Paul & Rob,
I've now looked at Rob's movie and sonogram, very good way to compare
the clips, thanks Rob.
All this listening is VERY subjective. The hiss in the SASS set up
which I find irritating to my particular set of ears, I can remove
with an eq notch at 12-13 kHz. The hiss no doubt goes higher but I
can't hear it above say 13 kHz.
From what you say Paul, if you had to increase your levels in post
to match Andrew's original, then even more reason why there should
not be hiss in Andrew's recording, compared to yours. Andrew did
tell me when he bought the MKH20s that he found them noisy and had to
clean something on them, forget what exactly! One of my new MKH20s
had to be repaired due to loud intermittent hissing (faulty capacitor).
No doubt the filter guru Rob will be able to define more precisely
where the differences lie between the two files. I look forward to
his analysis!
cheers,
Vicki
On 14/03/2010, at 8:18 AM, Paul Jacobson wrote:
> 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. 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
>
>
|