naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

QuickTime and MP2=B4s (again... sigh...)

Subject: QuickTime and MP2=B4s (again... sigh...)
From: "Klas Strandberg" klasstrandberg
Date: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:19 pm ((PDT))
Guys, sorru to bring this up again...

I needed iPod to hear some nature sound MP3's at iPod shop so I had
to download QT as well.

But QT uses 95-99% CPU as soon as it starts and I can't even get into
the settings menu to shut it off.
After looking at different forums, it appears that I am not alone
with this problem.

Advice? How can I shut QT off so that MP3' are opened with Media
Player, for example?
Do I have to delete the whole program? If so, will iPod still work?

Klas.

At 21:02 2009-07-16, you wrote:
>Hi Curt--
>Assuming the positioning and sound sources are similar, the AT3032
>head-spaced baffled rig does seem to have compromised lower-mid range
>and high frequency responses. This is quite surprising compared to
>Shure Beta58s in a narrow ORTF-type array, isn't it? I wasn't able to
>re-coop the significant deficiencies with EQ.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/nlphtm (QTmovie)
>
>To the ear, its sounds as if the AT3032 head-spaced baffled rig is
>picking up resonance from something, like the capsules are not in
>open air. The resonance does sound, "hollow." A head-spaced baffled
>rig with omni's certainly isn't a typical candidate for resonance.
>It wasn't enclosed in any way was it?
>
>I'm not surprised to hear a less than brilliant high-end with the
>3203's, but I was surprised to hear more brilliance with the dynamic
>mics until I looked at the 58's Hz response. http://tinyurl.com/oxy3zr
>
>Assuming the cardioid Beta58 mics were 4-6 feet from the waves, they
>may have been "rolling-off" under 500Hz pretty radically so the
>resonant content between 160-500 Hz would be attenuated. I think 58's
>are made for close vocal work and _ to use_ the proximity effect to
>create the desired tonal balance. At more than a few feet, the Hz
>response under 120Hz might become very minimal.
>
>I have a hunch that most of the difference we're hearing stems from
>the mics' tonal differences and the (importantly, loud) subject is a
>better fit for the dynamic mics.  As with Mikes material, pink noise
>really shows up any challenges in the lower mid-range that mics/array
>may have.  Of course, one would need that range in recording
>soundscapes at a distance and the 58's would probably sound quite
>thin.
>
>The Shure Beta58s in the narrow ORTF-type array turned out great!  Rob D=
.
>
>   =3D =3D =3D
>
>At 10:06 AM -0500 7/16/09, Curt Olson wrote:
> >
> >
> >Rob Danielson wrote:
> >
> >>  Hi Curt--
> >>  I'm trying to narrow down what you mean by "hollow." By comparing
> >>  files that exhibit the problem with those that don't (or don't as
> >>  much), we'll all probably learn something.
> >
> >Good idea, Rob. Here are two quick and dirty examples (both are 1:20).
> >
> >1) This clip has the "hollow" sound that I want to learn to avoid. I
> >recorded it couple months ago in a small rocky inlet with an AT3032
> >head-spaced baffled rig:
> >
> ><http://www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-hollow.mp3>http://ww
> w.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-hollow.mp3
> >
> ><http://tinyurl.com/l4ylsu>http://tinyurl.com/l4ylsu
> >
> >2) This clip seems to have a cleaner, less "hollow" sound. I recorded
> >it the other day with a pair of Shure Beta58s in a narrow ORTF-type
> >array:
> >
> ><http://www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-not_so_hollow.mp3>ht
> tp://www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-not_so_hollow.mp3
> >
> ><http://tinyurl.com/lm478b>http://tinyurl.com/lm478b
> >
> >>  I'm wondering if micing distance and array used are the only other
> >>  variables we'd need to know,..
> >
> >They're probably the most important. Of course, we all know that mic
> >placement is about more than just "distance," especially in shoreline
> >areas that feature massive rock structures.
> >
> >Mike wrote:
> >
> >>  Curt was there a sand bank or rise behind you?
> >
> >Nope. Massive rock structures.
> >
> >>  I would imagine in such a diffuse pink noise environment a pair of
> >>  figure 8's may work better?
> >
> >After my last venture out, I would guess probably not, but it's worth
> >a try.
> >
> >John Hartog wrote:
> >
> >>  Hi Mike,
> >>  Wondering if shadows and reflections from shifting wave faces have
> >>  something to do with the tone oscillations.
> >
> >I haven't checked out Mike's links yet, but I imagine the waves
> >themselves -- always in motion, and with ever-changing angles of
> >reflection -- could certainly cause a lot of tone shifts when close
> >micing.
> >
> >Curt Olson
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email: 
website: www.telinga.com
        








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU