>Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
>>I agree with your observation. If ATRAC has some disadvantage, it is that
>>the final sounds, the last of a fading echo, will get slightly broken and
>>crispy, especially if you boost it, of course.
>
Dan replied:
>This could be a converter artifact, and have nothing to do with ATRAC.
>
Hm? What do you mean? Converter? Do you mean DA?? If so, we can forget it. =
I
use MultiWav PRO24, in my opinion about the best sound cards ever made for =
PC.
And it can be heard (??) when replayed analog.
Just let me clearify - this "crispy" is hardly audible, and only when you
have the most perfect recording, replayed with the most perfect headphones.
Even so, it is so vague that it could even be imagination.
Klas.
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:23:08 2005
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:52:27 -0800
From: Dan Dugan <>
Subject: Re: moles and atrac
Klas Strandberg wrote:
>I agree with your observation. If ATRAC has some disadvantage, it is that
>the final sounds, the last of a fading echo, will get slightly broken and
>crispy, especially if you boost it, of course.
This could be a converter artifact, and have nothing to do with ATRAC.
>The danger with HQ reference loudspeakers, they claimed - and here I agree
>to some extent - is that you tend to work with too sophisticated effects, =
-
>effects that will be lost or distorted, unless you use the very best of
>loudspeakers.
Which is why so many mixers switch back and forth between main
monitors and Yamaha NS-10's or something like that.
Saw part of Paul Simon being feted at Kennedy Center on TV. Reminded
me that his mixer, Roy Hallee, is a god. Hallee's mixes sound good
loud on big speakers, sound good on a little mono radio.
-Dan Dugan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:23:07 2005
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:35:06 -0600
From: Rob Danielson <>
Subject: Re: Outside In
>I thought this group would be interested in the following:
>
>At the moment, I'm listening to the ice breaking up on the river outside m=
y
>house.
>
>I've put a baby-room monitor out there, and the receiver right next to my
>desk. That way, I get to hear the outside sounds inside. This way, I get t=
o
>hear bird songs and animal sounds even with the doors and windows closed.
>Believe me, there's nothing like hearing the cheery song of a Carolina Wre=
n
>on a dreary winter day.
>
>I've enjoyed finding birds I would have otherwise missed had I not been
>tuned in. Such things as flocks of Brant migrating by at night, the clamor
>as the neighborhood Blue Jay alarms went off as a Sharp-shinned Hawk
>attempted to strike at a feeder bird, coyotes howling on the island across
>from me, and eagles calling as they are wont to do as another passes by.
>Lots of possibilities.
>
>The best thing about these monitors is that they come cheap. I find them a=
t
>yard sales, thrift shops, and the like. I don't pay more than $5.00 for th=
e
>pair.
>
>Its good to check them out first. Set both units to the same "Channel", pl=
ug
>them in, and turn them on. There should be a feedback squeal. That's good.
>Then take one unit (the receiver) a short distance away, and turn it on
>again. You should be hearing the background sounds of the other unit. Then
>haggle over the price, and take it home. I keep mine on a table on a
>protected porch. Actually, I have several, so I now have "surround sound".
>These units have two channels. Problem with that is that there can be
>interference from one unit channel to another's other channel. Well, I gue=
ss
>they're not all that sophisticated electronic equipment. But, hey, if
>there's a conflict, I just give the offending unit away.
>
>I've set a vox recorder next to the monitor at times and was amazed to hea=
r
>the sounds I would have otherwise missed. Not CD commercial grade sounds,
>but interesting stuff going on, let's say, during the early hours of morni=
ng
>or when I'm away from the house.
>
>The quality of the sounds may not be up to the standards of most of this
>group, but at the price, and availability of these things, its too much fu=
n
>to miss over details.
>
>After a short write-up in ABA's "Winging-It", I was reminded to advise tha=
t
>these things are electrical, and proper precautions about electricity and
>weather (rain, snow, etc) need to be considered. Common sense stuff, but I
>guess some folks feel they need to be reminded not to stick their finger
>into a electrical socket. So, just be sure that the outside unit is
>protected from direct contact with moisture, and that it is unplugged or
>switched off before messing with it.
>
>Enjoy, and feedback, in this instance, would be welcomed.
>
>Rich Guthrie
>New Baltimore,
>The Greene County,
>New York
>
>
Hi Rich-
Elegant, and so cheap you could monitor different outside locations
in different rooms in your house. To improve listenability at a
modest cost, you could consider soldering-in panasonic wm61a* mic
capsules into the transmitters and connecting the baby receiver
speaker wires (line in) to yard sale stereos or even a cheap surround
sound receiver with L,R, LR, RR, C and LFE inputs. Rather than the
silly cheap surround speakers, 6- ($10) 6"X 9" full range car
speakers in 2-3 cu ft cardboard boxes give a pretty nice sound. I
monitored a congested urban location inside for 2+ years. A little
treble cut made monitoring less fatiguing, learned a lot about
acoustic communications this way.
Rob D.
*google: "panasonic wm61A diy mic"
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|