naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

5. Re: SD702 vs Tascam DR680 Blind Test

Subject: 5. Re: SD702 vs Tascam DR680 Blind Test
From: "Rob Danielson" danielson_audio
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:06 am ((PDT))
Hi Gianni--
I agree the clock is faster and louder than would
be ideal.  I'm realizing there are quite a few
factors to the testing method. I should probably
right some of them down. Emil did the test
several times to work out issues.

Nearly all of the QuickTime movie soundtracks I
make are full res .wav files. (indicated by "Lrg"
at the end of the file name).  Anyone can open
just the sound from QT movies using a
QuickTime-compatible sound editing app. You can
also use QT Pro or MPeg Streamclip to export the
16/48K  stereo or mono track with no quality
change/loss. MPeg Streamclip is a free,
cross-platform application that many people use
for such things.

Let me know if you run into issues. Its a useful
process to know how to do. Rob D.




At 9:03 AM +0200 8/23/10, Gianni Pavan wrote:
>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
>quicktime 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><http://tinyurl.co=
m/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://www.unipv.it/cibra
><http://mammiferimarini.unipv.it>http://mammiferimarini.unipv.it


--












"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    
    

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • 5. Re: SD702 vs Tascam DR680 Blind Test, Rob Danielson <=
Admin

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