Hi John,
Sorry your having codec problems - as Rob kindly pointed out Audacit=
y and Amadeus Pro should decode the .ogg files.
One that was missing from the original list was the swooshing sound as the =
wave approaches, its linked below:-
http://urlme.net/audio/nt4badpos.ogg
Tonight Ill capture the beach from a distance moving closer with a mind to =
get enough material for a sea mix, shame I didnt bring another low noise r=
ecorder. With the head and NT4 placed at the front it may of helped the cen=
ter imaging. Although its fairly straight forward to adjust the stereo widt=
h from the head to make it sound like an incident mic.
The NT4 recordings are close micing the waves, around 1 ft above them I was=
mainly interested in the shells moving around. / the head is around 6ft ab=
ove - I do have recordings where the NT4 is at the same position as the hea=
d.
I should point out going into the 'field' and attempting to capture the sea=
sound scape is a lot more challenging that I originally anticipated - It g=
ives me a whole new respect for those that manage such stunning results. Im=
thinking of recordings from Bernie Krause and Gordon Hempton in particular=
.
The science of array construction vs the actual use in the field is rather =
different. Ive learned many things during the last few days.
kind regards,
-Mike.
--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> 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>=
com,
> >"picnet2" <yg@> 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.o=
gg
> >>
> >> Binaural:
> > > <http://urlme.net/audio/ownhead.ogg>http://urlme.net/audio/ownhead.o=
gg
> >> 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/=
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
> >><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
.com,
> >>Rob Danielson <type@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > At 4:06 PM +0000 7/6/09, Matt Blaze wrote:
> >> > >--- In
> >> > ><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com><naturerecordist=
s%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > >Rob Danielson <type@> wrote:
> >> > >>> Hi Matt--
> >> > >> Thanks for sharing your explorations. The SF Bay recording was t=
he
> >> > >> most successful comparison subject for me because of the width o=
f the
> >> > >> stereo field and abundance of tones to regard. I appreciate the
> >> > >> additional work of setting-up to roll three recorders all at onc=
e.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> There seem to be fairly significant tonal response differences
> >> > >> between the mics used in this test that make comparing stereo ar=
ray
> >> > >> 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 advan=
tages
> >> > >> of employing the same capsules in the arrays outweigh the advant=
ages
> >> > >> of capturing the same moments. One can often find similar passag=
es 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 recordi=
ngs
> >> > >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.cry=
pto.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 result=
s.
> >> > We used this technique for an array/mics localization test during t=
he
> >> > Recordist Camp Out. I'm waiting for more folks to get their files t=
o
> >> > 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 i=
n
> >> > array performance but the few comparisons I've listened to suggest
> >> > that tonal response plays a significant role in spatial imaging too=
.
> >> > Rob D.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
>
|