At 11:43 PM -0400 4/2/06, Jim Lee wrote:
>Now I am wondering if the direct mechanical coupling between the wood
>and mics might not be a really positive factor. Is it possible that the
>wood is actually picking up some of the incoming waves and adding them
>to the overall effect. Yes, there is an increased risk of extraneous
>sounds from accidental impact with the rig. But there may be a
>beneficial "other side of the coin." When I tap on my own head very
>gently, I am amazed at how little force is required to make an audible
>sound through bone conduction. And that is dampened by skin and hair. I
>would be interested to know if shock mounted or damped mic mounts on
>this rig would yield the same airiness and spatial definition. .. .
>just wondering.
>Jim Lee
That's a fun analogy. When I tap on the bones in my skull, the note
produced is fairly consistent in different places and with a
fundamental frequency somewhere in the neighborhood of ~180Hz. When I
tap on a 2"X6" block of wood it does sound quite similar. I agree,
if there's enough energy (which might be rare in Curt's
applications), the resonance added by the block could sound
"favorable" or not. I'm surprised at how often direct energies do
reach the mics, especially from wind moving/vibrating the entire
suspension system. When I double-suspend my mics in a smaller tree,
close deer tromps can still travel up the trunk and deform the
diaphragm response momentarily. I was surprised to see the nylon
straps in Curt's rig. I assumed he used a layer of padding. Likely
he's experimented and found a combination of materials that dampen
the energies and are pretty immune to resonance. Rob D.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|