Rich Peet, you wrote,
>Calibration of systems is a pain.
>So I looked for a constant volume sound source
Yes, that's the key.
>so that calibration
>can be done in post where it belongs for a number of reasons.
I agree, but I think it's very helpful to have a rationale for
setting record levels. I posted a scene that three recordists
recorded. One had too much gain and overloaded from wind effects. One
was way too low. But then, if something unexpected like a
low-altitude jet flyover had happened, that low recording would have
been the only one to get it undistorted.
>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.
Interesting. I'll try it. My initial reaction is that a whistle is
too loud and too narrow-band, and stringing out a 20-foot measuring
cord (could be attached to the whistle, with a hook at the mic end)
might be clumsy. But I love the low-tech concept.
Let's brainstorm about things that make a constant level of noise.
Thanks, Dan Dugan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|