naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FR-2LE & AT4022

Subject: Re: FR-2LE & AT4022
From: "Paul Jacobson" thebrunswicktwitcher
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:18 pm ((PST))
Hi Vicki, Rob

On 13/03/2010, at 10:14 PM, vickipowys wrote:

> This was a very interesting comparison and I recall that I spent ages =

> analyzing both clips in uncompressed format when they were first
> edited for the AudioWings CD in 2008.  At that time, and again in
> listening now, for some obscure reason I prefer listening to Paul's
> recording made with his parallel boundary rig.  There was a sharpness =

> in Andrew's recording that put me a little bit on edge.  Nothing
> scientific here, just the listening experience.  I also hear in these =

> new samples more fizz-hiss in Andrew's version, which I find somewhat =

> unpleasant.  No idea why that hiss occurs, because the SD 722 and the =

> MKH 20s should actually be giving less noise than Paul's set up?  The =

> noise in Paul's recording is more comfortable to my ears, somehow.



There were definitely differences in the way the two recorders were set up,=
 and the resulting files had significantly different levels of modulation. =
 My recordings need something like 10dB gain applied to match Andrews files=
. Andrew recorded at 16/44.1 while my recordings were made at 24/48. Lookin=
g at the raw files the Andrew file has no content 20hz which seems indicate=
 that Andrew had the SD 722's 40hz HPF enabled while recording.   The HDP2 =
files were made without any filtering and have significant energy down to 0=
hz. I've played around with sections of the original files and applied a st=
eep 40hz HPF to my recording which results in a similar level of LF energy =
in both recordings. This doesn't appreciably change the fundamental differe=
nces of tonal character between the two setups.  In hindsight it would have=
 been interesting to record both rigs into the each of the recorders or eve=
n better to record both simultaneously into a 4 track recorder so we could =
quantify the contribution made by the mic preamps to the different tonal ch=
aracters.

I also wonder about the hiss which can be clearly seen as a cloudy area in =
Rob's sonogram.  It seemed to be primarily in one channel and I do wonder i=
f the upwards orientation of Andrews rig might have resulted in increased l=
evels of foliage noise. In other sections of the recording the hiss isn't n=
early intrusive.

cheers
Paul





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU