = 94dB SPL.

So the self noise of the AT is 24dB at 1kHz.

Pretty poor, even for an electret mic.



...... Phil
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default Comparing mic noise

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:45:31 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

....
What you want is a specification that says something like "Self-noise:
-72 dBu (or 0.2 mV). But that's too simple and honest.


That isn't what you want either. The 5dBA figure is much more valuable
than a simple level with no sensitivity reference to compare it to.


Perhaps a figure for the equivalent noise in dBC, so it takes account of
the L.F. noise too?


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Comparing mic noise

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

---------------------

That isn't what you want either. The 5dBA figure is much more valuable
than a simple level with no sensitivity reference to compare it to.


Perhaps a figure for the equivalent noise in dBC, so it takes account of
the L.F. noise too?



** The ear is very insensitive to low frequencies at low SPLs - so using the A curve is appropriate for condenser mic self noise when used for general music and speech applications.

Dynamic mics have self noise that increases steadily as the frequency rises, cos it is white noise - very different to the pink or red like noise externally polarised condenser mics generate.


..... Phil


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Comparing mic noise

On 14/07/2017 6:14 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:45:31 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

...
What you want is a specification that says something like "Self-noise:
-72 dBu (or 0.2 mV). But that's too simple and honest.


That isn't what you want either. The 5dBA figure is much more valuable
than a simple level with no sensitivity reference to compare it to.


Perhaps a figure for the equivalent noise in dBC, so it takes account of
the L.F. noise too?


Far better an unweighted figure and a spectral plot.

Trevor.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Comparing mic noise

Don Pearce wrote:
What I do know is that it is a long time since mic noise was actually
an issue. Noisy preamps like RNP are much more where the problem lies.
I use an NT1-A and I can confirm that it is an extremely quiet mic.
What noise it is, as Scott says, is at the bottom end, and most
situations where you need the low noise figure are going to be ones
where you are in any case going to roll the bottom end back because
you are up close.


For the most part this is true.

But someday you're going to need to record a clavichord in a quiet room,
and then you're going to be glad as hell that the MKH-20 exists.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Comparing mic noise

In the meantime, if you want a quiet mike, try the MKH-20.
--scott


For too expensive for me. The AT I was looking at was $100. Any
other suggestions for a quiet omni for less, maybe 2-3 hundred?

Thanks


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Comparing mic noise

On 7/14/2017 11:11 AM, Tobiah wrote:

other suggestions for a quiet omni for less, maybe 2-3 hundred?


"quiet omni" isn't very descriptive. What are you recording, with what
preamp, and what's the setup? Are we talking Foley quiet here? Qrchestra
in a concert hall quiet? Or the beehive in your back yard?


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Comparing mic noise

In article , Tobiah wrote:
In the meantime, if you want a quiet mike, try the MKH-20.


For too expensive for me. The AT I was looking at was $100. Any
other suggestions for a quiet omni for less, maybe 2-3 hundred?


A used AT 4049.

The problem is that most of your choices in that price range are going to
wind up using capsules with cheap integral fets.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Comparing mic noise

On 07/14/2017 10:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Tobiah wrote:
In the meantime, if you want a quiet mike, try the MKH-20.


For too expensive for me. The AT I was looking at was $100. Any
other suggestions for a quiet omni for less, maybe 2-3 hundred?


A used AT 4049.

The problem is that most of your choices in that price range are going to
wind up using capsules with cheap integral fets.
--scott


I see a 4049a and 4049b.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Comparing mic noise

In article , Tobiah wrote:
On 07/14/2017 10:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Tobiah wrote:
In the meantime, if you want a quiet mike, try the MKH-20.

For too expensive for me. The AT I was looking at was $100. Any
other suggestions for a quiet omni for less, maybe 2-3 hundred?


A used AT 4049.

The problem is that most of your choices in that price range are going to
wind up using capsules with cheap integral fets.


I see a 4049a and 4049b.


The first was discontinued in favor of the second. I don't know how
different the noise floor is but they are very close to the same mike and
either one would be fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Comparing mic noise

On 07/14/2017 11:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Tobiah wrote:
On 07/14/2017 10:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Tobiah wrote:
In the meantime, if you want a quiet mike, try the MKH-20.

For too expensive for me. The AT I was looking at was $100. Any
other suggestions for a quiet omni for less, maybe 2-3 hundred?

A used AT 4049.

The problem is that most of your choices in that price range are going to
wind up using capsules with cheap integral fets.


I see a 4049a and 4049b.


The first was discontinued in favor of the second. I don't know how
different the noise floor is but they are very close to the same mike and
either one would be fine.
--scott


How about the AT8010. I can get one for a better price.


Toby


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Comparing mic noise

Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge writes:
But someday you're going to need to record a clavichord in a quiet room,
and then you're going to be glad as hell that the MKH-20 exists.


It is very quiet, but I find it has this strange mid-range wobble that
is quite hard to eq away.


Yes, you don't get something for nothing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Comparing mic noise

In article , Tobiah wrote:
How about the AT8010. I can get one for a better price.


Never used one or had one on the bench so I can't say.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing, [email protected] Pro Audio 6 October 27th 08 10:12 PM
Comparing differences Per Stromgren Tech 0 November 9th 04 10:06 PM
comparing mixes etc. Jasper Pro Audio 0 June 23rd 04 09:34 AM
comparing mixes etc. Jasper Pro Audio 0 June 23rd 04 09:34 AM
bit for bit file comparing utility mr c deckard Pro Audio 10 November 27th 03 02:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"