Hi Rob,
The clip I posted had no post filtering, and no low cut applied on
either mics or recorder. The only processing was conversion from
48khz to 44.1khz. The 24bit/44.1khz wave file was converted to mp3
using LAME 3.98 with -V 3 setting. I've replaced the mp3 with an
version that has an additional 4dB gain to match the peak levels of
Andrew's mp3. The rms level of my recording is still somewhat lower.
Going back to the original file, the segment I posted had a peak
level of -7.6dB, and an rms level of -34.6dB. I'd initially applied
2dB of gain before converting to an mp3, and added a total of 6dB of
gain to the mp3 that is currently posted. By applying 11dB
"adjustment" to the mp3 the levels have been boosted by at least 13dB
above the levels of the original file, and the loudest calls in the
segment I posted would now be at +5.4dB FS.
It sounds like Andrew's recording comes not just from a slightly
different location and different day with different climatic
conditions, but also from a different, higher intensity point in the
dawn chorus. I've checked the time coding on the recording and
worked out the segment I posted begins at 5.49am. This is getting
close to the tail end of the dawn chorus, and has quite low
intensity. I know Andrew left the camp site to record at around
Message: 5.
Subject: 00am and judging by the intensity of calling in his recording it
was made probably 20-30 minutes earlier than my recording, and far
closer to the peak intensity of the dawn chorus. As a result I have
concerns about just how valid the comparison is when it involves
adjusting recordings of very different sound fields to a "matched"
level.
It is possible that Andrew and I will be able to make a "side by
side" recording at some stage in the future, and the results would be
a far more useful basis for comparison of these two rigs.
I second Martyn's comments about Andrew being a highly skilled
recordist. It was pretty clear from my conversations with Andrew that
he is at a level where the technique is second nature, and that
clearly gives him the freedom to focus on recording as an art. I had
no intention of implying that the rig was more important than the
recordist: as with all tools a skilled artisan will get better
results than an apprentice. I definitely class myself as the latter.
cheers
Paul
On Oct 9, 2008, at 2:51 AM, Rob Danielson wrote:
> Paul, Andrew et al--
>
> Thanks for the interesting opportunity to compare rigs/mics. I
> assembled a volume matched movie that might help with comparisons.
> Paul's track is boosted 11 dB.
>
> Of course, the comparison is not as accurate as one could imagine.
> The mic placements are not as close as possible, there are different
> events and backgrounds on any two mornings and I was working from
> mp3's that may or may not have been altered in some ways. That said,
> the comparison is definitely interesting and worth further
> exploration for a number of reasons.
>
> 6mb QuickTime movie (44.1K-16bit soundtrack)
> http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/BoundaryMicExperiments/media/
> JacobsenPB-Vs_KnappSASS_Lrg.mov
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/466aya
>
> Rob D.
>
> =3D =3D =3D =3D
> \
|