I don't think our ornery chipmunk would like that! In an environment
where documenting nature sounds is the objectibvem, this would be like
blowing a car horn... It would be an effective calibration, but quite
distruptive to the creatures and humans around.
I think slating the recording with nromal speaking voice, and setting
its playback, is the best unobtrusive way - but understand Dan's
concern for accurate calibration. No solution, just a response.
<L>
On Sep 6, 2005, at 4:36 PM, Rich Peet wrote:
> OK, I thought about it.
> All is well except the calibration method.
> I think there is a better way to accomplish more.
>
> Calibration of systems is a pain.
> So I looked for a constant volume sound source so that calibration
> can be done in post where it belongs for a number of reasons.
> To start with the starting environment and second the directional
> values of different mics.
>
> How about you find a 10 cent whistle with a ball in it. Buy 250 of
> them and sell them with the program concept. Those whistles do not
> change volume much with the amount you blow. It is broad freq so you
> can see the mic response and if blown either before or after the
> start of a track from 20 feet can be used to id the front to side
> charecter of the mics as well as the freq response of those mics. It
> can also then see how much of a reverberent site you are in. Then
> calibration can remain in post where it belongs. I envision it being
> blown at 20 feet at front and then side of the mics.
>
> Rich
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|