> Did the SASS require greater mic preamp gain?
>
> At $12, for close-mic'd sources, the hatmic
> clearly wins. I wonder how the three mics would
> compare under low level ambience and full or
> close to full mic pre gaiin? But don't stay up.
> Rob D.
>
Test redone for faint field.
No equalizing done so sensitivity can be seen as well. Pre-amp run
wide open on all three mics.
Mics Pointed out a window so that the directional sass would not be
penalized. Still I am not sure that one tone is not from the refrig
behind the mics and downstairs. I am leaving town for a few days so
can not redo to confirm one way or another right now. Next time I
will add my mkh-110 to the session.
In faint field the mics are a lot different from each other. You
can clearly see that the high pitched birds are getting the pzm
effect from the sass barrier. Each mic comes into its own in faint
field and you have to decide which you like better as they become
flavors of icecream. In my opionion the hat mic did loose in noise
but also in my oppionion they all flunked as I am getting way to
exspensive of taste with time.
first segment me-62
second segment hat mic
third segment sass-p
And the hat mic did show more noise than the me-62
4 meg test results replaced at
http://home.comcast.net/~richpeet/test.wav
Rich Peet
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|