At 2:21 AM -0400 9/3/06, Walter Knapp wrote:
>Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
<snip>.
>
> > Hi Walt--
> > When Eric measures and prints "8dB(A)" self noise, I tend believe
>him. He has an pseudo-anechoic chamber and quality test gear. What
>character of noise The AT3032 produces at that level, we'll know more
>and more about over time.
>
>I was pointing out this is a single mic sample. The two mics I had
>access to were not as quiet as the MKH-20's I have, at least to my own
>hearing. I did a lot of wandering around listening before I got them
>mounted in the SASS. Even afterward I did some listening with a MKH-20
>on one side, a AT3032 on the other. The MKH-20 is rated 10dBA self
>noise, and I judged them slightly more noisy than the MKH-20. What I'm
>wondering is just how consistent the results of Eric's test are across
>all examples of this mic, not that he measured that. It is brought into
>question as AT rates the mics at 16dBA, not 8dBA and they are the
>designers and manufacturers. I'm sure if they are consistent at 8dBA
>they would have that splashed all over as it's a good selling point.
>Have we had anything out of AT as to how there could be such a
>difference? Is the low noise consistent across all examples of AT3032's,
>if not what is the range? These are questions to be sorted out.
Yes, time will tell. So far I know of five 3032 sets. One recordist,
Allan Haighton, mentioned he felt his pair could be better matched.
Its a small pool, but even so it starting to suggest much better
quality control than I'd expect for $170 mics.
>
>I'm not really the one to sort it out, I'm not about to toss the mics
>I'm using and go to them. I do get lots of inquiry's about the SASS and
>the big stumbling block for most is the buy in of the two MKH-20's. So,
>when I had a opportunity to try a pair the first thing I was interested
>in was seeing if they would work in the SASS in a reasonable manner. I
>provided the samples in case anyone else was interested. I've provided
>my impressions based on that short usage, for what it's worth. Note it
>was free comments.
>
<snip>
>
>[Bartlett] in fact says they all fall in that category. Well, except
>he did not
>mention Curt's experiments ;-)
It seems the boundary aspect of Curt's rig is quite a bit closer to
the SASS than the Jecklin. His wood extends infron providing
attenuation though different Hz affect than the foam baffle. The SASS
mics are at a wider angle but both designs are fairly front-facing.
>
>Note the SASS/MKH-110 appears to continue the low frequency
>discrimination down even maybe into the infrasound.
I'd take your results over specs and manuf claims. If the SASS is
based on PZM, and PZM requires a 4' X 4' collector for good low-end
response, I don't understand why the SASS's low end would be
excellent. Something to figure out someday.
>It's a compact and lightweight stereo
>mic setup, easily transported in the outdoors. It's fairly easy to wind
>protect and does not have a lot of problem with handling noise. There
>are other setups that have these characteristics as well. They are
>important for a day to day mic in the field.
>
Except for the 17 foot tripod, the SASS is among the more "hike-able"
rigs. Rob D.
>
>Walt
>
|