naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comparison Test Zoom H4, Hi-MD & SD722 (was any further comment

Subject: Re: Comparison Test Zoom H4, Hi-MD & SD722 (was any further comment
From: "Rob Danielson" danielson_rob
Date: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:54 pm ((PST))
At 10:39 AM -0800 12/15/06, Dan Dugan wrote:
>  >Hi--  Thanks to Tom Bamberger who loaned me his new unit, I was able
>>to run this test:
>>
>>QuickTime Movie (IMA:4 compressed sound)
>>http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/mediafiles/H4_744_NH700_C=
ompare_Sm.mov
>>(8mb)
>>Caution, the recording is loud. Adjust sound level to a comfortable level
>>
>>QuickTime Movie (uncompressed 16/48K sound)
>  >http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/mediafiles/H4_744_NH700=
_CompareLrg.mov
>>(12.5mb)
>
>Thanks a lot, Rob. The first thing that jumped out was that the ART
>power supply made a significant high-pass filter. Perhaps it has
>series DC-blocking caps in the output that aren't big enough. That's
>something that would be easy to modify.
>
>-Dan Dugan

Hi Dan--
I'm not positive there isn't something awry with the Art->722 segment
of the test, for example, I hear a shift in the stereo balance which
I couldn't explain. I lost the other examples of this test due to the
corruption events so I couldn't duplicate it/affirm it. No test is
perfect. I left that segment in there because I couldn't resolve the
stereo balance shift. I had to return the H4 and the main goal of the
test was to compare the recorders. Perhaps the Hi-MD combo could
sound better, but not the H4, that's for sure.

My guess is the change in the low Hz response is most likely the
result of a wind gust in the first 722 segment. I was fighting wind
and local traffic.  The 722 files get boosted 12 dB and then the
whole test gets another 6-8dB boost to preserve quality when its
compressed.  I can't study that moment on the orig 722 take nor go on
line at the moment to check because I'm out of town. I saw the
pronounced lows in the 722 segment, but I didn't seeing the same
dramatic change when the Art was removed in the NT1-A -> to H4 chain,
so I let it go.  If a high pass change happens in the H4 section of
the test too, then something could be screwy with the Art.

I've subjected the Rolls to the NT1-A ->722/Internal Phantom test
many times and its consistently very transparent. Here's a test that
have access to on my laptop that compares the Rolls to the Art
(NT1-A->Rolls->Hi-MD and NT1-A->Art->Hi-MD) about midway through.
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/mediafiles/PortPhantomHiMDR=
eprtv01SorIMA.mov
I made a sonogram of that segment and no high Pass filtering with the
Art is evident to me. I'll be on the outlook for a performance issue
with the (my) Art PhantomII, but the evidence as a whole suggests to
me its very transparent. You can hear a subtle whine when the Art is
used with the H4 (internal phantom off) but I've not encountered this
interaction with the other inputs/recorders I tested.

I'm not sure when this post will be added to the list. Sorry if its
untimely by then. Rob D.

>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/







<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU