At 1:45 AM -0400 6/22/06, Walter Knapp wrote:
> > At 3:10 PM -0600 6/20/06, Bruce Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>What would be a good way of repeating the test? I don't mind spending
>>>some time redoing it, if I can do a proper job of it.
>
>It's really not what you have done, but what it's proposed to become.
>Your samples are nice as far as they go.
Any thoughts as to which set-ups you found most interesting or disappointing?
>
>My own approach in evaluating a stereo setup is to record with it for a
>season or more. To learn where it works and where it does not. What
>different stereo I can get out of it. I cannot think of any way a small
>set of samples can fully represent the potential of a stereo setup.
>
>So don't think test, think tests, lots of tests. Every way you can come
>up with. Actually don't even think tests as that's a bias too.
A/B comparison tests are not for everyone. Some people will jump to
the summary no matter what. Having multiple tests to correlate would
be ideal,.. even from tests that weren't done as well as they could
have been.
I'm not after an objective position or influencing equipment choices.
For me, the A/B comparison tests are only one part of furthering
abilities to discern qualities in recordings. I haven't provided
summaries with the tests. That's up to the listener.
><Rob D wrote this:>
>>>Its a test of stereo micing techniques and options, not mics. A test
>>>with a pair of multi-pattern, small diaphragm mics like MKH-800's or
>>>MKH-80's in a more remote location could be more definitive, but
>>>until that's available or Bruce can spend a long day doing another
>>>test, its the best one we have, right? Stereo micing strategy is
>>>important.
>
>The idea that there is any universal mic that can be used to test stereo
>mic patterns is flawed. Different model mics are suited for different
>stereo setups, even if they are the same polar patterns. By doing it
>with one model mic you will misrepresent the potential of the stereo
>micing techniques.
I believe the goal of Bruce's test, which seemed to be appreciated by
some in the discussion that followed, was to explore a fixed
soundscape with a one pair of mics capable of producing several types
of stereo micing techniques. The result is being more enabled to
evaluate the differences each set-up produces-- _not_ having the
mic/capsule variable to contend with. Its a start. It looks at
differences with one set of Large diaphragm mics.
>
>By putting that up in a prominant position you will be recommending
>certain patterns that are not necessarily going to be optimum. It will
>become a "approved list" that beginners will be pointed to. No matter
>how much you think it won't.
I'm not sure what you feel is being "listed." One of the beauties of
his test is folks who are in a hurry to make a gear choice are
probably not going to take the time to listen through the samples
carefully.
I agree that we don't know very much about the NT2000 and an intro to
the test should talk about not having humidity reports yet and that
its HUGE! When I take a look at the links up there now
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/links , I don't see
how a link Bruce's first test would be harmful. Another option is to
link to a blog where discussion can continue.
>
>>>At 10:18 AM -0600 6/20/06, Bruce Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>I agree with Walt. My test had too many changing conditions, was
>>>>specific to one model of mic (though it is a an appropriately versatile
>>>>model), and had too much background noise for it to qualify as anything
>>>>official or even elevated.
>
>Even with the most versatile mic model possible it's not possible to
>create unbiased tests of all stereo patterns. I've nothing against the
>model used, just that it's one model that's going to work better for
>some things than others. If you really want to do this sort of listing,
>you pretty much are stuck with having to do it with a variety of mics
>under a wide variety of conditions.
>
>> On 6/20/06, Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bruce--
>>>I'll take a stab at it. I'd seek a place with very low ambient
>>>background levels early and do it on Sunday morning. I'd try to
>>>include some kind of vertical relief in the setting so there would be
>>>some pronounced reflections. Animals, but not overly busy*. Fewer or
>>>no insects (if that's an option). As for the mic set-ups, with the
>>>rig at least 6 feet high, maybe:
>
>All of which will be your bias in recording. That will effect the
>results. That is not a judgement of your recording, it's just you do
>have a style of recording, just like everyone else does. Is
>naturerecordists to be defined by your style? By the acoustics of your
>studio? By the particular equipment you have and how you use it? No
>single recordist can do all the recording if it's to be at all
>representative. Put ten different nature recordists out with the same
>stereo setup and you will get quite a variety of results.
All the more reason for each of us to improve on what we understand
about our tools and our perceptions.
Are there things about the testing situation you or others would change?
