Rob wrote:
Perhaps I clicked on the link too quickly. If "C" PB and "D" is SASS,
I happily stand corrected.
Curt Olson
> Hi Curt--
> Thanks for giving it a listen!
>
> Applying my feeble reasoning: If C's recording requires a midrange
> boost to match "D" and it is reported that the SASS exhibits a
> midrange lift in comparison, then D must be the SASS/MKH-20's. The
> converse appears to be consistent in that Array D needs to have its
> midrange cut to match the response of C's. Perhaps the relation just
> flipped in your brain at the last step, or more likely, my wording
> was confusing.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts. I'll keep my shovel handy.
>
> I was surprised that the EQ matching for C->D required very simple,
> smooth curves. Glad to hear it worked on your speakers. Potentially,
> very useful info. Rob D.
>
>
>
> At 8:42 AM -0500 3/15/10, Curt Olson wrote:
> >
> >
> >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>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>http://tinyurl.com/ygxmton
> >>
> >> QuickTme movie for downloading (13 mb)
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/ygc5a34>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.
|