At 1:09 PM -0400 5/7/07, Walter Knapp wrote:
>Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
>
>> 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.
>
>Note I was specific, lack of scientific method.
Constants and variables; I and those who help me create these do so
with as much care as time and resources will permit. We do almost
every set-up redundantly so if there is a quirk, its much more likely
to be revealed. I also use multiple units to see if the performance
varies between units of the same model when that is doable.
Please do point-out where the method method is lacking.
>
>> 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 like what you do with the exception that you depend too much on your
>hearing to make fine distinctions. Since what we hear is too influenced
>by our attitudes, our minds transform the sound to fit what we think
>about equipment for instance, it's really very hard to know what your
>hearing brought you. That makes your detailed statements hard or
>impossible to confirm by repeating the experiment. And that's the basics
>of science, what we find must be repeatable by others. Be aware I don't
>take folks statements without trying to repeat the experiment to verify.
>I'm a scientist, it's built into my nature.
The only ear evaluation _I_ do is match playback levels. I make the
high res files available so folks can tweak a test segment up or down
a dB or two to match to their tastes which is quite easy and quick to
do with QT Pro I might add.
Its other folks subjectivity I'm trying to enable-- to each her or
his own judgement and decision. I think the tests encourage
development of critical listening skills. Take for example the
discussion about the discussion about perceived differences in the
"body" of the clock ticks in the <$1000 Recorder booth test. It
behooves us to learn where greatest equipment limitations are and
when unrealistic demands can be placed on gear and our listening
abilities.
I see the closed loop of deciding for onerself on one's own system as
a good thing over the long haul. We can share the impacts relative to
specific recording and playback systems that we know and also refer
numerical descriptions too. A good example is the agreement between
Raimund's EIN tests and my listening tests of recorder pres.
Eventually, because we had both kinds of tests, were able to explain
what first appeared to be some exceptions. Our experiences are
relative but we do prize a common senses. What we expect from our
gear is more like what we expect from living things than from
inanimate things.
>
>As equipment rises and falls in popularity in this group I've seen
>plenty of rising and falling in what people hear in the output of that
>equipment. The equipment output pretty much does not change (or we would
>send it in for repair) but the reports of this group over time often
>make major changes. At least some of that is the collective mental
>filtering of the group's attitude and has nothing to do with what the
>equipment is doing.
If you have time, an example of this would be interesting to read. Rob D.
|