naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mbho MBP 648 PZ

Subject: Re: mbho MBP 648 PZ
From: "vickipowys" vpowys
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:48 am ((PDT))
I agree, this is difficult!  Rob's demo has one clip with more low
frequencies than the other, while Paul's demo has one clip (free)
with more high frequencies than the other.  So I am "baffled"  :-)

Vicki



On 16/07/2010, at 4:01 PM, hartogj wrote:

> That is a tough one, Rob. There is definitely a shift in qualities
> between the two, but one does not seem to have 6dB less noise than
> the other. That may be because the subject clock and crow are on
> axis to the mic capsule in both, where I would expect the biggest
> difference would be for sounds the boundary itself is facing.  I'm
> going to guess that A is on the boundary, because it sounds like
> the barrier shadows some of the higher frequency content heard in
> B. Even with 50% chance to get it right, I bet I am wrong.
>
> John Hartog
>
>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/28aqxkw
>>
>> Which is the boundary mic arrangement and which is open air?  Is
>> there a significant difference in self-noise performance?  Is there
>> "awful comb filtering" in one sample that is not in the other?
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>







<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