Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
> I agree that there may be adverse affects of noise on performance
> with some gear at the lowest frequencies that are masked in my urban,
> attic early am test setting. This may have been the case with the H4
> even, though problems above 1K are obviously evident and significant.
> I'd prefer a location with very low, very consistent ambient
> background levels both for noise and other performance tests. Any
> person who lives in such a place is, indeed, very lucky. Even those
> who live in remote areas might find a concrete or other high mass
> surround preferable to open air testing for noise if low low Hz
> penetration from air and other traffic from miles away is a concern.
> Its also a huge chore to track down/abate the Hi Hz junk in city and
> in some rural settings. I cannot seem to eliminate local pollution in
> this part of the spectrum either. Rob D.
>
Don't forget, this is naturerecordists. We record in such places. I
think too much is made of trying to find a single test environment that
will test all aspects of a piece of equipment. Some recording sessions
recording what we normally record in a variety of sites are going to be
most telling. If the equipment does well in that what more are we asking
for? It's no point to agonize over something you will never record, if
it takes a site you don't have to test it, it's not important what it
might do there. It's important at sites you can get to. And good sites
are not that rare.
In any case, getting outside where naturerecording naturally belongs and
gaining experience in actual recording situations is going to do a whole
lot to improve your recordings. You learn how to work around whatever is
going on out there that you don't want to record while maximizing
recording what you want. No amount of equipment specs will substitute
for that field experience.
Grab your mic and recorder and get out there! time's a wasting!
Walt
|