Actually, there wasn't that much going on in the middle of the field. =
It wasn't the greatest recording as far as placement and performers,
it was just the best I had so far with this array. I had a better
recording which showed the stereo field but it was of Long-billed
Curlews that, unfortunately, were disturbed at my mics even in camo
and spent the whole time dive bombing the rig until I went back and
pulled out. Those guys are going to require a very hidden mic system
to let them relax enough for a good recording.
The mics are about 5 inches apart with a plywood 1/4 inch thick disk
covered with foam in the middle. I think I did roll off some of the
low frequencies due to the wind in the conifers. The occasional
distant airplane was spliced out.
Kevin J Colver
Soundscapes for Birders - a Podcast of Natural Sounds
www.7Loons.com
On Oct 5, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Rob Danielson wrote:
> Thanks Kevin--
>
> I'm making Colo. camping plans today. Ditto everyone's remarks. Maybe
> I'm using different cues in front of my speakers, but I think the
> subtle impression of the far sides having slightly more heaviness
> compared to the center (thus "hole") is from the "roundness" of lower
> register frequency response of the omnis in free air. This impression
> is not really a concern as it can be addressed easily in post--
> probably by lessening the resonance ~230? Hz on the sides. What it is
> NOT characteristic of the Kevin's array is clustering of the low
> frequencies in the middle of the field that we tend to get with
> coincident arrays. Its hard for us to tell if there's front-back
> confusion in this Jecklin recording-- which can be strength or
> weakness depending on one's aesthetic or goals.
>
> I'd expect a little bit more richness in the lowest harmonics. Is
> there some LF roll-off employed or were you that far into the
> "wilderness?"
>
> See inserts below:
>
> At 9:07 AM -0500 10/5/10, Curt Olson wrote:
> >Thank you for posting this Kevin,
> >
> >I agree with Mark that it delivers a nice sense of space combined
> with
> >good localization of individual callers. I think I detect a slight
> >"hole-in-the-middle" effect, but it's not profound. Overall, an
> >excellent example of what Jeklin rigs can do. Come to think of it, if
> >I recall correctly, two of the most impressive nature recordings I've
> >ever heard were captured with Jeklin-type variants (john and Rob,
> >please correct me if I'm remembering this wrong)...
> >
> >1) John Hartog's June 2005 clip "An early morning chorus along
> >Murderers Creek," located about 2/3 down his Sound Journal page:
> >
> ><http://www.rockscallop.org/JVp2.html>http://www.rockscallop.org/JVp2.ht=
ml
> >
> >2) A goose fly-by captured by Rob Danielson last April along the St.
> >Croix river in Northwestern Wisconsin. You can hear it about one
> >minute into the audio clip near the bottom of this write-up on the
> >2010 Midwest Nature Recordists Campout:
>
> I can think of examples with better imagery made with your
> experimental boundary arrays, no problemo,..
>
> So that clip was from just the rear pair? If so, that's a non-cored
> "Jecklin" array. By "non-cored" there's just a 2" high density foam
> baffle-- no interior barrier core. Caveats are: costly 2-mkh 80's
> with the array actually pointed into a sloped rock wall bowl 20 feet
> away. Some of the directionality provided by the bowl reflector is
> angled up into space where the goose passes over at tree top level--
> so (luckily) quite close. Its a Pseudo-Jecklin/large Scale Pseudo
> Parabolic Dish array. You can hear the same heavy roundness on the
> edges that is in Kevin's recording from the free air omnis--
> especially on the left which is where the rapids from the river were.
> The PBB2's recording of the event has less body/closeness but more
> depth imaging. With this surround pair, I place the Jecklin closer
> point sources and rely on the PBB2 for reach. The Jecklin is not as
> good for distant subjects so they can play off each other's
> strengths, when I get lucky.
>
> ><http://www.trackseventeen.com/soundblog/2010/crex.html>http://www.track=
seventeen.com/soundblog/2010/crex.html
> >
> >The recent talk here about Jeklin rigs has me pondering how one could
> >deal with three practical concerns that have kept me from going very
> >far down that road: ruggedness, compactness and wind protection.
>
> Here's a photo of my updated Jecklin.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ezk2vq
>
> The disk is a piece of scrap aluminum sided, 3/4" close-call foam
> insulation. The absorbing material is thick carpet padding. The arms
> are hinged/foldable with thumbscrew joints oak. I used a curled a
> piece of vinyl gutter cover around the ends for baskets. The dead air
> space could be larger. Natural burlap screens. The very light weight
> dish slips off the PVC post and it all collapses into my small
> backpack.
>
> Transporting the 4' X 8' heavily-insulated sound barrier to set up 2'
> behind for rear rejection is where I get the needed exercise. ;-) Rob
> D.
>
> >
> >Curt Olson
> >
> >Kevin Colver wrote:
> >
> >> I built a home-made Jeklin disk and recorded with a pair of
> >> Sennheiser ME62 mics this summer. Here is a sample of how it did:
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/3y9a66e>http://tinyurl.com/3y9a66e
> >>
> >> Listen and feel free to give judgement on how the array does with
> >> spaciality, ect. I posted it mainly for our nature recordists
> >> because of Rob's discussion about his Jeklin.
> >>
> >> It's also at www.7Loons.com or at the iTunes Store under the
> >> "Soundscapes for Birders" podcasts.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Kevin Colver
> >>
> >> www.7Loons.com
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
>
>
|