Hello everyone,
In reading back posts regarding stereo imaging, why does everyone
appear to be looking to "modify" Crown Audio's SASS product (use only
their enclosure) instead of also using the PZM mics they offer with
it? Is it that most of you already own better quality microphones,
or is there something not desirable about the PZM's for certain types
of nature recording situations? Or "C", none of the above?
I follow the concept of the rubber or foam block simulating a
binaural experience, but my head's not square (at least last time I
checked in the mirror). I would of guessed the dummy head variety
would provide a more realistic recording (perhaps this is not
necessarily the goal for everyone).
It seems that in order to capture the amplification benefits of the
reflected energy, the microphone's element must be nearly (to a
minuscule dimension for high frequencies on a wavelength basis) at
the interface in order to benefit and avoid comb filtering boundary
effects. I'm not sure a microphone assembly with embedded capsule
allow the reflective surface to get close enough to the energy
coupling region of the capsule. What do you suppose the test setup
consists of to look for comb filtering in the frequency response? Is
it just a matter of getting a calibrated sound source and sweeping a
tone? Probably exploring the spacial relationships also.
One thing about the SASS concept that sort of confuses me, regarding
reflected energy amplification, is that how can it be so small
relative to a parabola, when we need large parabolas in order to
capture low frequencies effectively?
Brian Bystrek
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|