Cool! Thanks, David. Wow, that was fun!
It seems that a lot of people enjoyed your test as much as I did :)
Neat.
Best regards,
-Al
--- In "Avocet" <> wrote:
>
> A big thanks to everyone who has replied. It is valuable to have other
> opinions on this test. Myself, I prefer Rig 2 for the garden location
> which has a wide field of nearly 180 deg. Rig 1 pulls in distant birds
> better with a good "fetch". These birds tend to get lost by Rig 2.
>
> I hope I haven't missed anyone out.
>
> > For me the rig one is better. Some mic self noise, but the sounds
> > were more acuteate and the stereo better.
>
> Jos=E9,
>
> The major background noise was from more distant spruce trees which
> hiss in the slightest wind. These and the birds at that distance
> didn't pick up so much on rig 2.
>
> > I prefer the sound from rig 2. I listened really hard for monkeys
> > but didn't hear any despite you shaking the peanuts.
>
> :-) Mike,
>
> I did the peanut test as I realised that the stereo images were very
> different. The centre image on Rig 1 moves much faster l-r or r-l.
>
> > In my opinion the rig 2 is more accurate. The rig 1 is extremely
> > narrow.
>
> Juan,
>
> In this situation I think I agree, but Rig 1 pulls in the birds which
> are in range much better.
>
> > I would like a rig that is between no.1 and no.2... no.1 is a bit
> > too narrow and no.2 is a bit too wide, but that's just my taste. :)
> > Also a beer to the peanuts would be nice ;)
>
> H=E5kan,
>
> I pinched the peanuts from the bird table supplies. No beer. :-) There
> isn't an intermediate rig. (see below)
>
> > Both sound like pan-pot stereo. There's no sense of space anywhere
> > but between the speakers.
>
> Len,
>
> In this setup most of the other sounds were the distant farming sounds
> which both rigs tended to add to mix in an unfocussed way. I've got
> rig 1 down in the woods now where it is picking up a good reverbeation
> from the trees. Pan-pot stereo is the way most studio mixes are done
> because it give a cleaner stereo image. I'm aiming at 9 "sonel" stereo
> definition.
>
> > Listening to the tracks with headphones and with a "nature-like"
> > volume, I prefer the track 2. It sound bigger and softer.
>
> Klas,
>
> I think it sounds more natural. I've moved Rig 2 to the side of the
> garden where it does well with close birds like my embarrassing robin
> recording on 1 June.
>
> > rig 1 for me - it seems more natural (which may just mean it is more
> > like what I get :) )
>
> Greg,
>
> These comments are all very valuable especially as they are different.
> :-)
>
> > Is rig no.1 a pair of MKH-416 mics?
> > Is rig no.2 a M+S recording?
>
> H=E5kan,
>
> Yes and no respectively.
>
> > Rig #1 sounds more natural to me, with a good center image and
> > somewhat narrow R and L separation.
> >
> > Rig #2 sound has less presence for me, with reduced center image and
> > wide R/L separation. I could like the wide spacing if the center
> > was stronger.
>
> John,
>
> Rig 1 does have a clarity which Rig 2 lacks.
>
> > To me, Rig 1 sounds better. More detailed, sharper & clearer. Sounds
> > like good HF response. An expensive mic??
> >
> > Rig 2 sounds good, no complaints. Almost sounds like the recordings
> > I usually make with my lower-end, <$200 equipment(I'm on a low
> > budget).
> >
> > I can't wait for you to disclose the equipment details! : )
>
> Al,
>
> I've left you to last as you have hit the nail on the head along with
> H=E5kan.
>
> Rig 1 is my crossed MKH 416's at 60 degrees. Since the peanut test
> I've closed this in to 50 degrees which gave a more gradual movement
> on a second peanut test.
>
> Rig 2 is two =A310 lapel mics similar to to those sold by Radio Shack
> mounted in a cut down carboard box and lots of gaffer tape. The mics a
> sealed in with Blu-tack. The cardboard is a bit resonant so there's
> foam damping and yet more gaffer tape on the back. I've measuere a 14
> dB lift from the boxes which helps with the hissy mics.
>
> Both rigs are now each in their own tents which reduced the rear
> pickup and I'm planning to make a wooden prototype and do more
> testing and I'm working on the theory behind it. I'm amazed that Rig 2
> gave such good results, but I'm not throwing away my 416's. :-)
>
> Thanks again to all who replied and to those who listened to this
> test.
>
> David
>
> David Brinicombe
> North Devon, UK
> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
>
|