Hi Rob
I think your 'tests' are very good, OK you are not coming out with a
string of 'numbers', but I don't want that - I like comparisons.
Which is what I did when I made up my own mics, I first wired up some
Rapid capsules and did some recordings, then I used some Panasonic
capsules and finally settled on using 3 Panasonic's in parallel, in
what I call 'clusters'. I have taken these into the field and done
recordings and have been quite pleased with the results.
It was through your 'tests' that I decided on a HI-MD rather than
some of the other recorders around, especially cheap CF card devices.
I would be interested to hear one of your tests comparing a Hi-MD
with the new Fostex, in fact if truth be known many people are
waiting for that one I reckon! But listening to some examples that
are already filtering through such as the recent one by Raimund
Specht, I think we have a pretty good idea already.
To many a string of numbers defining S/N ration and the like don't
mean a lot. But if they can hear that B sounds cleaner and
less 'hissy' than C or D then that is what they want to hear. I think
your tests show people exactly that.
Keep up the good work!
Phil
--- In Rob Danielson <>
wrote:
>
> 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
Message: 800.
Subject: "
> 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
>
>
|