Sorry you got scammed out of 20 bucks, but thanks for pointing to that
report, as I had never seen it before.
It would have been nice if they had used a sweep of a wider range of
frequencies for their reference signal to see how each windscreen
performed at higher frequencies. The foam might hiss kind of loud
with wind blowing across its textured surface.
I have kept a foam ball (3.5 in.) in my recording kit for the last
couple years meaning to test it for wind protection but never getting
around to actually doing it. I will try to do some tests this weekend
using a house fan or perhaps outdoors in the natural wind.
John Hartog
--- In "jpbeale" <> wrote:
>
> I was curious enough about the ARL report "Evaluation of Microphone
> Windscreen Performance in a Wind Tunnel" to pay $20.95 to download it
> from the below site. The report has measured noise spectra of a 6"
> foam ball, 6" furry ball, and horsehair matte on a B&K 4166 microphone
> in a wind tunnel with laminar and turbulent flow at 0, 6, 9, 12 m/s
> with a test tone at 50, 100, and 200 Hz. The report concluded the
> foam ball was best.
>
> http://www.stormingmedia.us/31/3133/A313344.html
>
> Abstract: Turbulent wind noise can severely degrade acoustic signals
> often making it difficult to detect classify and/or track signals of
> interest. Windscreens are often used to suppress such noise. This
> research compares the effectiveness of various windscreens to suppress
> wind noise while tested in a controlled environment.
>
> This paper may be of interest to technically-minded list members. The
> joke is on me, because it turns out you can download it for free,
> directly from ARL:
>
> http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2005/ARL-MR-0636.pdf
>
|