At 11:14 AM -0400 7/10/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>From: Rob Danielson <>
>
>> That's an terrific line-up for side by side
>> testing. Being able to assess noise performance
>> with full gain thru a great pre like the 722's
>> and then evaluate M-S imaging performance-- this
>> would be very valuable for the recording
>> community. I'm not sure I'd try to run all of
>> the rigs at once. The chance of over-looking a
>> setting or factor is high. There are ways to
>> create repeatability. For the M-S imaging part
>> the toughest requirement may be the large, quiet
>> space.
>
>Note that M/S is not the only stereo setup. It would be good to compare
>some other field setups.
>
>It's best to get out and find a nice quiet natural site for testing. I
>use a pond at a wildlife preserve that's 30 miles south of here for a
>lot of this. You need to examine the performance of these systems in the
>type of site you wish to record.
Thanks much for taking time to listen to the test and for your input.
This particular test rose out of discussions about affordable omnis
and then affordable M-S-- a different goal than popping $1600 for a
used mkh30/40 pair (last ebay prices) or even a pair on Tim's list. I
was hoping to determine what I could get for $600 by comparing it to
the most popular MS pair for field recording.
I really don't know how one could improve much upon the clock
position set-up for raw M-S source angle testing. I learned there's
more to test in imaging than just the angles. It bolsters my
confidence to gather material/experience with the gear in very
familiar settings, like a favorite natural spot, but if my testing
relies on familiarity alone, then perhaps I'm really not eager to
learn about the gear objectively too.
It needs to be said that evaluating how the gear is performing in
these tests is not easy. I find that I fall back on prior
expectations and impressions when I really don't have enough time or
I can't figure out what I'm hearing. The fact that monitoring systems
are such a variable is frustrating. I've been going back and forth
between speakers and headphones in matching levels etc, to try and
help with this. Try both?
I've been running these tests at maximum mic pre gain to put the gear
under the most strenuous conditions-- to provoke as much difference
in performance as I can. If one listens carefully and can't hear a
significant difference, this may be significant! Though not in a
wildlife preserve, the conditions of this test are pretty decent for
comparing noise, spatial reach and imaging. There are always
_possible_ sound sources outside of those in an any test situation.
The bandwidth in the backyard doesn't test above 8K very well. At
your Georgia preserve, you'd get a great sense of how they respond to
Hi Hz insects, up north, not yet.
>
>> Very true about the amazing power of EQ in
>> digital posting. I can patch the Rode M-S pair
>> on the front of my quad speaker system and the
>> mkh-30/40's on the rear and play with EQ to make
>> the MKH's sound very similar to the Rode's and
>> vice versa. I'm not sure there's a lot of tonal
>> difference to make a big fuss about between most
>> well-made mics that have appropriate polar
> > patterns and are positioned well.
>
>As Bernie has pointed out, at the high end there is no best mic, you
>should choose a mic at this level based on the sound you like.
Mic self noise excepting, it seems like the high end is the easiest
range to adjust to taste with EQ. One can truly consider spending
$130 of the $700 difference towards an EQ plug like Eqium, or even
invest in reference monitor speakers. Most mixing applications today
allow you to save the EQ settings so you can give it several tries,
choose the best and even go back and tweak a file a bit if your taste
changes next week or in two years. This flexibility towards achieving
the right "tonal balance" has come a long long way from knobs on rack
mounted EQ gear. Don't you think that choosing a mic based mostly on
its "sound" was established in the day when one would finish on a
board and tape-- not on a digital where re-mixing is not nearly as
much of an ordeal? Mic choice has become caught up this production
change. Music shops like "Guitar Center" now have huge displays with
many $100-$400 large diaphram mics.
>
>> The MKH's produce a pronounced, remarkably
>> accurate sense of source direction, but, with
>> equalization, the Rodes seem to portray a better
>> sense of the distance from the source to the mic.
