Rob:
Might work well. I take it you're talking about a 5.1 setup where the
"pinpoint" mikes would feed the front center speaker?
I believe the SASS will capture the low end just fine, especially if you
used a modified SASS with Sennheiser MKH 20's installed. They have a pretty
decent low end, although there are other mikes that do better. The SASS
housing in no way prevents reception of the lows. I'd try that first, before
adding more low end, but I see nothing at all wrong with adding the
additional omni and routing lower-than-125 Hz to the sub (and filtering out
the highs).
Lang
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The patent is no longer in force.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
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|