Hi John
For PC, Mac and Linux, Audacity should open .ogg files natively.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/
Another suited app for Mac is Amadeus Pro
http://www.hairersoft.com/AmadeusDownload.html (free demo)
Spatially, based on these two samples, the head rig seems to create
more lateral expanse or horizon with sense of depth and movement for
waves/events at a pretty good distance. 150'? The X-Y array tends
"freeze" distant events in the center of the stereo field portraying
motion for events that are very close. Rob D.
At 5:37 AM +0000 7/10/09, John Hartog wrote:
>Hi Mike, It would be fun to listen to your recording, but I come
>across ogg files so seldom I'm not sure what software to use. At any
>rate, they don't open in my browser (Firefox) or Audition 1.5. Any
>suggestions for the simplest way to listen to them. Or any chance
>you could post MP3 versions?
>
>John Hartog
>
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m,
>"picnet2" <> wrote:
>>
>> 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>http://urlme.net/audio/rodent4.ogg
>>
>> Binaural:
> > <http://urlme.net/audio/ownhead.ogg>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>http://urlme.net/audio/mz=
knicespotbadmusic.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
>><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
om,
>>Rob Danielson <type@> wrote:
>> >
>> > At 4:06 PM +0000 7/6/09, Matt Blaze wrote:
>> > >--- In
>> > ><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com><naturerecordists%=
Message: 40yahoogroups.
Subject: 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 arra=
y
>> > >> differences a challenge. If you are able to access a pair of
>> > >> MKH-800's, array differences might be more apparent if you used th=
ese
>> > >> two mics in as many of the arrays as possible. I think the advanta=
ges
>> > >> of employing the same capsules in the arrays outweigh the advantag=
es
>> > >> 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 th=
at
>> > >> 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 recording=
s
>> > >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><http://www.crypt=
o.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=3D981>http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=3D981
>> 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.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
--
|