Hi,
Also mic placement in the field is pretty critical as Ive found out on my
first field(sea?) trip. Maybe its obvious to some but Im learning by literally
getting my feet wet.
These are cropped sections from the original recordings / no eq except my
choice of mic placement (to keep Bernie Happy)
The Rode NT4 hanging off a tripod near the waves & shell debris.
http://urlme.net/audio/rodent4.ogg
Binaural:
http://urlme.net/audio/ownhead.ogg
My head with a couple of the capsules rob mentioned below.
Sennheiser MZK Dummy head & dual capsules just inside the pinna:
Position wasnt "good" the incoming wave caused an odd swooshing sound as it
approached.
Slightly better but marred by the nightlife cranking the volume up :(
http://urlme.net/audio/mzknicespotbadmusic.ogg
Im standing about 30 ft from the shoreline in about 2 Ft of water, heads on a
tripod, mine was looking at the stars at this point..
Ive yet to venture into soundfield mics, lack of channels / recorder is one
reason - Im rather fond of binaural setups and a well placed ORTFish rig using
NT1A's.
BR,
Mike.
On location & drying his feet.
--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> At 4:06 PM +0000 7/6/09, Matt Blaze wrote:
> >--- In
> ><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Rob Danielson <type@> wrote:
> >>> Hi Matt--
> >> Thanks for sharing your explorations. The SF Bay recording was the
> >> most successful comparison subject for me because of the width of the
> >> stereo field and abundance of tones to regard. I appreciate the
> >> additional work of setting-up to roll three recorders all at once.
> >>
> >> There seem to be fairly significant tonal response differences
> >> between the mics used in this test that make comparing stereo array
> >> differences a challenge. If you are able to access a pair of
> >> MKH-800's, array differences might be more apparent if you used these
> >> two mics in as many of the arrays as possible. I think the advantages
> >> of employing the same capsules in the arrays outweigh the advantages
> >> of capturing the same moments. One can often find similar passages to
> >> compare if you record each test segment for 10-30 minutes.
> >>
> >> I like the choices of arrays that you are working with and hope that
> >> you'll keep us abreast of these studies. Rob D.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >
> >Rob,
> >
> >Thanks for the reply. I agree -- in many cases these are very
> >different mics, and what we're hearing is as much due to the
> >different models' wide variance in response curves and overall
> >quality as to the configurations. On the other hand, for some of
> >the subjects, there's just no substitute for simultaneous recordings
> >in exposing the differences in the images. In the woods example,
> >for instance, if you listen to the first few seconds of each clip,
> >the level and position of the bird call on the right is very
> >different in the three recordings. Knowing that they were recorded
> >at (about) the same position and the same time is rather revealing
> >about the images produced.
> >
> >There doesn't seem to be any right answer, short of winning the
> >lottery (always a good strategy!) and getting a few more pairs of
> >MKH800s. Actually even that is problematic -- the 800's seem
> >to be usable outdoors only inside a blimp. They are by far
> >the most wind and shock sensitive mics in my arsenal.
> >
> >It occurs to me that the *right* way to do this would be to use
> >a bunch of Ambisonic-type microphones, say 2 on a Jecklin
> >disk and another two at some spacing. That could simulate
> >XY, Jecklin, some spaced directional configurations, maybe more,
> >with similar coloration and response characteristics in all of
> >them.
> >
> >But that would involve at least three new mics, plus hauling
> >at least 16 channels of sample-synchronized capture around, so
> >it won't be happening any time soon for me...
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >-matt
> >
> >mab blogs at <http://www.crypto.com/blog>http://www.crypto.com/blog
> >
>
> Hi Matt-
> I see that Mike is using matched EM-158's
> http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=981 each) to compare his arrays
> with the ability to roll several recorders as once. These capsules
> seem to be a good solution for omni based array comparisons. Maybe
> I'm not following your thinking, but the Ambisonic rigs are very
> exceptional in design, not really made for use in different array
> configurations.
>
> To me, what is unique about your capability is being able to employ
> very low noise, well-known and respected mics _and_ include popular
> figure 8 based arrays like M-S and Blumlein. Wind sensitivity aside,
> I can't think of a better pair of mics than mkh-800's to use for
> thorough array testing. :-)
>
> As for sound source uniformity, with a pocket pink noise generator
> like Mike uses (though it could have a little more low Hz) and a
> quiet place at night one can conduct a 24 position location clock
> test at distance of about 100' and generate very instructive results.
> We used this technique for an array/mics localization test during the
> Recordist Camp Out. I'm waiting for more folks to get their files to
> me before I compile the master
>
> Note, however, that we also used different rigs/mics so the results
> only indirectly help one learn about stereo array performance
> differences. Of course a capsule's polar pattern plays a key role in
> array performance but the few comparisons I've listened to suggest
> that tonal response plays a significant role in spatial imaging too.
> Rob D.
>
> --
>
>
>
|