naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SASS & DIY Parallel Boundary Arrays Compared

Subject: Re: SASS & DIY Parallel Boundary Arrays Compared
From: "Curt Olson" flipov411
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:24 pm ((PDT))
Rob wrote:

Perhaps I clicked on the link too quickly. If "C" PB and "D" is SASS,
I happily stand corrected.

Curt Olson

> Hi Curt--
> Thanks for giving it a listen!
>
> Applying my feeble reasoning: If C's recording requires a midrange
> boost to match "D" and it is reported that the SASS exhibits a
> midrange lift in comparison, then D must be the SASS/MKH-20's. The
> converse appears to be consistent in that Array D needs to have its
> midrange cut to match the response of C's. Perhaps the relation just
> flipped in your brain at the last step, or more likely, my wording
> was confusing.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts. I'll keep my shovel handy.
>
> I was surprised that the EQ matching for C->D required very simple,
> smooth curves. Glad to hear it worked on your speakers. Potentially,
> very useful info. Rob D.
>
>
>
> At 8:42 AM -0500 3/15/10, Curt Olson wrote:
> >
> >
> >Okay Rob, I'll venture a tentative guess here that "C" is the MKH20/
> >SASS and "D" is the 3032/PB.
> >
> >If that's correct, I'll explain more. If not, I'll dig deeper to
> learn
> >where I went wrong.
> >
> >Curt Olson
> >
> >PS: Nice job of EQ matching. And really helpful graphics as always.
> >
> >Rob Danielson wrote:
> >
> >> The implications of the EQ matching attempt are interesting, I
> think.
> >> Again, thanks Paul and Andrew. This is a mic array comparison I've
> >> been wanting to better understand for a long time.
> >>
> >> First let me state that I have some reason to believe the midrange
> >> frequency response of the MKH20's and the 3032's is close enough to
> >> not be a big concern with this comparison. Here's a sonogram from a
> >> mic comparison test I made with Rich Peet that includes a 3032 and
> >> two other MKH models in January:
> >><http://tinyurl.com/yzwzzgc>http://tinyurl.com/yzwzzgc
> >>
> >> The SASS array seems to create a frequency response "lift" between
> >> roughly 500-1600 Hz compared to that of the head-spaced, Parallel
> >> Boundary array. I only used segments of distant sounds from their
> >> recordings so discrepancies in array spacing and orientation
> would be
> >> lessened. The most distant sounds coming from the horizon are more
> >> challenging for mic arrays to capture and when spatiality is a
> >> desired attribute, they can be quite crucial. Most stereo arrays
> do a
> >> pretty good job of imaging robust, higher frequency sounds at
> closer
> >> distances.
> >>
> >> QuickTme movie for viewing with a QT compatible web browser (13 mb)
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/ygxmton>http://tinyurl.com/ygxmton
> >>
> >> QuickTme movie for downloading (13 mb)
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/ygc5a34>http://tinyurl.com/ygc5a34
> >>
> >> Be sure to turn down the playback volume of the movie to a
> >> comfortable level. These are recordings of "backgrounds." The movie
> >> sound track has no compression but they were made from Paul's (well
> >> saturated) mp3's. They can be extracted and analyzed.
> >>
> >> I feel that the SASS array's impact on spatial clarity is
> positive. I
> >> would describe the advantage as increased airyness that also
> presents
> >> more detail in the affected Hz range than what I'd expect to get
> >> optimizing the PB's recording. Hopefully, someone else can do an EQ
> >> matching test to see if they get similar results with different
> >> monitoring. One can probably make the matches a little closer. I
> >> opted to go with a linear phase EQ plug that only has four bands.
> >>
> >> Would I rather bring home the SASS recording or the PB recording?
> >> I'd do some fine tuning on both files for critical applications,
> but
> >> I'm a big fan of the type of clarity that the SASS seems to be
> adding
> >> in this recording situation. More tests need to be done. I don't
> >> think the mics themselves are making a huge difference in the
> results
> >> of this comparison-- but its another variable that needs to be
> >> accounted for.
> >>
> >> Thanks to Paul's excellent documentation, I can see that the
> capsule
> >> to leading edge "set back" distance of his PB rig was about 1" -
> >> 1.25" Using a deeper setback can reduce airyness, but his should
> >> have been pretty well optimized for mid-range response. Folks who
> >> would like to explore getting more airyness, might consider a
> shorter
> >> setback or running a set back distance test to determine what
> "works"
> > > the best.
> >>
> >> I haven't started listening for stereo imaging differences as yet.
> >>
> >> The video presents a blind comparison. You should be able to tell
> >> which array is C and which is D based on my comments but I'll also
> >> make the ID's known after folks want to have listened to the
> results
> >> and looked at the EQ curves. 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