naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: field test of Audio-Technica 3032 mics

Subject: Re: field test of Audio-Technica 3032 mics
From: Dan Dugan <>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:37:38 -0800
Curt Olson, you wrote,

>I stepped up your audio clips and imported them to
>ProTools for a quick mono-compatibility check. The hat-mounted 3032s
>seemed very good, and much better than the vest-mounted 183 pair.

I've just checked them in mono, too. I can think of two problems that 
a mono sum can have: 1) loss of sounds that are primarily out of 
phase, and 2) colorations or frequency-area cancelations due to 
summing mics at different distances from a source.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I've never mono-checked the 
spaced-omnis-with-barrier recordings that I've been making for 
several years! I checked the Muir Woods samples in mono today. I was 
pleasantly surprised that neither of the problems above seemed 
evident to me. I think either all the sound elements in the scene 
were so diffuse that summing didn't affect tonality, or the the 
barrier technique was effective in preventing interference in the 
frequency range where it's audible.

Of course the lower noise of the 3032s made their mono sum clearer, 
and the summing increased the veiling of the soundscape with the 
noisier mics. But I view this as more an amplification of the 
differences that were apparent in stereo rather than a particular 
summing effect. After all, both pairs were similarly spaced with 
similar barriers.

With more listening I have to say that it wasn't an entirely fair 
comparison, because the two arrays weren't in the same place. I 
suspect that the revelation of the water sounds in the 3032 segments 
was due as much to position as it was to noise veiling. The log where 
I was sitting was on a slight shoulder of the trail, and I think I 
had a direct view of a small tributary stream a couple of hundred 
feet down the slope, but Sharon, twenty feet farther up the trail, 
may have been "over the hill" from that sound. It could also be an 
effect of cheap vs. state-of-the-art A/D converters, but I doubt 
that. If the converters in the Sharp MD were reducing low-level 
sounds, they would have reduced the mic hiss, too. Next time we're 
out I'll try to do some side-by-side comparisons.

When I turned it way up I noticed that I can hear Sharon's breathing 
in my recording, too. I also noticed that there's a rumble at the 
bottom end of the 3032/722 recording that the 183/MD combo didn't 
pick up. On a Spectrafoo analyzer the ambience starts rising below 
100 Hz and keeps on rising all the way down to 6 Hz. I suspect this 
was the ocean, but it could be self-noise of the mics. I don't know 
any place quiet enough to resolve that; as Rob Danielson said the 
other day, low frequencies travel great distances.

-Dan Dugan


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU