Hi Michael.
Bowling Balls, large lead acid car batteries, granite boulders and
concrete slabs-- all work very well because there's so much
participation on the part of the recordist. Also if the mics cost
over $1000 each, that helps. :-) More about other array types and
options in other strings. :-)
Tone, tone, tone and then space.
On my speakers, hearing the recordings playback one after the other,
the airyness in the sound that turned out to be the SASS/MKH20 rig
really jumped out.
Later today, I'll see if I can approximate the sound of the
SASS-MKH20 with EQ adjustments to the PB and vice versa. As monitors
play a large role with such "matching," if someone else wants to give
that a shot, it might amplify what is learned significantly.
Also, Paul J, if you want to make the first minute or so of the
original .wavs available, that might make the comparison more
reliable. Rob D.
At 2:02 PM +0000 3/13/10, David Michael wrote:
>
>
>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
>comparison. In particular, the MKH20 and AT3022 have quite different
>tonal qualities (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
>localization).
>
>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 correct 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 space. A sphere might
>as reasonable an approximation of a head as microphones are of ears.
>
>Best
>David
>
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m,
>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>http://snipurl.com/utdv0 (8mb) Requires Quick=
Time
>>
>> (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>http://tinyurl.com/ygm8otf (8mb .z=
ip)
>>
>> I posted the ID for the clips in the comment area here:
>>
>><http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/2010/03/jacobson-skeoch-sass-a=
nd-diy-parallel.html>http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/2010/03/jaco=
bson-skeoch-sass-and-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>h=
ttp://www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs><http://w=
ww.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
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
|