Hi Rob, is it possible to download a .wav file to make the comparison with
my own software (I'll send back the spectrographic images) ? The quicktim=
e
movie doesn't show well the background, and there is so little time between
the tics/tocs I feel hard to hear the background.
Gianni
2010/8/18 Rob Danielson <>
>
>
> 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/2flkpjk
>
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
--
Centro Interdisciplinare di Bioacustica e Ricerche Ambientali
Universit=E0 degli Studi di Pavia
Via Taramelli 24, 27100 Pavia
http://www.unipv.it/cibra
http://mammiferimarini.unipv.it
|