R Watson wrote:
> I also have had very good results with the ECM-MS957. But, discovered the
> hard way that it is liable to damage from moisture. Sony does not recommend
> the use of this microphone in humid weather although they did replace it
> when damaged by my using it in a light rain (although I tried to protect
> it). Maybe Walt has other "bad weather" in mind.
Yes, mine is just thunderstorms, wet stuff you can't see through. Not
that piddly light rain stuff. I'll use the Telinga in light rain up
until the drops hitting the reflector are making too much noise. That's
when I use the Sony. I, however, don't allow the rain to pour through
it. Humidity has not harmed either of the two I have. And Georgia has
plenty of that too. One I've used for four years like that. The other I
bought used about 3 years ago. First I've heard of any humidity problem
with it.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:22:52 2005
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:36 -0400
From: Marty Michener <>
Subject: Re: Audio editor/ DSP feature suggestions
At 11:10 PM 10/20/02 -0400, you wrote:
>I've not been much for using a music scale for nature recording. But I
>do almost always use the log scale option in Spark XL's sonogram. Note
>that it has fully adjustable scale endpoints, you can look at just part
>of the spectrum in more detail. And this is certainly not tied to octaves.
I use the term "octave" only as I use the "bit" in data; it is the smallest
logarithmic interval - binary - people usually discuss, and the unit on
which ATRAC coding is classified. I do NOT suggest using it PER SE on the
graph.
>There is a lot more to sonograms than this. I have found just how useful
> it is to have your sonogram so that you can plug it into your filter
>sequence where you need it to see what's going on in realtime. Most of
>the time I just put a sonogram at the output end of the filter sets I
>use, and then adjust the filters while checking the sonogram. Spark XL's
>sonogram is highly detailed at it's max FFT size (4096). It is a fair
>load on the processor to maintain that display as well as do all the
>filtering in realtime. I cannot, with my 400 mHz G4 put in two sonograms
>in the stack, the processor overloads. I can do that with my son's dual
>1 gHz G4. It's much harder to bring that one to it's knees.
>
>Many current sonogram generators don't do a good job. Often they try to
>run at low resolution. To me a good sonogram program is going to
>generate meaningful data for all pixels. One like that, particularly in
>color and running realtime provides a huge amount of detail about the
>sound. Clearly this is going to limit it to the faster processors. Or
>eliminate the ability to do realtime.
Walt makes terrific points, especially if you are planning new software.
Cool's sonagrams are completely adjustable, as we have discussed
previously, filter width, number of bands, color scheme tied to the
loudness output scale, loudness linear or logarithmic, type of filter used,
etc.
I imagine a "paint out noise" feature to use a spray-can like tool, where
the longer you hold down the button in an area, the more it deletes that
frequency region, all with smooth-edged curves. You should also have a
"restore" color to add to the spray-can as well, so you can selectively
bring back up smaller areas. Of course the size of the area to be sprayed
should at least be crudely settable, so you can broad-brush or detail. . . .
cheers,
Marty Michener
MIST Software Associates
PO Box 269, Hollis, NH 03049
coming this week : EnjoyBirds - software that migrates with you.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|