At 12:25 PM -0500 12/20/06, Walter Knapp wrote:
<snip>
> The problem is that many are interpreting very small
>variations in the sound in those tests as meaningful, when you cannot
>rule out the acoustics of that attic as being controlling. To say
>nothing of things like the sound sources used.
>
>That's why I say we should not loose focus on the natural acoustics of
>our outdoor sites for testing equipment. Otherwise we might as well just
>use the indoor reviews of music recordists.
>
>It's not disparaging, it's a caution about how far removed from real
>nature recording these tests are. I listen to at least some of Rob's
>tests, limited by being on a modem connection. Taken as a very crude
>beginning in evaluating equipment they are fine. I don't take them as
>definitive. But it's clear many do.
My tests are not this ambitious. In the last test, I was curious
about the respective noise generated in three recorders through two
juxtapositions (edits): 722/pre <-> Art/Hi-MD/pre and Art/Hi-MD/pre
<-> Zoom H4/pre. I can't guarantee the differences are 100% due to
the equipment. I record several takes over the course of the test at
(fixed) maximum or near maximum gain, running on DC power using the
same two clocks at the same distances and the same two NT-1A mics and
cables. I fine-tune the playback levels by ear (blind-testing my
settings several times) because reference tones, though useful,
aren't enough. Rob D.
>
>Walt
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
|