Rob Danielson wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>
>
>>Polar patterns would be nice to have in the specs part of the database.
>>I refer to those a lot.
>
>
> I didn't add the index to the spread sheet yet. The abbreviations I'm
> contemplating are below. Please add/revise ones I've missed.
>
> O = Omni
> C = Cardioid
> W = Wide Cardioid
> H = Hyper-Cardioid
> 8 = Figure Eight
> Multi = Multi-Patterned
> Hemi = Hemispherical (as with PZM)
> Bin = Binaural
> Para = Parabolic
> SASS = Stereo Ambient Sampling System
> M-S = Mid/Side Stereo (built in)
>
I was actually thinking about the graphs. But, yes these give some idea.
Binaural, Parabolic, M-S would really not have a single standard polar
pattern. SASS, if used with omni's would probably have one that would be
pretty consistent.
Probably need a short shotgun and long shotgun category. Sometimes
called lobar.
>>I think the specs should be separate. One format
>>that you might consider for that is pdf. Have it on a html page and have
>>a downloadable pdf copy. Pdf is as close to a universal format as you
>>can get.
>
>
> I agree, for the MicList, a pdf doc would be best. I can do a pdf
> version if the formatting in pdf holds.
pdf seems to be pretty well standardized now. Ugly stuff sometimes, but
it's what we got.
> The Mics Spreadsheet would have the specs and can be used for
> sorting, deleting, adding to. It also has model links to the Mics
> List.
>
>
>
>> I'm not sure if the windows
>>version can read the mac excel files,
>
>
> Maybe a pc user can report whether the spread sheet will load in
> exel. The link is below.
I should note if I did not that the mac version of excel does read and
write the windows version of the files as well as the mac version. So
just doing it pc would work for at least macs and pc's.
I'm a little gunshy of excel in one way. I have spreadsheets going all
the way back to version 1. And recently discovered that they did not
keep reading all versions of the files in the current one. Another thing
to be sure and update with each version change.
>>I'm not sure about preferred recording subjects/locations. Since I might
>>use any of the mics I have depending on my mood, how close I am and so
>>on. I've commented on how music and studio work tends to categorize mics
>>by instruments they record. But in nature recording we don't generally
>>get so specialized. For my mics preferred subjects/location would be
>>frogs/Georgia for all the mics. Splitting it out more would not give a
>>true picture.
>
>
> "Frogs in Georgia" would say a lot. I changed to "Tested in these
> Recording Situations"
Still going to be tricky, but at least not trying to predict where else
it might be useful.
>>I tend to categorize mics by their potential soundfield. What sort of
>>area they are going to pick up from. Like, for instance, the
>>SASS/MKH-20, which has a very wide soundfield, but not a lot of depth to
>>it. Compared to, say, the Telinga w DAT Stereo, which I think of as kind
>>of pear shaped field, with a very long neck on the pear.
>
>
>
> I agree. Would a separate question like "Description of the mic's
> Soundfield:" work?
You might have to do some explaining, but it sounds right. It's kind of
like the polar pattern, but kind of not. It includes some estimate of
the reach of the mic, directivity and so on under actual field use. It's
going to vary in different situations, so how to standardize the
description will be interesting. I know my own personal criteria, but
they would be hard to write down as a set of rules.
>
>>The other problem, is combinations. All my M/S mics are combinations of
>>two different mics. It's not the only way that they can be used. And
>>each mic in the combo has different specs, except in the case of the M/S
>>MKH-80/80, where the same model is used for both with one set to figure
>>8 and the other set currently to cardioid. Or there is the SASS/MKH-20
>>and SASS/MKH-110. These have different characteristics than the
>>contained mics. Though obviously some of their character derives from
>>the mics.
>
>
> I have added these combinations:
>
> Sennhesier MKH-30/MKH-40 M-S
> Sennhesier MKH-30/MKH-60 M-S
> Sennhesier MKH-30/MKH-70 M-S
> Sennhesier MKH-80/80 M-S
> Sennheiser MKH-20 SASS Enclosure
> Sennheiser MKH-110 SASS Enclosure
I'm sure others will have more. I could even have more. Combinations
should probably be a separate section.
>>Note in listing the Telinga Pro V, there are several different mic
>>elements. It's a family of mics with different characteristics. Most
>>common elements to see around are the DAT Stereo, or the Dual Science.
>>The Dual Science even has two independent mono mics in it.
>
>
>
> I added DAT Stereo and Dual Science.
>
> We need to dig up specs for some of the mics.
One I read just tonight in some posts from the first few weeks of the
group was a statement by Klas that the DAT Stereo's self noise was about
12 - 13 dBA.
I have a fair number of manufacturer's sheets in (usually) pdf form. If
you need some data from those on a mic I'll be happy to look it up.
>>There have been considerable comments about various mics in the group.
>>Extracting those might be worthwhile if there is to be a comments database.
>
>
> True, but not without a lot of searching and clipping together and
> they'd still have to approve it.
>
> The idea is for Nature Recordist subscribers to provide concise
> testimony about a mic or two they feel well versed with. I will
> proceed with the Mic Database if enough subscribers say they're
> interested. Feel free to go ahead email me your additions. The form
> to use is below, feel free to improvise.
Going to be interesting to see how this all works out.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|