One common consideration that reviewers probably more than users, need to be aware of when buying audio, imaging or mixed media products is the generation of noise and its effects.
Noise, or sound and image elements formed when they should be absent is one of these things that is probably dwelt on more than it should be and I would like to unpack that thought a little.
What is it?
In audio, noise is the floor of recordable sound produced by the recording device, things that are connected to that device or outside influences that effect either. It is generally a clean, smooth “hiss”. If it is not like that, if it its sporadic, unpredictable or overpowering, then it falls more under the heading of interference.
It is important to split these two so we know what we are talking about. Noise is predictable, so even at the purchasing stage you can research it’s likelihood and it is often, more or less, under your control, but hard to completely remove if needed.
Interference is not meant to be there and can directly effect your audio quality, being nearly impossible to remove due to it’s unpredictable nature.
In a nut shell, audio noise is what you hear when you cannot hear anything else, so it is in effect the absence of the absence of sound. All recording devices produce it, better ones at levels so low as to be effectively irrelevant, but even higher levels of noise can be ignored under some circumstances.
Often some background sound is recordable in almost any situation, which is why sound engineers always record some “room sound” on film sets etc, because the absolute absence of all sound is not normal, something has to fill the silence other than pure silence.
Why should we be worried about it?
This comes up a lot and after a couple of weeks of reviews read and watched, believe me, I have found we are obsessed by it. The measurement in sound production is signal-to-noise ratios is where this noise is important. A little noise in the empty bits between heavy metal tracks is mostly irrelevant, but too much noise in very fine ambient recordings is terminal. Know your need and service it properly.
Maybe if this is the subject, absolute quiet is a priority (and noise free sharpness).
I grew up on tapes and records. One produced noise from the physical tape running over the heads and the other had a ton of crackle and other oddities as the fine needed bounced over the record’s surface. We were there for the music, not the noise.
This mic has a lot more noise (-19db) then its bigger sibling the LCT 440 (-7db), but the actual sound is much the same, depending on your tastes and needs. For music, this is fine, but maybe not for field recording.
Visual noise or what we used to call “grain” is much the same.
Like audio noise it appears at the extreme end of the recordable spectrum. Very high ISO settings, underexposure, or recovery of inky black shadows will reveal it. Like sound, even an older phone can produce a decent image in perfect conditions, but when stretched, the ugliness that is visual noise takes over.
The habit of current reviewers to go in 400% on extreme ISO images and compare “X” to “Y” ad infinitum is not only flawed, as they rarely take other variables into account, but also pointless and unrealistic. We all know that the top fashion designers signature designs will never be worn in the real world, and neither will any camera or sound device be asked to walk that “catwalk” of perfection in real life.
Content trumps technical deficiencies.
Cropped from an image taken with a “small” sensor M43 camera, at a high ISO (12,800) under flat and unflattering light. If the content was irrelevant, then the image fails even if perfect. If the content is relevant then it’s quality matters less and less in proportion to the viewers care factor.
One way to deal with these problems is to embrace them. I had a friend once who processed their black and white negatives in over heated paper developer for short periods and with minimum agitation. The massive, super sharp grain he produced actually became the image element that made his images stand apart. The proof in his vision was several international awards. When he switched to digital his weapon of choice was the oldest G9 Canon compact with the noise/grain exaggerated for much the same effect.
For those of us who remember, the old film spool moving projectors with their “ticking” sound, will remember that when the film got going, you soon forgot the “noise”.
I have always been aware of the workings of the machine, but if we concentrate on content, these things do tend to fall to the background. If we spend too much time obsessing over perceived problems and their often extreme solutions, we may get nothing done.
I suppose what I am getting at is the other day I was shaken a bit by one reviewers opinion of my H5 when used with dynamic mics. The reviewer was technically and measurably right, but when I used and listened to the results myself, I realised that in my real world situations, noise is just one of many slight deficiencies we deal with all the time. I am not recording studio grade master pieces, just wanting to get better than average results.
To be honest, the H8 is still the most logical and it does have slightly quieter preamps.
Just a thought.