>
>>>1: Blumlein (is there a variation on Blumlein to try- this one was
>>>popular as I recall)
>>>
>
>> Fwiw I'd be curious to hear the "Faulkner" technique too, which I think is
>> 20 cm spaced and baffled Figure-8's; I discovered a discussion of by
>> accident recently...
>>
>> http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=70271
>>
>>
>>>2: AB with wide cardioids spaced 20 inches (0.5 m)
>>>3: AB with omnis spaced 20 inches (0.5 m)
>>>4. AB with omnis spaced 6" and a barrier
>>>5. AB with omnis spaced 13" and a barrier
>>>6. AB with omnis spaced 19" and a barrier
>>>7. Wide Spaced AB omni's (whatever your cables will permit)
>
>I've over 250' of cable in my field kit.
>
>>>8: ORTF with cardioids
>>>9: ORTF with wide cardioids (11 o'clock position)
>>>
>>>10: MS with cardioid mid
>>>11: MS with wide cardioid mid
>>>12: MS with omni mid
>>>
>>>13: XY with normal cardioids
>>>14: XY with wide cardioids
>>>
>>>15: NOS using wide cardioids
>>>
>>>Photos of each mic set-up would be very useful for the website
>>>presentation.
>
>You've left out many, many patterns that have been used in nature
>recording. And are including some patterns that are not used much if at
>all. Looks more in some ways like a bunch of studio folks list than
>nature recording.
>
>Here's a few:
>No parabolic stereo patterns.
>No MS with short shotgun
>No XY with short shotgun
>No XY with long shotgun
Maybe we could have two crews working on the tests at the same time
so the location would be a constant? Yes, we should include at least
one shotgun M-S combo because its so popular and quite a few folks
would be curious how they compare. To include several tyes of
capsules is a different test from the one I'm imagining because I'd
lose my key test constant
>None of Lang's Mod SASS
I'd love to include mkh80/800's in a SASS. We'd need a fixture ready
to accept Aaron's mkh-800's
>No Rich's Blockhead design
_The_ Blockhead? Definitely. Insurance on shipping will be costly,
but its worth it. :-)
>Which brings up other boundary designs, no boundary mics at all.
>And then there are the endless variations of "Binaural"
Curt Olson's designs, that I added seem to be squarely in the arena I
think. We should include a mannequin head but we need to be able to
quickly install the mkh-800's into it. Recommendations about where to
find a good but not costly mannequin head?
>
>Or how about the difference in the stereo from a pair of MKH-80's in M/S
>with cardioid pattern vs a MKH-30/40 M/S, vs a pair of Rode NT2000's in
>M/S with cardioid mid, vs a Rode NT2000/NT1A M/S or a NT1A/MKH30 M/S.
>(and that's only a start to the possibles) Each of those will give
>slightly different stereo that can easily end up defining a stereo setup
>that does not sound at all like the others. And we have not even got
>into the infinite variations of mixing the mid and side of each. Dial up
>stereo patterns.
As time permits. There are only so many non truck/plane minutes to
work within and I'd vote for doing all of the tests that involve the
mkh-800's first. I don't have a NT2000.
>
>Or the difference of the sound of the mod SASS with, say, MKH-20's vs
>AT3032's, or MKH-110's. Try fitting a MKH-80 into a SASS for a different
>take on that stereo setup.
>
>The idea that each stereo setup has only one definitive sound is pretty
>simplistic. So the idea of a simple set of samples telling much is
>flawed. It misrepresents as much as anything.
>
>And that's with just a moment's thought. Since this will become the
>list that beginners are sent to it should be complete. And represent
>nature recordists and nature recording as a whole. At least that.
>
>I suggested a sample library with no priorities and containing samples
>from as many recordists as wish to contribute. But even with that it
>should come with large warnings that it's not definitive or a
>recommended list. The stereo setups represented can produce stereo
>that's not contained in the library.
I'd be happy to supply some samples for this library idea and hope
others will too.
>
>I'm going to suggest that all participants at least read "The New Stereo
>Soundbook" so as to have a little understanding of stereo mic setups.
>And that does not really cover nature recording stereo very well, and is
>a little dated. But it's a start.
I'll use it to support my clipboard.
>
>Now I'll go back to reading the photo groups who are busy defining in
>minute detail the quality of Sony's new DSLR based on photos with one
>lens shot over a 40 minute period in a limited setting. And the camera
>won't even be available for another month. A lot of parallel to this.
>You can simplify to where meaning is lost.
If you think of other stereo techniques to include, let us know! :-) Rob D.
>
>Walt
>
>
--
|