Hi Vicki, Kevin and Klas--
Did I miss that the LS-10's low cut filter was on? In my opinion,
that would be good news! Its possible that Kevin might have had the
SD's low cut filter on too! :-)
I've done some more studying of the files using just
presence/background sections of both recordings. In my estimation the
frequency response between 200 and 600 Hz is the biggest,
uncorrectable difference between the two rigs, river influence
included.
Of course, "correct," more "accurate" and "more pleasing" tonal
balance is a game of preferred contrasts between the represented
tones similar to the ways each of us adjusts our stereo to listen to
music in terms of bass, treble and playback volume.
The auditory impression that the binaural rig lacks bass in
comparison to the m-s rig probably stems from the higher
_proportional_ treble "projection" (~2.5KHz) of the binaural rig. The
lower mid roar in the M-S rig makes it seem "warmer" too even though
the involved frequencies are not deep bass. Ironically, when I worked
with matching the playback presence between 200 and 600 Hz for the
two rigs (both are challenged in part of the audio spectrum as most
mics are), the M-S rig actually has more high treble for similarly
distanced subjects! I've pushed the comparison as far as I can with
ad hoc files :-). We need both recorders rolling at once with the
same orientation for better study of the response differences--
especially those under 100 Hz. Then there's the stereo imaging too.
As I've conveyed in minority voice before, I prefer to have the
lowest octaves well-represented opposed to under- represented.
Note that I'm basing these comparisons based on the best "match" in
the perceptual sound levels that I can make. The loudness ratio
between the loudest (treble) sounds and softest (bass) sounds in the
two recordings is quite different so, for both tests, I focused on
the ambience portion of the spectrum (~>1300 Hz ) in trying to match
the playback levels because I feel this region is where a lot of the
critical spatial cues can be created.
Here's the other experiment I did:
http://tinyurl.com/nylvzj (QT movie)
Set your playback volume to a low, comfortable, appropriate
"background level." (Sorry Klas, this test makes little sense without
the image).
Also, Klas, I believe I'm hearing the list discussed LS-10's "< 500
Hz self-noise" when looking at the 200-600 Hz portion of the spectrum
carefully. You may want to take the "menu challenge" and try your
mics out Hi-MD? I also think the binaural rig might also have more
response under 100 Hz, but I didn't check it with a sonogram. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 5:03 PM +1000 7/12/09, vickipowys wrote:
>My understanding is that Klas's recordings were made with the low cut
>applied via the Olympus LS10 recorder, and nothing to do with the mic
>itself. Is this correct?
>
>Vicki Powys
>Australia
>
>On 12/07/2009, at 2:31 PM, Kevin Colver wrote:
>
>> Rob,
>> The two recordings side by side were very instructive. Thank you for
>> that effort. The MurieMike has a brighter sound and accentuates the
>> mid and higher frequencies. The MKH 30/40 pair bring in the deep
>> sounds of the distant river roar and the higher frequencies are
>> present but not accentuated.
>>
>> We have discussed in this group previously how the MKH mics pick up
>> the low frequencies that the human ear doesn't seem to notice on site
>> but that are so obvious when played back in the studio. Recordings
>> with the MKH set sometimes require a lowering of the base to sound
>> more balanced with playback. Sometimes, however, the rumble is
>> awesome, as in thunder, roaring waves, or gurgling geysers.
>>
> > Kevin
>>
> >
> > www.7Loons.com
> >
> >
>> On Jul 11, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixing the link to the comparison movie and mp3:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kevin & Klas--
>>>> Thanks for sharing the samples, fellows. I took
>>>> Klas's Two Ocean's_Lake_Short.mp3 and Kevin's Two
>>>> Oceans Lake, WY 090623.mp3 and cut back & forth
> >>> between them on a movie timeline. Not scientific
>>>> but it could help make some of the differences in
>>>> the micing systems more evident. Rob D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><<https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/>https://pantherfile.uw=
m.edu/type/public/media/
>>>>
>>>>KlasBinaural_Kevn><https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/>https=
://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/
>>>> KlasBinaural_Kevn'sM-S_Sor3LrgSz.mov
>>>> Its large (20mb) and a QuickTime move. (Sorry about that Klas.)
>>>
>>> try:
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/lzqyb4>http://tinyurl.com/lzqyb4
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the same comparison as just a mp3
>>>> starting with Klas' binaural rig and alternating
>>>> back and forth with Kevin's MKH 39-40 M-S Rig.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><<https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/KlasBinaural_Kevn%>http=
s://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/KlasBinaural_Kevn%
>>>> 27sM-S.mp3
>>>>
>>>><https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/KlasBinaural_Kevn%>https=
://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/KlasBinaural_Kevn%
>>>> 27sM-S.mp3
>>>
>>> try:
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/lzf38g>http://tinyurl.com/lzf38g
>>>
> >> Rob D.
--
|