At 6:07 PM +0000 2/6/08, tk7859 wrote:
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
>"tk7859" <> wrote:
>
>> But first I need to finish an idea I experimented with today. Using
>> bits and bobs from my debris box I came up with an arrangement for
>> varying the output from the forward facing triplet capsules without
>> altering the output from the focal point triplets. This can be done
>> by means of a controller on the handle of the reflector. It will be
>> possible to smoothly change the wide stage parabolic into a normal
>> parabolic while remaining focussed on the subject and continuing to
>> record.
>
>Hello All
>
>I've been away from home (unexpected visit to North Wales)for six days
>so this is the first opportunity to report back on the above. I have
>completed the controller (potentiometer)
>
><http://ad2004.hku.nl/naturesound/TomR/Wide%20Stage%20Parabolic/Variable%20ParaJeck.JPG>http://ad2004.hku.nl/naturesound/TomR/Wide%20Stage%20Parabolic/Variable%20ParaJeck.JPG
>
>and have tested it with the parajeck outside. The results are
>disappointing. There does not seem to be a big difference in stereo
>effect when the forward facing capsules have their output reduced.
Hi Tom-- I may be confused. In this test, are you are comparing:
(A) The focal point capsules + the side-facing front capsules ->
(B) just the the focal point capsules?
If so, didn't we already tested this in your clock sweep test and
found the difference to be significant?
>Here is a snippet of the test. This has been edited to remove the
>sound of operating the potentiometer. As a result the "wide spaced"
>segments begin with me introducing them and end at the point where I
>introduce the "parabolic only" segments.
>
><http://ad2004.hku.nl/naturesound/TomR/Wide%20Stage%20Parabolic/001-WS%20V_P%20edit%20mp3.mp3>http://ad2004.hku.nl/naturesound/TomR/Wide%20Stage%20Parabolic/001-WS%20V_P%20edit%20mp3.mp3
I agree, in this test, there's not much localization difference in
content> 1000Hz like the fountain and your whispers.
The (A) focal point capsules + the side-facing front capsules seem
to have more bottom end than (B) just the the focal point capsules.
There is also less high-end and more Hi-HZ noise in (A).
I think I am hearing some low Hz modulation in (A) that I did not
notice before. This could be stem from the increased Lo Hz content in
this range outside compared to indoors,.. Could it be that your mixer
circuit has changed-eliminated the improved stereo field we tested
before somehow?
>
>It might be that the reflector, on its own, has a reasonable stereo
>effect due to the large dividing disc on which the "focal point" omni
>capsules are mounted and/or the attenuation of the front, outrigger
>capsules is not enough.
There is considerable tonal change already so it might not be only a
question of the amount of attenuation in the (forward-mounted)
side-directed mics.
I suspect the additional low hz response is important in the
creation/impression of a wider stereo image.
> To investigate this theory I am in the
>process of building a Mk II parabar which has "head spaced thin plates
>similar to Curt's rigs" as mentioned in Robs earlier post on this
>subject. The large centre divider will also be dispensed with and the
>the two focal point triplets will be mounted side by side without a
>divider. A small variation of the potentiometer idea will also allow
>the attenuation of the focal point capsules at the same time as the
>barrier capsules' output is increased. Some more experimentation with
>the value of the potentiometer is also possible at a later stage.
>
>Hopefully a working sample will be available early next week.
>
>Cheers, Tom Robinson
>
>
--
|
