On 2017-06-24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
... In that scenario, the TetraMic recording was definitely
noisier, purely due to the additional gain required.
That doesn't make much sense.
I think as much as well.
Noise level (relative to signal) shouldn't increase with gain.
At least when noise level is well defined...
The Tetramic capsules have an acoustic noise level of 19 dB(A), and
sensitivity is 7 mV/Pa. [...]
Enda didn't quantify what s/he meant by "noise" too well. You talk about
A-weighted measurables, then, while Enda probably talked about program
level overall noise and distortion, or something like that.
Could it be that you're just talking about different perceptual
weightings? I mean, if we talk about noise, there we shouldn't ever go
with A-weighting, or even C-weighting, but the ITU 468 curve. The one
which peaks as fuck between 2-6kHz, and explains how things like Dolby B
and C sliding band companders work so well; the one which also fails to
explain the loudness of impulsive, nonstationary, nonlinear noise, yet.
I mean, the perceptual cognates of lower quality in this test appeared
to be in precisely that frequency range.
That means the electrical noise level is -116 dBm(A). If the EIN of
the preamp is say 6 dB or more better then most of the noise comes
from the mic. So with an EIN of -122 dBm(A) you should be safe, and I
wouldn't call that 'high end'.
I'd call that just "sane engineering for a sane gain structure".
The specs for the Motu 8m don't even mention EIN (which isn't a good
sign). The 'dynamic range' figure of 112 dB can mean all sorts of
things and is pretty useless.
Precisely.
Funnily enough, I'm about to buy meself four speakers right about now.
For the first time. So that I could finally, eventually, at least do
some pantophonics for myself before I *die*. Compose for at least a
simple setup of four identical floor standing speakers, and whatnot; for
the very minimum of proper spatial reproductive rigs.
It's then amazingly difficult to get a rig amenable to the job. At my
rather low price point, it's almost impossible to get any numbers on how
your tentative loudspeakers behave. Pretty much no speaker manufacturer
wants to publish even such basic measures as impedance curves at
contact, driver thermal constants/dynamic compression time constants,
polar response plots, waterfall plots, crossover frequencies, phase
plots, and the thing.
Undoubtedly it's more complicated on the speaker side. But the
difficulty is manifest on the mic side as well: all of the measurables
dual to those of a speaker can in fact sometimes affect the performance
of a mic, and then even there they don't just tell you outright what
those measurables *are*. Then because of the unknowns, you might well
end up paying several thousands of euros extra, for nothing at all. Even
at the high end, which people here talk about... :/
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
account or options, view archives and so on.
