Walt wrote:
> >
>> 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.
We could link the above headings to some diagrams, have to make them though.
>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.
Possible to break up "H" into two categories,.. We'd have to look up
a lot of polar pattern info!. Would there be clear limits
distinguishing short from long?
<snip>
> > 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.
And a quality more commonly judged in stereo imaging which is another
use factor that folks should specify. I guess there should be enough
prompting in the form to encourage useful info but without dictating
or taking away from people's personal priorities.
> >
>>>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.
Because people might not see it as a personal combination rather than
factory made mic combination? Let's see how many combos we have. We
can separate.
>
>>>Note in listing the Telinga Pro V, there are several different mic
> >>elements. It's a family of mics with different characteristics.
<snip>
>
>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.
Noted. The Sony's, the AT 822/825 and the Sennheiser's specs are the
glaring absences.
>
>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.
If we can get several testimonies under the most popular mics at
least, people should feel much more comfortable about the investments
they are making. I'll try to include and update the testimonies
quickly as I get them. Aaron, your recent testimony on the DSM is the
sort of info that would be great include.
Rob D.
Here are the links and form again:
A. Mic Spreadsheet WebPage-- html page comparing specs with links to
the MicList.
http://www.uwm.edu/PSOA///Film/Danielson/NatRecordistMicList/MicSpreadsheet.htm
B. Mic Spreadsheet Exel doc-- Has Mic specs that anyone can download
for sorting by preferred criteria and adding/deleting info from as
they research mics.
http://www.uwm.edu/PSOA///Film/Danielson/NatRecordistMicList/MicSpreadsheet.xls
C. MicList-- Includes subscriber testimonies about selected mics.
an html page but as a PDF doc eventually. For an example, scroll down
to "MBHO" :
http://www.uwm.edu/PSOA//Film/Danielson/NatRecordistMicList/MicList.htm
D. Here are the questions for supplying comments for the MicList:
= = = = = Nature Recordists Mic List Addition = = = = = =
Microphone used and commented about:
(include accurate model number and specs if not yet listed. Price you
paid new or used is also useful)
- - - -
Subscriber's Name:
Hometown:
Date of Submission:
Tested in these Recording Situations:
Comments about this Microphone:
Description of the Mic's Soundfield:
Links to Recordings made with this Microphone:
Other links pertaining to this microphone:
(You may attach a small picture of the mic or your rig with it)
= = = = = email to Rob Danielson <> = = = = = =
>
>Walt
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|