The original problem was that John Crockett wants a recorder like the M10 b=
ut with a stereo image like an LS-7 or LS-5. If the M10 is to be made suita=
ble by adding external mics then they need to be in a really tiny package.=
=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
>-----Original Message-----=0D
>From: =0D
> On Behalf Of Gregory=0D
>O'Drobinak=0D
>Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2012 10:32 AM=0D
>To: =0D
>Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10=0D
>internal mics comparison.=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>Well, there is a cheap & quick solution for a simple array that gives=0D
>better=0D
>sound, but is not really binaural. It is similar in concept to strapping=
=0D
>a pair=0D
>of omnis to either side of a small tree, like Bernie has mentioned=0D
>before.=0D
>=0D
>Go down to ToysRUs or Walmart or something and get a round foam Nerf=0D
>ball. These=0D
>are about 7" in diameter and cost about $5.00.=0D
>Attach the EM172s to either side of that foam ball with a strip of Lycra=
=0D
>tied=0D
>around it, facing forward. Punch a hole in the bottom of the ball so=0D
>that you an=0D
>mount it on a gooseneck shaft attached to an inexpensive, lightweight=0D
>tripod.=0D
>You really can put that foam ball on most anything since it weighs very=0D
>little.=0D
>The pull some fake monkey fur over it and you're done! The whole mc rig=0D
>should=0D
>cost less than $40.00 for everything (the fur may cost as much as the=0D
>mics!).=0D
>Oh, and just solder the EM172 onto a proper stereo shielded cable,=0D
>terminated in=0D
>a 1/8" Stereo mini-plug befoe attaching them to the ball (I found a good=
=0D
>small-conductor stereo cable from an old pair of headphones, but make=0D
>*sure*=0D
>that it it shielded). Then you just plug it into your M10 and use the=0D
>PIP menu=0D
>option to power the mics.=0D
>=0D
>I've also had good luck using the Shure MX391LP/O microflex boundary=0D
>mics that I=0D
>found on ebay for ~$26.00. I made a very simple adapter using two TA4M=0D
>connectors wired appropriately to a stereo 1/8" mini-jack. Then you just=
=0D
>plug=0D
>everything together and use a cable terminated into a 1/8" mini-plug at=0D
>both=0D
>ends, plug it into the M10, use PIP and again you are off & running.=0D
>Lightweight=0D
>& low-cost. What yo do with the 391s is up to you; there are an infinity=
=0D
>of=0D
>choices such as the foam ball, various versions of the 'SASS' array,=0D
>trapazoidal=0D
>foam blocks, etc. All of these are very lightweight, compact, cost-=0D
>effective and=0D
>quick to make. Just do it!=0D
>=0D
>This will definitely be better for stereo separation than the built-in=0D
>M10 mics=0D
>and the mics I mentioned are essentially equivalent in term of self-=0D
>noise to=0D
>that of the M10.=0D
>=0D
>Enjoy!=0D
>=0D
>- Greg=0D
>=0D
>________________________________=0D
>From: rock_scallop <=0D
><john_hartog%40rockscallop.org> >=0D
>To: =0D
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=0D
>Sent: Wed, July 18, 2012 6:38:38 PM=0D
>Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal=0D
>mics=0D
>comparison.=0D
>=0D
>Hi Vicky,=0D
>That processing procedure was quick and gross, and later think I=0D
>improved it=0D
>with a bit more playing around.=0D
>=0D
>The problem I have with most arrays is the LF stuff gets piled in the=0D
>center,=0D
>attenuating that a bit might make sound more natural, however this time=0D
>I think=0D
>I just I over did it.=0D
>=0D
>But you are right, an external array is the best solution for improving=0D
>the=0D
>stereo image. I don't like head worn arrays because I can't look around=0D
>while=0D
>recording, and the sound of my own breath is so often noticeable.=0D
>=0D
>John Hartog=0D
>rockscallop.org=0D
>=0D
>--- In =0D
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com> , vickipowys=0D
><> wrote:=0D
>>=0D
>> John,=0D
>>=0D
>> I have to agree with Greg, your MS processing did not work for me=0D
>> either, when listening through headphones.=0D
>>=0D
>> In the first clip the environmental noise is evenly spaced around me=0D
