Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About borjam

  • Rank
    Hero Member

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
  • About
    Bilbaina Jazz Club

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not to talk about the huge privacy problems. However be careful what you wish for
  2. Yes, attenuators are really useful tools. I missed that feature. Touché!
  3. Sorry I wasn't explicit enough. It would help you explain apparently paranormal phenomena like interference even to wired microphones. Also, depending on what wireless equipment you are using you may have overload issues in the presence of strong off frequency signals.
  4. True, and guaranteed compatibility with Vantage, the spectrum analyzer software. By the way, I always recommend buying the input limiter/6 dB attenuator unit they sell. Otherwise strong RF might damage the input stage.
  5. Inexpensive and quite effective: RF Explorer. https://www.gothamsound.com/search?result=rf explorer Although the 6G combo model is overkill for users of wireless microphones. I would rather recommend the much cheaper WSUB1G model which covers the 240 MHz to 960 MHz range, or even the ISM Combo (240 MHz - 960 MHz plus an additional 2350 MHz to 2550 MHz to hunt for rogue 2.4 GHz stuff). The WSUB1G+ (note the plus sign) has a downwards extended frequency response reaching 50 KHz, which can help locate troublesome VHF or even HF/LF signals. The latter can have hefty transmission powers.
  6. You would be amazed at the experiments being made with contact microphones, though. There is a new unchartered territory being explored by wildlife recordists and sound designers now. Moreover it's inexpensive to explore, JRF's contact microphones and hydrophones are not expensive at all. That said, you can hear curious and wrong theories. Some time ago I heard a recording of curious underwater sounds recorded with a hydrophone and someone suggested it might be "photosynthesis" (like the tiny bubbles that you can sometimes see on the surface of aquatic plants, bursting). It didn't make sense because the crackles were periodic. Most likely it was some underwater insect.
  7. I was about to mention the excellent David Attenborough's "Life of Plants" which showed actual behaviors by using accelerated takes. Maybe with contact microphones it would be possible to achieve some results? However, the NY Times article is quite confusing and certainly lacks rigor. This paragraph triggered my alarm: Sound has also influenced interactions between plants and animals. For instance, only the vibrating buzz of a particular bee will trigger some plants to release pollen. Pitcher plants even create their own bat call to attract bats. And indeed, following the link, one can see that a pitcher plant has evolved to reflect the calls of bats, but it doesn't produce any sound by itself. The evolution of such a device is impressive enough, of course. That said, I have a plant at home that can make real noises. If you skip a watering or two its stems will tend to get flaccid. If that happens, when watered the stems can stiffen in a matter of an hour or so. If a leaf gets entangled with another one while the stems were flaccid, the increasing stiffness can make it get released like a spring, actually making noise. But of course it's not a noise making mechanism, but an accidental effect.
  8. I understand that the Deity S Mic 2 is not RF biased but a conventional DC biased design. https://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2018/09/deity-s-mic-2-shotgun-microphone-third.html Rode has two RF biased models, however: NTG-3 and NTG-8.
  9. Comparable to the AKG ULS Series (11 dBA, but with 3 dB less sensitivity). Anyway, I guess that the only way to compare to a Shoeps or a DPA is to go and record an actual orchestra. Off axis response variations will make the biggest difference.
  10. I forgot, the test was especially evil. I connected the Rode NTG8 to channel 3 while channels 1 and 2 (muted) had unterminated 3 m cables connected. Despite being muted the cables could have conducted interference. Seems that the MixPre is a real "RF bunker".
  11. So I was wrong about the ARM processor (although I guess that will eventually happen!). As for the machine it's real overkill for most. My live jazz recordings use less than 16 tracks and of course I don't work with virtual instruments. A friend who composes soundtracks for movies and commercials will love it, though.
  12. I'll try the digital HT this evening anyway. Given that it transmits TDM pulses instead of a continuous FM modulated carrier it should be nastier. It's 2.5 W, not 5 W, on the same band as the analog one I tried (440 MHz).
  13. I tried. I didn't have the digital handheld here (which uses time division digital transmission, which makes it nastier, as LarryF explained). But I have tried with a 5 W FM handheld a few cm away from the recorder. Just pressing the transmission button (PTT) repeteadly I could hear some interference using an AKG Blue Line (CK93 capsule). However, I switched to a microphone with a good RF rejection (Rode NTG8(*), I read somewhere that it is really well protected)) and it withstood it without any problems. Not even maxing out the gain I could hear any kind of interference. Being a RF biased microphone it might be more susceptible to that. Of course I tried an iPhone running a speed test to my local network (it was transmitting like 250 Mbps) and nothing came out either. If the MixPre 3 has resisted 5 W with the antenna almost touching the unit, also close to the cable and microphone (the cable is a 1 m long thin star-quad from Canare) I really doubt that a transmitter such as the Deity Connect receiver can affect it. But it may depend on the microphone. If the microphone cable somewhat conducted interference to the microphone I am pretty sure that a ferrite core or two should help. I can try with the HF transmitter but of course I won't get so close, if I touch the loop antenna by accident while transmitting I can get a painful shock. Anyway, 5 W so close to the unit is a real torture (*) Nice mic, I am using it to try and record some birds. Although the strong metal tube used for transportation could get me arrested if I tried to board a plane with it.
  14. It depends on the application. Of course, in music applications microphones are usually close to a loud source. Except, for example, when recording an orchestra with distant miking techniques. In that case microphone self noise matters. And for applications in which microphone self noise is a limiting factor like some fx recordings, foley, or soundscapes, it matters. That's why the Rode NT-1A is popular for such kind of applications. I would rather say than the limiting noise problem is application *and* location based. For many applications equipment self noise doesn't matter. But for others it can be really noticeable. For example, at the jazz club I can't even think about self noise. My real concern is the bleed of a drum kit 60 cm away from a piano 😓 and a double bass with the microphone right below a cymbal. I must even engage the attenuators on the microphones.
  • Create New...