i too have been wondering if it might possible to clip on some kind of
primitive jecklin disk to the M10, though i've not had the time to
experiment with the idea yet.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mike Rooke <> wrote:
> Peter is it not possible to improve the sound stage using shuffling or ot=
her mid/side techniques? See http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=3D1744
>
> The SASS boundary would scale but as the size is reduced so is the bounda=
ry effect and you move its effect upwards towards the high frequency region=
.
>
> A tiny barrier between four coincident omni's with post processing may be=
the way to go if your after a smaller rig, or a dipole setup - in the fiel=
d it sounds mono so perhaps not that useful.
>
> The audio at 02:29 =96 03:28 is a Dipole Microphone in the example on my =
blog:-
>
> http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=3D1297
>
> The omni's are EM172's and 2 per channel - they fit inside the original E=
dirol/Roland CS15 microphone.
>
> Circa 2010 vintage.
>
> -Mike.
>
>
>
>
> --- In Peter Shute <> wrote:
>>
>> If the M10 is ok apart from the poor sound stage, I wonder how small one=
could build external mics for it that do better. Ie small enough to leave =
permanently attached and still be able to fit it in your pocket.
>>
>> Would the SASS design many of us use with EM172 capsules scale down?
>>
>> Peter Shute
>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Sent using BlackBerry
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From:
>> To:
>> Sent: Mon Jul 16 04:56:00 2012
>> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal =
mics comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Robin, I agree. This is why I have not yet decided on a small recor=
der to replace my minidisc. None of the currently-produced, low-cost units =
gets it quite right for me. The LS-5 might do it if it were available in th=
e US. The LS7 would if it had a line input.
>>
>> Marco, I have found these tests very helpful, especially to have both th=
e earlier test to demonstrate sonic image, and the later test to demonstrat=
e self noise. The earlier test clearly showed the inferior image from the P=
CM-M10 and Roland R-05. Very quiet, but very monophonic. Did either recorde=
r display more than one Brini-sonel?
>>
>> John Crockett
>> Westminster, Vermont
>>
>> --- In <naturerecordists%40yahoog=
roups.com>, "robin_parmar_sound" <robin@> wrote:
>> >
>> > vickipowys wrote:
>> >
>> > > In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)
>> > > my choice is 1. M10 2. LS7 3. LS5. The M10 has much lower noise
>> > > levels than both the Olympus models.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it also has a sound stage that is, for me, unusable. The clos=
ely spaced omnis act to record in something closer to mono than stereo.
>> >
>> > A good recorder, but only if using external mics.
>> >
>> > -- Robin Parmar
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
|