The most reliable evaluative methods may be wholly subjective because
only the listener knows or discovers what she or he desires to hear.
For example, one can try tuning out the hiss and listening for
"space"-- not just the clock and timer but to the "room." I find this
can lead to conclusions more quickly than concentrating on the noise
differences themselves. A test like this one creates a "gestalt"
that is helpful in comparing noise, but when listening over time to a
recording, one hears "through" some of the noise.
Absolutely. Certain frequency bands seem to stand out
disproportionately and some seem to annoy a lot more than others.
Spectral displays which plot frequency vs. amplitude across the
spectrum can be useful in trying to identify annoying frequencies but
its tricky. There are also real time displays of this sort in some
sound editing applications. I use a lot of subtle EQ in my surround
work (treat many bands carefully), so the next step in evaluation for
me is to go after a recording with a good equalizer plug like Eqium
and see how its transparency can be improved. It often can, sometimes
dramatically. When the noise is broad band, its hard to work around.
The noise in lower-mid frequencies (e.g.180-900Hz) is very hard for
me to assess with the visualization tools I've tried so far and I
find this range most critical in spatial rendering. Walt has written
elegantly on the different types of noise and relative effectiveness
at addressing them with equalization. Try searching "noise" and
"equalization" in the list archives.
Of course, mic/pre "performance" depends on one's presentational
goals and, as Klas astutely points out, listening to a test under
these same conditions is important. Playback tastes range
dramatically. For example, I tend to listen to my recordings at
pretty loud levels-- many recorded in quiet locations. When I visited
San Francisco last fall, I noticed that Dan Dugan, Jeremiah More and
Charlie Fox were playing their work much softer and the affect was
fantastic. As a result of my preference, I tend to address subtle
tonal imbalances in my recordings that aren't "there" when played at
low volume.
Following the advice of sales people, I used modest quality mic/pre
combinations for nearly 15 years before Gordon Hempton suggested that
I look into better gear-- specifically, a better mic/pre combination
for a DAT Walkman I was using. I was amazed at what became possible
through following his advice and I regret that I did not bring home
recordings with more of the qualities I desired over those years.
Yes, Mark, I identify with the frustrations of those who are falling
in love with recording and wanting more,.. and even inexpensive
investments when those sound right. I'm glad the test seems useful
and thanks everyone for your compliments. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 2:18 PM +0200 4/15/05, Volker Widmann wrote:
>Thanks Rob,
>
>I really appreciate this!!! :-)
>I recently bought four XLR Mini MicBoosters and found it interesting to b=
e
>able to listen to direct comparisons.
>My conclusion is that the main difference between most of the systems is t=
he
>timbre of the noise. Some may be noise is noticable, but is not disturbing
>to the ear, other noise is disturbing.
>Has anyone a method to objectively evaluate such a comparison?
>
>Volker
>
>
>
|