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:
1: Blumlein (is there a variation on Blumlein to try- this one was
popular as I recall)
2: AB with wide cardioids spaced 20 inches (0.5 m)
3: AB with omnis spaced 20 inches (0.5 m)
Message: 4.
Subject: AB with omnis spaced 6" and a barrier
Message: 5.
Subject: AB with omnis spaced 13" and a barrier
Message: 6.
Subject: AB with omnis spaced 19" and a barrier
Message: 7.
Subject: Wide Spaced AB omni's (whatever your cables will permit)
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=
.
*If there were too few animals or other percussive sounds, you could
create some percussive impulses at three positions like 3/4 left 3/4
right and high in the center or high on one side.
You'd need a helper!
Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
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.
>
>
>Bruce Wilson
>http://wilson.dynu.net
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
> On Behalf Of Rob Danielson
>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:35 PM
>To:
>Subject: [Nature Recordists] Bruce's Stereo Array test (was The right
>stereo setup
>
>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. I found discussion following the test to be very useful.
>All it would take is a simple html page with links to the test files
>and the list. Not a big chore, I'll do it. I was thinking of
>including a link to it on this page:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/links. Rob D.
>
> =3D =3D =3D
>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.
>>
>>I would like to help develop the server idea, with a protocol to
>follow.
>>Others with more experience than me could help with protocol, but I'd
>be
>>happy to .asp write code to present forms for data input and file
>>upload, handle presentation of accumulated data and searches.
>>
>>Bruce Wilson
>>http://wilson.dynu.net
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:
>> On Behalf Of Walter Knapp
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:58 AM
>>To:
>>Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Bruce's Stereo Array test (was The
>>right stereo setup
>>
>>Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
>>
>>> I wonder if it would be possible to get Bruce's test linked in the
>>> yahoo group home page or some other official/visible place? Here the
>>> list of the arrays he used:
>>>
>>http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/naturerecordists/2006
>-
>>04/msg00338.html
>>
>>It's hardly a definitive or inclusive test. Doing as you suggest would
>>elevate it above other possible mic brands, patterns or samples. I
>don't
>>
>>think it's appropriate to do that. Unless you want to make it the
>>official recommendation of naturerecordists or something like that? If
> >someone wants to set up a server containing all samples posted by
>>everybody with no priorities, that would be more appropriate. Each
>>person in the group has their own likes and dislikes and non of those
>>are definitive. Often recordings by different people of different
>>subjects bring entirely different conclusions.
>>
> >Walt
>>
|