> 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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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 i=
s
> 20 cm spaced and baffled Figure-8's; I discovered a discussion of by
> accident recently...
>
> http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=3D70271
>
>
>>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
None of Lang's Mod SASS
No Rich's Blockhead design
Which brings up other boundary designs, no boundary mics at all.
And then there are the endless variations of "Binaural"
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.
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'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.
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.
Walt
|