At 12:53 PM -0400 5/6/07, Walter Knapp wrote:
>Even as a technical equipment group, I'm offended by the lack of scientific
>method in all that.
Hi Walt--
I'm sorry if my tests offend you. I'm open to suggestions for
improving my methods.
In the recent test Jerry and I collaborated on, our goal was to
compare the high-gain self-noise performance of six mics operating on
Hi-MD PIP. I'm pretty sure recordists will not encounter noise
differences in the field inconsistent with those in the tests when
recording ambience in quiet locations on Hi-MD recorders. So far, I
am not aware of field results that have conflicted with the
comparisons I've made and documented, but that is always remains a
possibility.
Of course, the A/B comparison testing I do is not aimed at numerical
outcomes. The goal is to enable subjective evaluation for a very
specific type of recording which is stated as a premise when I post
them to the list.
I believe listening tests can be telling for judging noise
performance-- not for the sake of claiming one component as generally
better than another-- but for making more tangible the differences
involved. Though the tests have found a few surprises that have been
valuable, they are not ambitious in their goals. They are admittedly
most effective at evaluating upper frequency self-noise of recorder
mic preamps. A few have compared mic self-noise and fewer still,
stereo imaging.
Applying subjectivity is one of the important ways recordists and
engineers place quality in perspective. For example, in the press
release regarding their new high-end mics, Sennhesiser reports, "The
technical development was supported at a very early stage by sound
and listening tests, and the sound engineers involved in the tests
confirmed that the new microphones have an incredibly impressive
sound quality that even goes beyond that of the innovative MKH 800."
Rob D.
.
>I'mm pretty> unlikely to appreciate in advance just how sound
>changes with distance. It
>> is far from immediately obvious, for example, that the higher the
>> frequencey, the greater the attenuation with distance. For them, Klas's
>> advice is pertinent.
>
>It's more than just distance. The equipment, and the way we finally
>listen to our recordings also only make a imperfect representation. And
>to top it all off, our own hearing is a interpretation of what our ears
>mechanically picked up. Our emotions, our beliefs about different
>equipment, how much we like or dislike the animal we are recording all
>change what our mind "hears". (and it's that interpretation of various
>minds about what the ears "heard" that is the house of cards here about
>equipment evaluation) A simple reminder seems all too appropriate, at
>least some will understand the wisdom.
>
>It's a problem that experts in this group object to good advice for
>beginners.
>
>Walt
>
>
>"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
Department of Film
University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee
|