Okay Rob, I'll venture a tentative guess here that "C" is the MKH20/
SASS and "D" is the 3032/PB.
If that's correct, I'll explain more. If not, I'll dig deeper to learn
where I went wrong.
Curt Olson
PS: Nice job of EQ matching. And really helpful graphics as always.
Rob Danielson wrote:
> The implications of the EQ matching attempt are interesting, I think.
> Again, thanks Paul and Andrew. This is a mic array comparison I've
> been wanting to better understand for a long time.
>
> First let me state that I have some reason to believe the midrange
> frequency response of the MKH20's and the 3032's is close enough to
> not be a big concern with this comparison. Here's a sonogram from a
> mic comparison test I made with Rich Peet that includes a 3032 and
> two other MKH models in January: http://tinyurl.com/yzwzzgc
>
> The SASS array seems to create a frequency response "lift" between
> roughly 500-1600 Hz compared to that of the head-spaced, Parallel
> Boundary array. I only used segments of distant sounds from their
> recordings so discrepancies in array spacing and orientation would be
> lessened. The most distant sounds coming from the horizon are more
> challenging for mic arrays to capture and when spatiality is a
> desired attribute, they can be quite crucial. Most stereo arrays do a
> pretty good job of imaging robust, higher frequency sounds at closer
> distances.
>
> QuickTme movie for viewing with a QT compatible web browser (13 mb)
> http://tinyurl.com/ygxmton
>
> QuickTme movie for downloading (13 mb)
> http://tinyurl.com/ygc5a34
>
> Be sure to turn down the playback volume of the movie to a
> comfortable level. These are recordings of "backgrounds." The movie
> sound track has no compression but they were made from Paul's (well
> saturated) mp3's. They can be extracted and analyzed.
>
> I feel that the SASS array's impact on spatial clarity is positive. I
> would describe the advantage as increased airyness that also presents
> more detail in the affected Hz range than what I'd expect to get
> optimizing the PB's recording. Hopefully, someone else can do an EQ
> matching test to see if they get similar results with different
> monitoring. One can probably make the matches a little closer. I
> opted to go with a linear phase EQ plug that only has four bands.
>
> Would I rather bring home the SASS recording or the PB recording?
> I'd do some fine tuning on both files for critical applications, but
> I'm a big fan of the type of clarity that the SASS seems to be adding
> in this recording situation. More tests need to be done. I don't
> think the mics themselves are making a huge difference in the results
> of this comparison-- but its another variable that needs to be
> accounted for.
>
> Thanks to Paul's excellent documentation, I can see that the capsule
> to leading edge "set back" distance of his PB rig was about 1" -
> 1.25" Using a deeper setback can reduce airyness, but his should
> have been pretty well optimized for mid-range response. Folks who
> would like to explore getting more airyness, might consider a shorter
> setback or running a set back distance test to determine what "works"
> the best.
>
> I haven't started listening for stereo imaging differences as yet.
>
> The video presents a blind comparison. You should be able to tell
> which array is C and which is D based on my comments but I'll also
> make the ID's known after folks want to have listened to the results
> and looked at the EQ curves. Rob D.
|