Lang--
I've started a new string whether worth lengthening or not.
I agree that tonal balance or contour shaping in the low end may be
more important than shere low end extension and, sometimes, even
"flat response" to 20hz. This takes us quickly into esoteric realms
of reproduction and Klas's quote. I've encountered few sub woofers
that have fairly "smooth" response down to 20 Hz even if played at
calibrated volume.
Powerful machines produce low Hz's that persist very far and sound
out of proportion if close animal sources (sans grouse!) are of
primary interest in the mix. But, these lows also provide some of the
most useful clues we have about things happening in the distance or,
"space" in its most articulated form. There are 3 audible octaves
below 200Hz and 6.5 above.
I find that many quiet natural settings have frequencies in the 30Hz
range that are very useful in creating fundamentals of the harmonic
structure to create a sense of "air" or local acoustics in a
setting. What I call the "air" range goes up to about 900-1000 Hz but
the harmonics that take advantage of a well-represented low
frequencies are in the first few octaves, 60-240 Hz. Of course, it
takes two smooth subs and careful calibration for me to use this
phenomenon and its all totally impractical for distribution today. I
have to use sound "installations," -- a real pain. As I eq, I glance
at the frequency/amplitude distributions in even my "quietest" field
recordings (Firium displays this dynamically in real time) and I see
huge percentages of the total sound energy down at the bottom. Too
esoteric? possibly, but I see them as natural and useful in my
representations, man-made or not. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
>Rob:
>
>Yes, I've actually found the MKH20 to be a bit too sensitive at the low en=
d,
>at least to my liking. There is often an emphasis of distant rumble which
>has to be filtered. However, this is not to say the MKH20 is not flat. I
>think it is rather flat down to below 40Hz. It's just that usually I'd
>rather have a bit of rolloff way down there, except in very specific cases
>where very low animal sounds must be reproduced.
>
>Lots of folks these days have home entertainment systems with subwoofers.
>And often the subwoofers are cranked too high. This emphasizes the very lo=
w
>end and can make distant traffic that is inaudible in nature very audible =
in
>someone's living room.
>
>Lang
>
>>Rob:
>>
>>Why do you say "I would not favor using MKH-20 in this regard."?
>>
>>Lang
>>
>Sorry if my remarks were confusing. So far, I've found the low end
>response of the R183B/CS122 in the field to be well balanced and
>well-defined down to 40Hz. I would not choose the MKH-20 over the 183
>if low end replication was a chief goal. Both do pretty well in my
>estimation.
>Rob D.
>
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
><=3DUnsubscribe=
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
>
>[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
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|