Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

IME it is not difficult to find mic preamps and converters that are quiet
enough that they don't materially add to the noise coming out of a typical
capacitor microphone.

These days certainly not a problem whatever.

In fact, taking that TLM103 example, with +13dBu ? max out, it may not even need
any preamp at all to connect it to a converter if intending to use it at high
SPLs.

Graham

"Eeysore the ****ing LIAR"
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing data on the noise performance of studio mics
and preamps, etc.

Neumann TLM103. Equivalent noise floor of 7dBA

** The CCIR "equivalent noise level " figure is 17.5 dB.

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c...id=tlm103_data


** However - the s/n ratio quoted is mere ** 76.5 dB ** CCIR relative to a
SPL of 94 dB.

94 dB SPL is about the max level of a singing voice at 50 cm and is rather
more than the level from an acoustic guitar at that same distance.




....... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore the ****ing LIAR"
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing data on the noise performance of studio mics
and preamps, etc.

Neumann TLM103. Equivalent noise floor of 7dBA

** The CCIR "equivalent noise level " figure is 17.5 dB.

Unweighted of course.

Do you think unweighted measurements are relevant when close to the auditory
theshold ? I'd have thought they might actually OVER estimate them.

As usual, you're simply being an ass.

Now bugger off.

Graham

" Graham Stevenson the ****ing LIAR and ****ING INSANE over snipper "

Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing data on the noise performance of studio
mics
and preamps, etc.

Neumann TLM103. Equivalent noise floor of 7dBA

** The CCIR "equivalent noise level " figure is 17.5 dB.

** Replacing the snipped link.

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c...id=tlm103_data


Unweighted of course.


** Absolutely not true !!!!!!!!!!!

Read your *OWN* damn link !!!

You lying, ASD ****ed, criminal pommy **** !!


The CCIR 468-3 weighing curve is nothing like flat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITU-R_468_noise_weighting

It flatters condenser mics by removing the majority of their LF noise
utput - more so than A weighting does.





...... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

It flatters condenser mics by removing the majority of their LF noise
utput - more so than A weighting does.

Ever heard of the Fletcher-Munson curve ?

Just how sensitive do you think YOUR ear is to LF at 7dB ?

Ler me answer that for you. It'd below threshold, i.e. irrelevant.

Graham

" Graham Stevenson the ASD ****ed LIAR and

****ING INSANE OVER SNIPPER !!!!!!!!!!!!! "


Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing data on the noise performance of studio
mics and preamps, etc.

Neumann TLM103. Equivalent noise floor of 7dBA

** The CCIR "equivalent noise level " figure is 17.5 dB.

** Replacing the snipped link.

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c...id=tlm103_data

Unweighted of course.


** Absolutely not true !!!!!!!!!!!

Read your *OWN* damn link !!!

You lying, ASD ****ed, criminal pommy **** !!


The CCIR 468-3 weighing curve is nothing like flat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITU-R_468_noise_weighting

It flatters condenser mics by removing the majority of their LF noise
output - more so than A weighting does.




...... Phil

"Eeysore"


** Graham Stevenson has Asperger's syndrome PLUS narcissistic personality
disorder .

THAT's why the steaming, great pommy ****wit sounds so awful !




....... Phil

"Don Pearce"


Can you imagine the phase response and group delay of an analogue filter
that steep?


** One WOULD have to *imagine* it - cos it certainly ain't audible on
music or speech.

You need to go look up the BBC and Philips / Sony research on the
detectability of audio bandwidth limiting. They did extensive "double
blind' testing of the audibility of such brick wall filters.

Real engineers rely only on facts and evidence - not personal hunches and
naive hypotheses.

Only the mentally defective, self aggrandising charlatans and assorted
****wits like Stevenson and YOU do that.



...... Phil

Eeyore wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

The noise floor of a well-made recording is on the order of 75-80 dB.
Have you gone completely MAD ?

I can beat you by easily 50dB.
Do you do all your recording in an anechoic chamber then?
What do you think the noise floor of a competently designed studio is ?
I think Arny meant S/N ratio rather than noise floor.

I sense evasion here.


A decent studio will be somewhere around the 20dB mark.

Not in my book.


It is the exceptional studio that is much below that, and you won't find it
in a city.

Yes you can when it's really good and it'll be 10-12 dBA. Not all parts of
cities are that noisy and it's amazing what clever construction methods can
do.

The biggest problem is keeping the noise of the air conditioning down
actually.

Graham


If you are measuring in dBa then sure, no problem. Most of the residual
SPL is structure-borne LF stuff that is seriously expensive to eliminate.

d

"John Phillips"

While such an extreme phase respose offends my engineering sensibilities
I still have not found credible references to tell me about the audibility
of phase shifts. If anyone knows of such material I would be interested.


** The only places you will find it is in professional journals published
decades ago.

Wireless World carried a few articles on the topic of the detectability
audio band brick wall filters in relation to digital audio in the late 70s
and early 80s. Firstly in regard to the BBC's 13 bit FM broadcast signal
distribution system and later in relation to the CD audio standard.

FM stereo broadcasts contain a brick wall filters at 15 kHz and CD has
shifted that up to circa 20 kHz.


...... Phil