At 10:36 AM -0700 5/3/08, Dan Dugan wrote:
> >
>> Here's a movie with the same minimum presence but with each mic pair
>> equalized s bit to more closely match high/low tonal balance (under
>> 10K Hz)
>> <http://tinyurl.com/3we4ah>http://tinyurl.com/3we4ah (~3mb)
>
>Your illustration shows clusters of narrow-band notch filters. Why did
>you do that?
>
>-Dan Dugan
>
Hi Dan--
Yes, the end graphic is cumulative following the process of
attenuating the loudest, exaggerated narrow bandwidths one at a time.
Softer, but also exaggerated, adjacent bands can become audible when
a loud bandwidth is attenuated. Using the Eqium plug, clusters of
pitches or "chords" are typical-- especially >5Khz and in the lower
mid-range. Wider parametric settings are often useful in
accommodating mid-range adjustments.
In the case of the attempted Schoeps <-> MKH HF match, I ended-up
with the below sequence of very narrow cuts. There was a discrepancy
between the "sizzle" between the left and right Schoeps mics. My goal
was to match the response of the mkh mics, not produce aesthetic
results. I only attempted the match once. For critical equalization,
I perform the process several times, from scratch, and compare the
results.
Right side only: 6895 Hz @ -6 dB @ Q.04 (next to narrowest "notch" setting)
Both sides: 7936 Hz @ -4.5 dB @ Q.02 (narrowest "notch" setting)
Both sides: 8077 Hz @ -7.5 dB @ Q.02
Both sides: 5991 Hz @ -11 dB @ Q.02
Right side only: 6775 Hz @ -4 dB @ Q.02
Right side only: 4366 Hz @ -6.5 dB @ Q.02
Left side only: 7397 Hz @ -4 dB @ Q.02
Right side only: 5114 Hz @ -6 dB @ Q.02
Left side only: 5297 Hz @ -3.5 dB @ Q.02
I suspect that the Schoeps MK21 is more responsive in the ~8KHz range
because I believe I hear some wind in leave "sizzle" in the Schoeps
that was not readily apparent to me in the mkh sample. Therefore, one
would probably not use this much cut on the Schoeps in practice.
Based on this test and further confirmation would be in order, one
might prefer to use a MK21 over a MKH 8040 for practical, audible
forms of HF content even though the 8040's response >16KHz is much
much better. I can't hear the last octave of the "normal" human Hz
range and probably less at 8Khz than many readers can.
I'd have to use a much deeper "cut" using one, wide, parametric band
to get the same amount of noise/hiss reduction. Wide curves usually
sound flatter and life-less compared to multiple notch filtering. I
use Eqium for narrow parametric tuning. Firium is much better for
overall balancing when mastering.
Recordists are always using using different monitoring systems when
we share sound files. My technique surely addresses some monitor
specific conditions especially in the lower mid-range where
speakers/headphones seem to be most challenged. For example, my
attempt to create a match may not sound as "right" on your playback
equipment as it did to me or even "wrong" on your gear. I made the
comparison as a reference; all of what we describe is relative-- both
to our ears and our equipment. Why bother? I think it may prove
important that we learn to acknowledge the short-comings in our gear
and practices as well as celebrate our successes.
(For those who are curious) In order to detect "exaggerated" pitches
in broad bandwidth recordings, I alternate between headphones and
speakers fading-in the volume from silence to a low play level a
number of times listening for the loudest sustained pitch that
"stands out." Pitches that stand out seem to protrude towards the
ears rather seem to reside _within_ the illusionary stereo space.
The increased volume of the exaggerated pitches tend to mask other
pitches/elements in the recording. The result can be more tonally
balanced playback. Raising the playback volume can sound more like
one is opening a window to another space that lies "behind the
speaker" compared to simply increasing the sound level that seems to
come _out_ of the speaker. Rob D.
--
|