Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
> Walt, all - just theory:
Thanks for the info on the DATStereo. I was aware it was utilizing PZM,
but not aware it was multi capsule too. The specs you give compare
pretty well with the impression I have of the mic from field use.
How does the design of the Dual Science compare? I know it has to have
at least two capsules.
I agree, trying to figure out what S/N Ratio means is tough as there is
never any supporting info. I usually just subtract the number given from
96 dB to estimate the mics noise floor. That usually agrees pretty well
with what I find in actual use. Or well enough for rough comparisons.
> And of course: Every time we talk about a scientifically approved method of
> measuring something, there is also a relevant discussion on how "good" it
> is, - how "accurate" it measures what you really need to know.
In the end what's going to count is how it performs in the field. And
that never seems to exactly relate to the numbers. The numbers are part
of what you consider when deciding to buy, used to try and avoid buying
things that won't suit. They lower the risk, but don't eliminate it.
Not only is the human ear in general very capable of filtering, but each
person has their own filter. Even attitudes about the equipment filter
the sound you get. Which really kind of messes up the cold science.
I wonder how much the specs shift because of a warm fuzzy feeling about
the mic ;-)
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|