Interesting. Here's more assessment than you probably want to hear:
The hatmic more than holds its own. Its bottom end is tighter and it
has more air 900-1300. Because of this I would guess that it many
cases, the hatmic would render location space most transparently--
especially with some work with EQ in post. The hatmics biggest
drawback is the part of the noise that drops down in the 3K-4K range.
I can hear that the 80-200hz range of the ME-62 is considerably
less defined. For example you can make out a machine related hum ~
280Hz? in the hatmic file that is obliterated by the "pumpy" dominant
tones of the me-62. I noticed that the right channel in your hatmic
has a bit more treble. Folks who use the WM-61A's to make test mics
report they have to go through about 5-10 caps to get 2 good matches-
though yours match well in amplitude. Yes, mics with 10dB(A) or less
noise and high output define a much different world, but for folks
who don't need such quality, I don't know of a better mic than
panasonic wm-61a caps if they can solder tiny parts or sound
professionals sells them ready to plug into a MD recorder for $60 a
pair. Perhaps the next best investment (for stereo) would be Shure
WM-183's modified as Dan has confirmed ($200). Comparing the WM-61a
to the Sony M-S models,.. I bet they Sony's would lose because of
their low sensitivity. You know what would be great to try? Two sets
of three caps in opposition (phase reversed) for a shotgun mic.
I boosted the gain on the SASS about 11dB to get the chirps to match
and there does seem to be less noise in the SASS as the specs would
suggest (although there are several bands of noise to "choose from"
in both mics). It was also interesting to note that the mid range
above 400 Hz in the SASS is more defined than with the ME-62 and more
similar to the WM-61a's. Overall, I'd say the SASS lacks lows (some
may love this), the ME-62 lacks the mids and the WM-61A is probably
the accurately balanced, tonally, of the three. I've heard
astonishing recordings made with the wm-61a's when there's enough
sound level for the noise to become less of a facto and your "3
stacks" improve their ability even more. Thanks for the design and
the tests! Rob D.
At 3:08 PM +0000 7/14/04, 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
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|