Hi,
I think the snow recording is in a very diffuse environment - i checked the=
cross correlation and there wasnt much to conclude besides the diffuseness=
:) - Previous recordings Ive heard had a decent center. Ive found a log sp=
iral array to give the best center and also gives a boost to the crispyness=
. You could even make it from a box of rice crispies :)
Using matrixing to adjust parallel boundary arrays is shifting the phasing =
around which I think is as intended but it may require quite a processing c=
hain, preeq & mic response balance, matrix, m/s eq, matrix / post eq & secr=
et sauce. - Ideal setup is to ensure the mics are matched and placed so the=
effects of phase are minimal, which means exactly at the same position eit=
her side of the rig, thats also shaped exactly the same.
I can assist you testing the mic Klas using my mad science if it helps. Im =
enjoying the development and the small changes that are made. Muriemike has=
a lot of potential.
BR
Mike
--- In naturerecordists@ yahoogroups. com, Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> At 4:45 PM +0100 12/15/09, Klas Strandberg wrote:
> >
> >
> >The hole is a consequence of the two mikes, boosting HF sideways and
> >can only (...?) be heard (in a bothersome
> >way..?) when you record awidespread "sparkle all
> >around" as when the grain snow hit the frozen
> >leaves in this almost panorama way.
> >
> >A more "common" stereo picture is at the the ending of
> ><http://www.telinga. com/gallery/ tripple_birdfeed .mp3>http://www.telin=
ga. com/gallery/ tripple_birdfeed .mp3
> >where you don=B4t
> >clearly hear the hole, as there are no audible HF getting boosted
> >from the sides. Birds are flying between the feeder and a tree at the
> >left, and I don't hear any bothersome change of wing sounds over the are=
a.
> >I have tried out a prototype where the mic capsules point forward,
> >not to "shade" themselves, but then I loose some of the "crispiness"
> >that I like and that so easily can be filtered, then also reducing
> >some of the mic self noise.
>
> Of course, all stereo arrays have draw-backs and
> one's preference can depend on what one considers
> to be more natural, more striking, more accurate,
> etc.
>
> Some listeners prefer the additional HF contrast
> between the LEFT and RIGHT speakers because it
> gives a sense that the sound horizon has more
> spread. However, even omni mic capsules are
> slightly treble-centric- - the "center" of their
> polar pattern is more sensitive to HF than the
> sides (usually). When the mic capsules are
> directed out or (opposing) towards the sides, the
> LEFT speaker and RIGHT speaker contrast is
> heightened. In directing both capsules straight
> forward, (oriented perpendicular to a flat
> boundary or tangential to a spherical or curved
> one), the center of the field is rendered with
> more HF emphasis. Moving the capsule diaphragm
> out of the pressure zone tends to simplify the
> "cues" as the capsule is no longer in the
> "pressure zone" that comes with mounting the
> capsule with the diaphragm flush to the boundary.
> There are many opinions about the plusses and
> minus's of capsule orientation. I personally
> feel, given the effects of the options, that
> front-facing capsule orientation is more
> "natural" in that it establishes a "front stage"
> where sounds become symmetrically darker as they
> move towards the sides. The head-spacing/ timing
> differences are preserved and there is plenty of
> LEFT - RIGHT contrast and horizontal spread. (One
> stereo array with flush-mounted capsules that
> seems to be an exception is the SASS. I've never
> been able to do side-by side comparisons with
> one.)
>
> Creating a HF boost in the center of the stereo
> field has other advantages. Traditional EQ
> affects center and side tonality _at the same
> time_. If one uses standard parametric EQ to
> reduce extra crispness at 4K Hz from hard left
> and hard right, the crispness/tonality of the
> center is also lessened. I think better overall
> side-to-center tonal balance after EQ can be
> achieved with forward-facing capsule orientation.
>
>
> >If "State of the Art" measurements + a good middle is required, only
> >the best M/S system will do and then we enter into another world, you kn=
ow.
> >Still, I must say, - I have heard professional M/S recordings which
> >have been less "alive" than from binaural and semi-binaural set-up's,
> >some M/S has even been "flat".
>
> Some listeners prefer a very EVEN stereo field
> where the sounds are more closely positioned
> across the middle. Coincident stereo arrays like
> X-Y and M-S can do this (though the later needs
> to be carefully adjusted). These arrays tend* to
> have less left-right contrast and with the X-Y
> array, sounds can feel bunched together in the
> center. With M-S and X-Y there is no timing
> difference analogous to the spread of the ears
> and no baffle or boundary cues produced as with
> our heads. *Note many recordists that use M-S
> rigs tend to lower the level of the center mic to
> create more left right contrast.
>
> There's another way, in post, to adjust the
> tonality of the Center and the Sides of the
> stereo field separately. It involves using "plug
> ins" in the mixing chain. We first discussed
> this technique in this list a year or so ago.
> Here's a screen shot of the chain I've been using:
>
> https://pantherfile .uwm.edu/ type/public/ media/MixingChai n_EQBetweenM-=
SPlugs.jpg
>
> I've been mixing material generated by a number
> of stereo arrays over the past few weeks and
> sometime this technique works very well and other
> times not. I'm looking for patterns. Rob D.
>
>
> >
> >Best wishes from Klas and a snowy Sweden.
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
>
|