Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
> Any thoughts as to which set-ups you found most interesting or disappoint=
ing?
I have a strong bias for nature recording setups that are hand holdable.
The mobility is worth the limitations. That does leave out quite a few
setups.
I prefer to match stereo setups to site geometery, so designs with
definable field pickup are most useful.
> 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.
What you think the tests are for and what they become are quite
different. You must face that these do influence equipment choices of
others a lot.
I have nothing against comparison tests, they make a early step in
evaluating setups. They rarely are all that definitive about the
characteristics of the setups, however. To be definitive requires a lot
of recording under a lot of conditions at a lot of sites.
> 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.
As I've noted that will tell you nothing about how the same setups will
behave with a different mic. You cannot, from that, make definitive
statements about the field characteristics of the setup in general. It's
a mere point of data compared to what's necessary.
The conclusions drawn from Bruce's tests have gone on to influence
equipment choice decisions. They are referred to as describing the
characteristics of each setup. That's the problem as the next set of
recordings with the same setups may not agree with this set.
> 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.
It is a list of setups, and not a complete list of setups at that.
Implicit in that list is that these are the setups worthy of test and
others are less worthy.
> All the more reason for each of us to improve on what we understand
> about our tools and our perceptions.
Indeed, though it's a extremely limited way to go about it. There comes
a time when testing needs to be replaced by actual field recording.
> Are there things about the testing situation you or others would change?
Start with a full season of recordings at a variety of sites. And
process and listen to them in a variety of processing "studios". With a
variety of ears.
> 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
Your key constant is not constant. As I've noted any specific mic will
color each stereo setup differently. The sound of the mic is a variable
in this case, not a constant.
> I'd love to include mkh80/800's in a SASS. We'd need a fixture ready
> to accept Aaron's mkh-800's
I just finished the 37th SASS/MKH-20 I've built for various people, it's
a design that works well with MKH-20's. I think I could design support
blocks that would hold my MKH-80's in the correct position in a highly
modified SASS housing. But it would still be a failure. The side address
diaphragms would be a very wide gap away from the boundary. There is
also the matter of the symmetrical push pull diaphragm they use. The
diaphragm is buried inside dual backplates and so isolated from edge
coupling. Even removing the mic from the housing would probably not
provide good enough boundary coupling. And I'm not taking apart my
MKH-80's to try.
I doubt you can do any boundary mic setup with the MKH-80's or
MKH-800's, which are in mechanical design nearly identical.
> _The_ Blockhead? Definitely. Insurance on shipping will be costly,
> but its worth it. :-)
You'll have to pin Rich down on which design, that one appears to be
evolving. And, of course this wanders away from stereo into surround.
> 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?
I think you will find that it's also hard to come up with a suitable
installation in a head with the MKH-800's. Some of the original heads
used passages that lead to a standard omni like the MKH-20's. I suppose
such bored passages could be used with MKH-800's. Just note that such
large passages don't resemble natural ear canals, so defeat the theory
behind binaural heads.
Some of Curt's designs resemble the SASS, others differ. Yes, they are
interesting. A lot of design ground to try out that way.
> 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.
Which, even if you used both of those mics, would be a very limited
sampling of stereo setups. As noted above side address mics do have some
limitations. And limited polar patterns.
>>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.
You might try reading and understanding it first.
> If you think of other stereo techniques to include, let us know! :-) Rob =
D.
I'm far too distracted with nature photography stuff right now to do
much thinking about this. I don't particularly fit into the direction
this is going anyway. I do have a pair of NT2000's that I'm going
somewhere with, most probably M/S though the designing I'm doing will
cover a lot more. Most of my other design ideas I'm not at a point of
revealing anything. As you know my main field kit is based on a number
of MKH mics in M/S and SASS. And, of course, the stereo Telinga. I've
experimented with other things, but they have not succeeded in becoming
a permanent part of my kit. I also differ from most folks in that I
record frogs, and not birds very much.
Walt
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|