I agree with Lang's comments the two have different applications.
I can not take my foam block mic and easily record a duet between two
birds the way that you can with your cardiods. With modification I
will be able to do some of that but it still not as well. I also
agree that your config is better for the normal speaker setup that is
in use today. The weakness in your config is in setting up an open
mic.
In spring I enjoy doing an afternoon of searching for special species
rich yet people quiet areas. Then I return predawn to setup an open
mic. I have been waiting for the ability to do this stereo and look
forward to the full spring this year. For this type of site recording
I want the 360 degree sound.
--- In Vicki Powys <> wrote:
> Lang, Rich and All,
>
> Your very clear comments on 360 degree sound are much appreciated,
Lang.
> And after reading the PDF file mentioned by Walt on boundary mics
and SASS,
> I am further enlightened.
>
> > Walt wrote:
> > The SASS and PZM in general is discussed fairly well in the Crown
> > Boundary Microphone Application Guide, which I recommend all who
are
> > thinking of making a SASS read. Available in pdf here:
> > http://www.crownaudio.com/mic_htm/mic_pubs.htm
>
> My next question is, how much difference would there be for
realistic stereo
> effects, using binaural and omni mics, compared with my present set
up of a
> co-incident pair of cardoid mics? Is binaural worth the hassle, is
it
> noticeably superior? And could you make a sphere using upholstery
foam or
> should the material be more dense?
>
> Vicki Powys
> Australia
>
>
>
> > on 5/2/02 1:09 AM, Lang Elliott at wrote:
>
> > Rich:
> >
> > I think your setup will produce a very nice binaural-like effect,
and it is
> > similar in many respects to what you'd get using a sphere setup
like the one
> > designed by Schoeps. Really, yours is a simple setup using a
barrier to
> > isolate and directionalize the two microphones.
> >
> > While I can't know for certain, the primary weakness will
probably be poor
> > imaging (= localization) of sounds off to the sides. The reason
is pretty
> > simple. Because of the large size of the barrier and its shape, I
doubt that
> > movement of sounds sources straight out to the sides (for
example, a sound
> > source moving in a thirty degree arc off to one side) would
result in
> > significant changes in the signals arriving at the two mikes. If
there are
> > no differences at the mikes, then such subtle movements would not
be audible
> > over headphones or speakers.
> >
> > On the other hand, frontal or rear sound sources moving from left
to right
> > or vice versa will be imaged much better due to the barrier
design of your
> > setup. At least that's my guess.
> >
> > One good way to test all binaural mike setups is to do a "walk
around"
> > recording where you begin out front and center, then walk all the
way
> > around, talking to the mike all the while. Return to the center,
then walk
> > the other way. As you're talking, describe where you are in
relation to the
> > mike so that you know this upon playback. In other words,
say "front center"
> > when you're at that location. Other positions where you should
stop and
> > identify them should be "right 45 degrees", "right 90
degrees", "right rear
> > 135 degrees", "rear center", and so forth. But remember to talk
all the
> > time, even when you're moving between positions.
> >
> > Then, depending on your playback techique (via speakers or
headphones), you
> > will see how sound sources from all these directions translate
into the
> > final listening soundfield, and how well you can image your voice
moving
> > from position to position.
> >
> > This simple test will tell you a lot about how the final
listening illusion
> > is created, and it's a very good way to test the effects of
different
> > speaker arrangements.
> >
> > Lang
>
> >
> > For the best 360 degree binaural, I think that some of you should
experiment
> > with sphere setups, using spheres with a diameter of around 19-20
cm (=
> > 7.5"). The Schoeps KFM 6 has a diameter of 20 cm.
> >
> > Of course, the ease with which one can do this depends on the
mikes used,
> > and how they could be inserted or mounted inside the sphere so
that their
> > elements are flush with the surface.
> >
> > That said, I do want to say that the SASS setup will probably
serve most of
> > you better than a sphere under most circumstances. The SASS
produces
> > excellent imaging of sounds in the 180 degree frontal soundscape,
and also
> > has fair rejection of sounds to rear (which is usually desired).
Sphere
> > mikes are just as sensitive to the rear, which will often be a
considerable
> > annoyance as such a setup will hear you breathing and swallowing,
unless
> > you're at a distance from the mike.
> >
> > With my SASS setup, I usually use a ten foot cable and stand back
while
> > recording. This works pretty well unless my stomach grumbles. I
actually
> > prefer to use a longer cable, placing myself twenty or thirty
feet behind
> > the mike so that I can relax and make my normal creature-noises
without
> > worry.
> >
> > Lang
> >
> >> Rich and All,
> >>
> >> Your 360 degree mic set up looks wonderful, Rich. I can't see
that the
> >> sound would be all that different to the Schoeps stereo sphere
that Lang
> >> mentioned. What sort of mics are you using? I'd love to hear
some sample
> >> recordings. Does this set up work best with headphone listening
or with
> >> speaker listening? How thick is the foam?
> >>
> >> Vicki Powys
> >> Australia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> on 2/2/02 11:12 AM, richpeet at wrote:
> >>
> >>> ok, honest please, no holds barred. Upfront, slam dunk, is
requested.
> >>> Here is an outdoor stereo setup. I am not able to see a hole in
the
> >>> middle.
> >>>
> >>> I seem to get a full 360 for dawn forest recording and have
another
> >>> chunk of foam for a rear block that I can attach for a T with
> >>> coathangers punching through if I want a block in a given
direction.
> >>>
> >>> Granted I have no PZM gain which I wonder if it is freq specific
> >>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> What is the weakness of this system. I can post sample
recordings if
> >>> requested as well.
> >>>
> >>> The foam was $3.00. The mics over $600.00. The stand $15.00.
> >>>
> >>> http://people.mn.mediaone.net/richpeet/sounds/foam1.jpg
> >>>
> >>> http://people.mn.mediaone.net/richpeet/sounds/foam2.jpg
> >>>
> >>> I agree I need some polishing but tell me where.
> >>>
> >>> Rich Peet
> >>>
> >>>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|
