Hi Curt,
I have noticed some yoga blocks use higher density foam than others, and th=
ey also come in cork. So far, I have only used thrift store scavenged mate=
rial and have not yet searched the retail market for an ideal source. As f=
ar as handling noise, I would say there is little or no perceptible differe=
nce compared to wood - at least when using AT3032 microphones which are fai=
rly stable anyway. I found my parallel boundary yoga block array to be the =
best rig with handling noise I have built so far =96 at least I could carry=
it down a trail or adjust the tripod without having to turn down the headp=
hones. I am wondering how the yoga block might work on a boom pole with wl=
-183s.
John Hartog
--- In Curt Olson <> wrote:
>
> Interesting efforts, John!
>
> Rob brought up one of the advantages of wood that I failed to mention. =
> It's density is about right to help control resonances and handling
> noises compared to some of the lighter-wight materials one might
> consider. Your yoga-block arrays look great, for example. Nice and
> light. But I would expect that material to propagate handling noises
> much more than wood. What have you experienced!
>
> Curt Olson
>
> John Hartog wrote:
>
> > An alternative to wood?
> > Here is a link to photos of some of my experiments with foam yoga
> > block arrays.
> > http://www.rockscallop.org/how/yba/yoga-block-arrays.html
> >
> > I do have test audio for all of these - might add it later or on
> > request.
> >
> > John Hartog
> >
> >
> > --- In "oryoki2000" <oryoki@>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The designs of Curt Olsen and David Michael both employ relatively =
> >> thick pieces of wood, to the point that they might better be
> >> described as lumber! Is it necessary to employ such thick materials =
> >> to achieve the best result? Does wood have characteristics (other
> >> than price) that make it more desirable than alternative materials?
> >>
> >> --oryok
>
|