[HN Gopher] Microphone Input Noise Comparison
___________________________________________________________________
Microphone Input Noise Comparison
Author : walterbell
Score : 56 points
Date : 2025-04-06 16:23 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (avisoft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (avisoft.com)
| MrJagil wrote:
| Wow, this is pretty cool. I work in radio and with these devices.
| If anyone is curious, sound devices is everyones favourite, zoom
| f3 is the new workhorse on the block and the sony pcm d100 is the
| old discontinued legend... all three in top 11, which tells me
| it's not _all_ talk and we in the industry actually can somewhat
| tell what sounds good.
| tecleandor wrote:
| Very interesting... The F3 looks pretty reasonable in price...
| arbitrarian wrote:
| Don't buy just yet, unless you want to buy my used one. :)
| Zoom is coming out with the Zoom H5Studio, which is supposed
| to have the same preamps as the F3. It also has a set of
| built-in stereo mics. On the other hand, the F3 is definitely
| more rugged, and a fair bit smaller, so it depends on your
| use-case.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Whats your opinion on f32, useful or gimmick?
| artine wrote:
| (Not the OP) I use my Zoom F3 (which is a 32-bit float
| recorder) for field recordings for hobby music production.
| I'm not a professional in any respect.
|
| But I've found f32 to be incredibly useful because it allows
| me to very spontaneously capture unexpected sounds with
| little to no setup or preparation. In fact, sometimes I even
| forego monitoring in favor of just quickly getting out the
| recorder and microphones and then hitting record -- since I
| don't have to fiddle with gain, I know that I can capture
| _something_ usable rather than missing the opportunity
| altogether.
|
| When I have time to prepare a recording and it's not going to
| have a crazy amount of dynamic range, then sure, f32 isn't a
| make-or-break feature, and needing to do post-processing 100%
| of the time before the audio is usable in non-f32 contexts
| could be seen as a drawback. But for my use cases, absolutely
| useful and worthwhile.
| mikae1 wrote:
| As you say, f32 requires post-processing. What is the most
| minimal post-processing needed?
| skvmb wrote:
| For me personally, the minimum is 'normalization.'
| scott01 wrote:
| There's a problem with f32 due to devices using two ADCs to
| implement it. Essentially, there's certain volume threshold
| when device switches DACs, and it's audible. If you record
| sources with varying loudness, you may see noise floor
| raising around loud bursts, and typical noise suppression
| tools won't work on files like this (there was a video or a
| blog post, I can't recall where I saw this). At least this is
| how Zoom implemented f32, don't know about Sound Devices.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| I was wondering how they avoid being swamped by analog
| noise in the lower ranges with such a high dynamic range.
|
| I suppose they use different gains per DAC and map that to
| the respective dynamic ranges of the f32 signal?
| pier25 wrote:
| The F3 has great audio quality and it might work for a lot of
| use cases... but the physical format is terrible if you want to
| put it in a bag (which is what most people recording audio on
| set do).
|
| It's great for field recording though where you attach the
| recorder to a tree branch or something.
| MrJagil wrote:
| Actually, i have it dangling from my belt straps in a snap
| hook! Then xlr to my mic. Pretty nifty.
| pier25 wrote:
| I'm always anxious about breaking the headphones connector.
| And if you want to add a USB-C battery it's another
| dangling cable from the wrong place.
| pier25 wrote:
| This is a great resource which I've used many times but the
| reality is that most of the noise will come from the mic itself.
|
| I regularly record very quiet sources with the Rode NT1 (one of
| the mics with lowest self noise) and I've yet to hear any noise
| from any of my preamps.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-09 23:01 UTC)