Thank Paul and Rob for posting this material. These comparisons are really =
crucial in being able to quantify our discussions.
I agree with you Paul, there are a lot of variables at play in the comparis=
on. In particular, the MKH20 and AT3022 have quite different tonal qualitie=
s (in open air). I wonder if some of the 'spaciousness' that we hear in the=
MKH20 SASS is not attributable to its frequency response - or perhaps even=
the direction in which the MKH rig was pointed? That being said, to my ear=
, the SASS rig in general sounds much more spacious (not sure about image l=
ocalization).
On another topic, I am now very curious about curved boundary rigs. I have =
seen (and heard) Rob's rig which I believe uses a bowling ball. Is this cor=
rect Rob? Are there others on list who have built similar - perhaps out of =
a more portable material? I was contemplating building a mannequin head rig=
, but it seems there are many techniques to fool the brain into hearing spa=
ce. A sphere might as reasonable an approximation of a head as microphones =
are of ears.
Best
David
--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul J--
> Thanks for conducting the comparison and putting it together for us
> on line. I find it very informative.
>
> I wanted to be able to listen to the samples closely juxtaposed and
> blind. In case others want to try this:
>
> (1) QuickTime Movie comparing clips from the two rigs for viewing
> with a web browser:
> http://snipurl.com/utdv0 (8mb) Requires QuickTime
>
> (2) QuickTime Movie comparing clips from the two rigs for downloading
> and viewing with QuickTime. MPPEG Streamclip or most other Media
> players. http://tinyurl.com/ygm8otf (8mb .zip)
>
> I posted the ID for the clips in the comment area here:
> http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/2010/03/jacobson-skeoch-sass-an=
d-diy-parallel.html
>
> Rob D.
>
> At 10:30 AM +1100 3/13/10, Paul Jacobson wrote:
> >Hi Paul
> >
> >I wrote a short article on a side by side comparison recording of
> >SASS and parallel boundary rigs which was published in the December
> >2008 issue of AudioWings (Vol 11, No. 2). The recordings were made
> >by Andrew Skeoch and myself in late 2008. The comparison was done
> >with our rigs set up side by side with around 2 metres spacing.
> >There was minimal post processing done - gain was matched and it
> >looks like a 50hz high pass filter was applied.
> >
> >Reading the article again and listening to the recordings I'm not
> >sure I would have made the same comments. There are lots of
> >variables at play in the comparison but it might give you an idea of
> >some of the differences in presentation between SASS and headspaced
> >parallel boundary array.
> >
> >I'm in the process of reworking the design of the AWSRG site at the
> >moment and haven't finalised the format for online journal articles
> >so you'll have to excuse the presentation and rough edges.
> >
> ><http://www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs>http=
://www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs
> >
> >cheers
> >Paul
> >
> >On 12/03/2010, at 10:25 AM, "thesilverloon"
> ><<paulshopis%40iinet.net.au>> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks David,
> >> Its my intention to use twin AT4022 mics with the Sony PCM M-10
> >>and the Art Phantom 11 power supply. I would like to build a spaced
> >>timber baffle, to mount the mics. Are you able to tell me on the
> >>rig that you used, the distance between the mics, and the setback
> >>from the leading edge?
> >> I realize that there are many variations out there, but being non
> >>tech I have to start some where. If anyone else in this group has
> >>built similar, please feel free to respond. One last question. What
> >>is the audio difference between the above and using the AT4022's in
> >>a modified Crown SASS unit?
> >>
> >> Many Thanks,
> >>
> > > Paul
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
>
|