At 2:32 PM +1000 8/18/10, Paul Jacobson wrote:
>
>
>
>On 18/08/2010, at 12:43 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>>
>> Hi--
>> An opportunity for interested ears:
>>
>> As he pondered which professional audio recorder to purchase for his
>> surround recording needs using AT4022's mics, Emil Klotzsch conducted
>> several comparison tests this summer including a Sound Devices 702
>> recorder (same mic pre as the 744T) and a Tascam DR680. I compiled
>> one of these tests into a 3.5 mb QuickTime movie which you can
>> download and play on your computer with QuickTime or a QuickTime
>> compatible player: <http://tinyurl.com/2flkpjk>http://tinyurl.com/2flkp=
jk
>>
>> Maximum pre gain was used on both recorders. There were a few
>> environmental sounds Emil was unable to eliminate in his urban
>> located studio. Both recorders were operated on battery power for the
>> test. Rob D.
>
>Hi Rob,
>
>These "tik tok" tests are fine for assessing relative self-noise,
>but I am extremely skeptical about how much of value can be derived
>from this kind of test in regards to other aspects of performance.
>As I said to Myles, once you have a preamp sufficiently quite not to
>degrade mic performance self-noise becomes an essentially irrelevant
>factor. I know there is a predominance of "flat earthers" on the
>list when it comes to preamps, but having built a few diy preamps
>and heard the audible changes resulting from changing components let
>alone, different designs it's hard to give any credence to claims to
>the effect that a "all preamps sound the same".
>
>cheers
>Paul
Hi Paul--
I trust you are hearing something that's important. I want to hear it
too. Can you describe the differences in pre performance in terms of
specific, audio qualities? As you well know, comparative
"preciseness" and "clarity" can stem from a number of traits. Tests
can be tuned to foreground them.
Its my understanding that with a test like this one, mic self-noise
_remains_ the predominant factor. The "transparent" pres allow the
mics to shine through in nearly full glory. But, understandings
evolve.
I have no prejudice except that if a piece of equipment truly
produces important differences, we should be able to readily hear
them. There are many details to account for in a comparison test like
Emil has made and I'm pretty confident that his test conditions
present ample opportunity for several kinds of difference to surface.
I often sense phenomena that seem palpable that I can't adequately
describe. When I narrow my focus, my goal is to hear it, to dis-cover
it, if I can. If I can't, I can't. The opportunity usually resurfaces
if there is some _thing_ to it. Rob D.
--
|