Lord knows that I use a dialect that is not easy for the masses to
understand, but try and decode this last post.
Try my edited "speed reading" version and see the problem I have with
the descriptions. I guess Nature recordists don't use the same
language as Pro Audio. Please don't take it against you Grant. It is
just I feel these people will not understand the descriptive jargon
used and I never felt the pro-audio people ever did either.
....
> I set up a very unscientific test ...
> The pres are vapturing a more open tone.
However, almost no electronic noise.
>
> again had a clearer defined focus but the overall stereo field was
wide.
>
It "breathed" more and
> sounded richer in detail.
the image was tighter and the frequency response didn't
> lack.
>
clearly best more "breathing room" in the dynamics, sounded
> more fluid the imaging was more tightly defined.
The image was the best and without any spurious boost
my recording lacked deep bass; and what was there was muddy and boxy
sounding. much quieter a smooth top end.
>
> The imaging was imprecise and lacked focus and width. It also had a
> strange "waving" feel like some phasing issues. But who really
knows.
>
> I wouldn't completely shy away I just want a 744t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|