Rich,
Actually, the question I intended to prompt was why the Crown Audio
design appears to have a sound absorbing block in the middle
(simulating characteristics of the human head - right???) as opposed
to something with curved edges towards the front. My lack of prior
experience in acoustics has me wondering if a high frequency source
were to pan across listening area from side to side, would the
rectangular corners result in any sort of discontinuity where the
sound would suddenly record as if it rapidly shifted from one side to
the other? Just trying to get an understanding of the critical
design features that make is successful so that I might try building
one myself. I agree on all your highlights, an efficient design
includes consideration given to simplicity in construction and
fabrication - I think I will measure the "rectangularness" of my head
some other day though :>.
I need to read back further than I did on the SASS related posts, I
don't recall any discussion relative to loud environments.
Thanks for the help.
Brian Bystrek
--- In "richpeet" <> wrote:
> Well since I think I am about the only guy in the world to suggest
a
> square barrier mic I guess I have to comment.
>
> Measure from your ear around your head and you will see you are
> closer to square than you are round. But the real reason I built a
> square barrier is the ease in use. You can set it on a picnic
table,
> and just mount it anyware and it sticks. Round objects roll and
move
> and fight you and square ones don't.
>
> The Sass needs to be modified because it was designed for a loud
> environment. It is great for a full chorus of Christians ready to
> save all your souls. But is weak for a lone bird on a quest for one
> other. So I keep a sass for recording that bolt of lightning ready
> to strike you down, and use the blockhead to record the whispers in
> the wood.
>
>
> --- In "bbystrek" <> wrote:
> > 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/
|