naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

1. Re: Equipment Testing Goals Methods (was Rich being Testy

Subject: 1. Re: Equipment Testing Goals Methods (was Rich being Testy
From: "Phil Tyler" macmang4125
Date: Mon May 7, 2007 2:30 am ((PDT))
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
> 
>






<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