Hi Paul--
Based on the differences you outline below, I think the test
conditions are close enough to learn more from. The asymmetries also
struck me as potentially very telling which should become clearer
with EQ match attempts. It would make the results more reliable to
work from the originals if they are still handy. The first two
minutes of each is fine-- the raw field files, no sample rate
conversion, etc., etc. Rob D.
At 8:18 AM +1100 3/14/10, Paul Jacobson wrote:
>
>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. Looking 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 0hz. I've
>played around with sections of the original files and applied a
>steep 40hz HPF to my recording which results in a similar level of
>LF energy in both recordings. This doesn't appreciably change the
>fundamental differences 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 even better to record both
>simultaneously into a 4 track recorder so we could quantify the co
>ntribution made by the mic preamps to the different tonal characters.
>
>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 if the upwards orientation of Andrews rig might have
>resulted in increased levels of foliage noise. In other sections of
>the recording the hiss isn't nearly intrusive.
>
>cheers
>Paul
>
>
--
|