Subject: | Re: mbho MBP 648 PZ |
---|---|
From: | "hartogj" hartogj |
Date: | Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:03 pm ((PDT)) |
That is a tough one, Rob. There is definitely a shift in qualities between the two, but one does not seem to have 6dB less noise than the other. That may be because the subject clock and crow are on axis to the mic capsule in both, where I would expect the biggest difference would be for sounds the boundary itself is facing. I'm going to guess that A is on the boundary, because it sounds like the barrier shadows some of the higher frequency content heard in B. Even with 50% chance to get it right, I bet I am wrong. John Hartog > > http://tinyurl.com/28aqxkw > > Which is the boundary mic arrangement and which is open air? Is > there a significant difference in self-noise performance? Is there > "awful comb filtering" in one sample that is not in the other? > > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: mbho MBP 648 PZ, Rob Danielson |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: mbho MBP 648 PZ, Paul Jacobson |
Previous by Thread: | Re: mbho MBP 648 PZ, Rob Danielson |
Next by Thread: | Re: mbho MBP 648 PZ, Paul Jacobson |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU