Blast.
second test was not valid due to 60 cycle hum.
Rich
--- In "Rich Peet" <>
wrote:
> > 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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|