>> I suspect that the NT2A (fig 8) would also
>> benefit from partnering with a wider, more
>> tonally uniform MID like the 30 enjoys. We know
>> the (large diaphragm'd) NT1A is limited to about
>> 6o degrees of uniform tonal coverage and this
>> narrow coverage is probably reducing the amount
>> of informative overlapping especially around 2
>> o'clock and 10 o'clock.
>
>This issue is part of why I went entirely MKH in my M/S. A ME mic, for
>instance, coupled with a MKH-30 would make a M/S at a cheaper price
>point, but using a MKH mid is a better match for mic character.
One quality I've noticed with Rich's ME-62 pair and with my 30/40
pair is exaggerated tone production in the lower mid range and upper
bass (125-700hz). I can live with this, but I'd rather not if there
are other options. (Tim's test of other hi end gear is of great
interest to me for this reason.)
The lower mid-range and upper bass are important to me because the
loudest reverb reflections are within this range, and thus, the
clues about "acoustic space." All mics, small and large condensers,
seem to be very challenged to cope with/define these reflections.
Eric recently sent me a link to some music recorded in a nearly
"anechoic" chamber situation and I was amazed at how much more tonal
definition there was in this range. I'd never encountered anything
like this in a field recording. One of my goals is to learn more
about why mics are challenged by these reflections. Studio recordists
overcome this with close mic placement. John's recent stream/robin
recording with the NT1A's seems to be an example of placement to to
create a pleasing amount of subject isolation with reach into space.
Its a delicate and critical relation, I think.
Saying a mic is "best" because of its character is hard for me apply.
When I'm picky about the way a recording sounds, I can experiment
with a broad range of possible "characters" with EQ. Performance
qualities like low self noise and high output, on the other hand, are
often very useful. Sennheiser would have to drop the self noise and
cost of all of their products to restore my interest with the other
options I have. Because mic placement is so instrumental in creating
special recordings, I consider additional Rode units first.
The NT2-A is an interesting mic and I'd like to try it in MS with my
mkh 40 if I have time. My knocks on it are:
1. It has about 5dB effective less output than the NT1A's, so even
though it does seem to have ~7dBA self noise, its lower sensitivity
translates into appreciable more noise than a pair of NT1A's. My MKH
30's have about 3dB lower output than my MKH 40's for comparison.
2. The NT2-A is heavy (not that much bigger than the NT1A).
3. I think it pulls a good bit of phantom current.
That said, if I had to make a decision between these m-s rigs today,
I'd go with the NT2-A/NT1A rig over the mkh 30/40 because there's not
enough difference in performance to justify the extra $1000-1700.
The shock mount I quickly made out of 7" length 6" diam PVC and
double #64 rubber bands is pretty workable. M-S is a "stationary"
set-up-- not to be compared with walking around with set of headphone
mounted binaurals! I'm intrigued by its different spatial rendering
qualities and I'd also like to try two in omn A/B, or in a boundary,
or four in a cube,.. There's a lot of new territory to explore with
this $380 mic. In a whole other league from the CAD 179. Rob D.
> There
>are only a few choices in mic series that include a figure 8, and it's
>fortunate that MKH is one that does. It would be nice to see Sennheiser
>put out a ME figure 8 for a lower priced alternative.
>
>> Both of these Rode mics are repeatedly reviewed
>> as "Vocal mics in the tradition of the Neumann
>> UA-87." Manufacturers are not spending a lot of
>> money trying to make and market mics for people
>> who go to places filled with broadband noise,
> > crank up their preamps and try to image animal
>> (and other) communications. What we do in the
> > field is different, perhaps so different that,
>> sometimes, it serves us better to ignore the
>> assumptions. Rob D.
>
>I don't find the descriptions of mic usefulness in studio as being very
>helpful for nature recording. We make do with mics designed for
>different uses, and pretty much have to get out in the field and record
>to find out how well they work. The raw technical data and lab tests are
>really only good enough to decide what to try in the field. And we won't
>know what will work until we have some field experience with it,
>preferably over time at many sites. I'm always a little mistrusting of
>singular recording tests of mic setups that the recordist does not have
>a lot of experience using.
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>"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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|