>> and I can travel outwards, but in the processed clip I feel like I am=0D
>> in a pressure cooker and can't escape.=0D
>>=0D
>> Not a very technical explanation I know :-)=0D
>>=0D
>> To save on all this post-production, the best quick solution for good=0D
>> stereo from a pocket recorder is to use external head-worn electrets=0D
>> (e.g. EM172s), quick to put on if they are mounted on a lightweight=0D
>> headband from an old set of headphones.=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>> Vicki=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>> On 18/07/2012, at 2:30 PM, Gregory O'Drobinak wrote:=0D
>>=0D
>> > John:=0D
>> >=0D
>> > Interesting. But when listening to this with cans on, the second=0D
>> > part sounded=0D
>> > like it was pulling down hard on my ears!=0D
>> > It was a very strange sensation, with a very curious spectral=0D
>> > shift. Not at all=0D
>> > pleasant.=0D
>> >=0D
>> > I've been thinking about some ways to 'spread out' a narrower=0D
>> > stereo image, but=0D
>> > it may be very tricky with M-S processing. Perhaps having a wider=0D
>> > sound stage=0D
>> > like the SASS-type rigs is not at all possible with closely-spaced=0D
>> > capsules, no=0D
>> > matter what the method. Seems like you can't put in the proper=0D
>> > inter-aural=0D
>> > delays that one would have with a natural spacing of the mic=0D
>> > elements ex post=0D
>> > facto, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see if anyone can really=0D
>> > pull this off=0D
>> > effectively.=0D
>> >=0D
>> > What exactly was your process?=0D
>> >=0D
>> > Thanks!=0D
>> >=0D
>> > - Greg=0D
>> >=0D
>> >=0D
>> >=0D
>> >=0D
>> >=0D
>> > ________________________________=0D
>> > From: rock_scallop <>=0D
>> > To: =0D
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=0D
>> > Sent: Tue, July 17, 2012 10:39:01 PM=0D
>> > Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10=0D
>> > internal mics=0D
>> > comparison.=0D
>> >=0D
>> >=0D
>> > For the sake of understanding values or risks of Mid-Side=0D
>processing.=0D
>> > Here is a URL to a bit of my urban backyard test with the pcm-m10.=0D
>> > The first part has no added EQ, the second part has Mid-Side=0D
>> > processing to=0D
>> > correct the stereo image.=0D
>> >=0D
>> >=0D
>> > http://soundcloud.com/john-hartog/jh-test20127017-pcmm10-ms/s-TnZrf=0D
>> >=0D
>> > Any comments are welcome.=0D
>> >=0D
>> > John Hartog=0D
>> > rockscallop.org=0D
>> >=0D
>> > --- In =0D
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com> , "rock_scallop"=0D
>> > <john_hartog@> wrote:=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >> Hi Robin,=0D
>> >> It is always nice when post-processing is not needed, but show me=0D
>> >> an external=0D
>> >> array for nature recording that will not benefit from some post EQ=0D
>> >> most of the=0D
>> >> time.=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >> Of course one must be careful not to over do it.=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >> What do you mean by "skew your phase and introduce other=0D
>> >> distortions." If it=0D
>> >> sounds good, is it not good?=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >> John Hartog=0D
>> >> rockscallop.org=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >>=0D
>> >> --- In =0D
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com> , "robin_parmar_sound"=0D
>> >> <robin@> wrote:=0D
>> >>>=0D
>> >>> John wrote:=0D
>> >>>=0D
>> >>>> On the other hand, the advantage of the lower noise mics in the=0D
>> >>>> M10 is the=0D
>> >> potential for an extended acoustic horizon in quieter settings,=0D
>> >> and for those=0D
>> >> capable of making MS adjustments in post that might make a=0D
>> >> difference.=0D
>> >>>=0D
>> >>> Of course the best thing to do is use external mics when low=0D
>> >>> noise is of=0D
>> >> paramount importance. Then you can control the recording topology=0D
>> >> exactly,=0D
>> >> without resorting to post-processing that will skew your phase and=0D
>> >> introduce=0D
>> >> other distortions.=0D
>> >>>=0D
>> >>> -- Robin Parmar=0D
>> >>>=0D
>> >>=0D
>>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
|