That is interesting.
And you can check if the bass theory will work with last years
naturerecordists campout 6 channel array. Using only the 4 channel
linear portion of the array you could strip out the <125 cycle
frequencies from the inner omni's and then copy the outer omni <125
cycle over to the inner omni's and play it back with full range
speakers and no central sub. I bet you will get a textural and
directive bass image. Neat idea.
Rich
--- In Rob Danielson <>
wrote:
> Hi Lang:
> I like the elegance of the four omni strategy too. Do you think
> they'd capture enough low end "body" and textural detail when
working
> a large, exterior space? How about this (dream) micing array: a
pair
> of opposite facing SASS or four baffled omnis for nearby mid and hi
> frequency sources; a pair of wide spread omnis for triangulating
the
> low end and sounds coming from a distance (send <125Hz through
> bi-amped stereo subs) and use 2-4 pinpoint mics for articulating
> spots of textural interest? Rob D.
>
> = ==
>
> At 8:28 AM -0400 6/16/04, Lang Elliott wrote:
> >Rob:
> >
> >Interesting article. Of the techniques listed, the SAM, the
> >Surround-Atmo-Mikrofon (Surround-Ambience-Microphone) array is the
closest
> >to what I'm trying to describe. Note that it is designed for
ambient hall
> >recording and does not define a front and center. Although it uses
> >directional microphones, it would preserve binaural cues, which I
think are
> >critical for what we're trying to accomplish as nature recordists.
> >
> >My design is similar in that it would utilizes four mikes in a
symmetrical
> >array, with elements ear-spaced. The big difference is that I
would use omni
> >mikes and barriers to make them directional, rather than cardioid
mikes. I
> >would choose a design that firmly adheres to binaural
psychoacoustical
> >principles, which means that the human brain will be given all the
natural
> >information it normally uses to image sounds in space.
> >
> >Lang
> >
> >At 8:30 PM -0700 6/15/04, <> wrote:
> >> > my old idea of mounting 4 mics in a tetrahedral (pyramid
shape)
> >>
> >>Kevin,
> >>
> >>Such a system was invented and patented by Michael Gerzon and
Peter Craven
> >>back in the early 1970s, and the microphone is now known as the
Soundfield
> >>microphone:
> >>http://www.soundfieldusa.com/
> >>The patent is no longer in force.
> >>
> >>It was demonstrated by Gerzon that a tetrahedral array of
loudspeakers is
> >>NOT the best way to reproduce the signals. Although the
microphone captures
> >>information that includes height information, the height
information is
> >>almost never reproduced (unfortunately). For practical reasons
almost all
> >>reproduction systems involve a horizontal circle of loudspeakers,
say 6 or
> >>8, or even more.
> >>
> >>I have used a Soundfield microphone, either the commercial one or
one
> >>assembled out of individual microphones, to make numerous nature
recordings
> >>and I find it very satisfactory for my purposes. But it is not
without
> >>flaws. A great deal more information can be found at:
> >>http://www.ambisonic.net/
> >>and in the more than 100 technical papers on the subject
published in the
> >>Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, and elsewhere.
> >>
> >>Eric Benjamin
> >
> >Enjoyed this discussion. The below website has quite a few 5.1
micing
> >diagrams including the soundfield:
> >http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim456/Materials/tracking_5_1.html
> >Rob D.
> >
> > = = =
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Microphones are not ears,
> >Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >A listening room is not nature."
> >Klas Strandberg
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rob Danielson
> Film Department
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|