naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A quick and dirty comparison of some handheld recorders

Subject: Re: A quick and dirty comparison of some handheld recorders
From: "Rob Danielson" danielson_audio
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:47 am ((PDT))
At 1:28 AM -0400 7/19/09, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>
>
>At 04:39 PM 2009-07-18, Rob Danielson wrote:
>>I took a Zoom H2 out with me to 4th of July weekend happenings to
>>test the built-in mics on robust sound sources-- a parade, street and
>>bandstand musicians, a baseball game crowd and a dunk tank and
>>fireworks. All of the subjects came out better than I thought they
>>would considering how easy it was to use the H2.
>
>Hi, Rob,
>
>Did you use the 120-degree or the 90-degree mic pair in the H2. I
>much prefer the 120-degree pair for most applications.
>
>Richard

Hi Richard--
Yes, I was hopeful that the internal mics would be sufficient based 
on your enthusiasm. I'm accustom to rigs which employ head-like 
spacing and head-like barriers/boundaries which probably differ even 
more from X-Y than the M-S reference pair does in Matt's test.

I experimented with both the 90 degree and 120 degree pairs on most 
subjects.  With the medium and distant subjects I recorded, I felt 
both images were short on depth and lateral spread. The difference 
between the ocket recorders approximate X- Y array and the spaced 
pairs I'm used to was pretty dramatic over speakers.

Most recordists establish preferences in their stereo micing options 
often falling on one side or the other of the coincident/spaced 
distinction. With spacing on the order of a few inches, I guess the 
pocket recorders are not "true" coincident arrays. I've heard a lot 
of recordings made with Rode NT-4's and it seems that coincident 
capsules does help with depth cues.

I've read and heard directly from people such as James Boyk at 
Caltech who has studied stereo micing techniques extensively that 
human stereo "processing," at least from artificial sources like 
speakers and headphones, varies considerably  between people.

Based on my experience, it seems there's a very good chance that as 
we use a certain stereo array over time, we can "train" our 
ears/brain to detect more spatial "cues" from the signals. I think 
this may be especially true if one has a set-up where one's "hunches" 
about where a sound source is actually located can be tested over and 
over.  With continually moving/changing subjects, nature recording is 
a great practical testing ground. Rob D.


-- 







<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