Hi Vicki--
Thanks for the assessment. If the additional noise is above 10K Hz,
that explains why I missed it.
Looking at a sonogram of the background-only clips, I'm seeing two
noise bands in 3032 segments around 11-12K Hz; none that stand out in
the MKH-20's. To locate the source of the additional >10KHz content
and the extra haze in the MKH-20's sonograms, someone will have to
speak from experience about the relative performance of these two
mics in the last octave. Both rigs use omni mics, and unless the SASS
is quite a bit closer to the leaves, and the HF response of the rigs
is equal, I wouldn't expect pitching the SASS up would produce a
profound difference in amplitude. Rob D.
At 8:35 AM +1100 3/16/10, vickipowys wrote:
> Rob,
>
>I've now downloaded and listened to your next video test of SASS vs
>Parallel Boundary. The hiss is very noticable in all of the D clips
>(must be the SASS). I prefer C which does not have the hiss.
>
>I might add that I don't hear this hiss in other recordings I have
>from Andrew (recorded with SASS), nor from my own SASS recordings.
>Also Paul says that the hiss does not occur in later parts of the
>(long) recordings that they made, so it must be simply the fact that
>Andrew's mics were pointed slightly upwards towards the tree canopy
>and the SASS has picked up leaf noise when there has been a slight
>wind movement.
>
>Other than that, I agree that generally the SASS is a bit more
>spacious in its effect.
>
>cheers,
>
>Vicki
>
>On 16/03/2010, at 1:45 AM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>> At 12:50 PM +0000 3/15/10, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> Paul Jacobson wrote:
>>>
>>>> There were definitely differences in the
>>>> way the two recorders were set up
>>>
>>> Coming in late to this thread I would like to thank you both for the
>>> time taken to produce this intriguing comparison. And everyone else
>>> for great commentary.
>>>
>>> Listening to the recordings without knowing which was which, I was
>>> surprised to find that I definitively preferred your parallel
>>> boundary AT3032 setup. A significant factor was the "noise" present
>>> in Andrew's recording, as already noted.
>>
>> Robin--
>> I'm curious about this noise you guys are referring to. Can you
>> describe it further? Do you think it could be really high in pitch,
>> like over 10K Hz? The rigs were near Andrew's house and there could
>> be acoustic HF noise bands that the mic could pick-up differently.
>> Is it more noticeable in the last video test with only background
>> excerpts? Rob D.
>>
>>>
>>> -- robin
>>>
>
>
--
|