At 2:32 PM +0000 11/28/09, David Michael wrote:
>Hello
>
>For those interested, I have posted a side by side comparison of the
>AT4022 and the MKH40. I recorded room ambience through an MBox 2 Pro
>with input gains on the front of the MBox at about 75%. I do not
>have more accurate input measurements than that, but as a rough
>draft it should give you some idea as to how the 4022 compares to a
>mic that is an order of magnitude more expensive. I have been really
>impressed with the 4022's field performance, but perhaps we can put
>some numbers to it.
>
>The 4022 seems to be not quite as sensitive as the MKH40, especially
>in the high frequencies, but the self noise seems to be quite low.
>
>You can listen to the file and download it here. 4022 is in the left
>channel, MKH40 in the right.
>
><http://soundcloud.com/dmichael/at4022-l-mkh40-r>http://soundcloud.com/dmi=
chael/at4022-l-mkh40-r
>
>David
>
Thanks David!
In agreement with David observations, the AT4022's self-noise seems
to be well below that of the manufacturer's rating of 16 dB(A). Its
self-noise sounds and plots very similarly to what I'm accustomed to
with the AT3032.
The self-noise of the AT4022 seems to be concentrated in the 2K to 5K
range and while there is some self-noise in this part of the spectrum
from the MKH40, its self-noise (rated 12dB[A] by Sennhesier) is more
concentrated above 10K Hz. To my ear, as may be evidenced in the
last segment of the QuickTime movie comparison below, there's is more
spatial clarity in the lower midrange with the AT4022. This might be
expected with the 4022's omni polar pattern opposed to the mkh-40's
cardioid polar pattern, but its still an indicator of better than
publicized self-noise performance in actual recordings, not just
specs.
QuickTime Movie (6mb 16bit 48K full res sound track)
http://tinyurl.com/ybruqbz
I adjusted the playback volume of the room tone in the two samples to
balance the instantaneous volume or "impact" of both recordings. If
you want to be more sure of your judgments, You can adjust the
balance of your speakers/system for this comparison with this
calibration movie:
http://tinyurl.com/yfhe2ya (800K QuickTime movie) I play short pulses
of the stereo sound from stop and adjust the speaker balance until my
attention is instantly and equally divided between the two channels
upon start-up. Because the tonality of the two mics differs a bit,
its the best way I know of to get a practical, in the case,
perceptual, "match,"
Here is a sonogram of the movie soundtrack with notes about my
observations: http://tinyurl.com/yzbe7va (900K)
We won't have an official self-noise measurement to reference until
someone like Eric Benjamin can get a unit in their lab and measure
it. Rob D.
--
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|