Oops. Should have read...
Perhaps I clicked on the link too quickly. If "C" PB and "D" is SASS,
I happily stand corrected.
Curt Olson
On Mar 15, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Curt Olson wrote:
> 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.
|