Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion at all. (Except from a
> computer science or mathematical point of wiev).
>
> An analog copy from the MD to the DAT, creates an uncompressed digital DA=
T
> recording, as if it was made "out there". The only difference is that the=
MD
> is providing the analog signal, instead of the microphone!
>
> Let us be a bit philosofical and ask the question: How bad must a Sennhei=
ser
> MKH20 be made, in order to simulate the errors of an analog MD-DAT copy??
>
> Not bad at all! It can be a perfect microphone working in 15 degrees C
> instead of 20! Or just a little "normal" condensation! Or 25 meters of
> cable, not the best. Or a windcover which cuts off some of the highest
> frequencies just a few db! A high-class microphone will change radically =
if
> you allow smoking in the studio, causing errors much bigger than the erro=
rs
> of a analog MD-DAT copy!
> And a boom which puts your microphone 5 meters above ground will cause a
> revolution!
>
> Gentlemen, please!
Good luck Klas. I've been saying this for years and still get the same
misunderstandings back from people who did not listen. They have gotten
so wrapped up in what they think happens that they never bother to just
get one and see if they are right. One of the things I have watched is
those that do seriously try it don't come back with these arguments again.
PS You left out moving the mic just a few inches one way or another, or
pointing it a slightly different direction.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|