John Hartog wrote:
> Rob's large design does not scale the design proportionally like your
> miniature does, rather he keeps the mic spacing and the nose width consistent
> with the original SASS. Just food for thought.
Yea you're right. I had forgotten about that.
> In my approach there is no one ideal design (excepting of course my own
> baffled cardioid design :)) There are many useful stereo arrays out there,
> and each can offer a unique perspective. What specifically about the SASS
> perspective do you feel lacking?
I agree there's no one ideal design. The SASS-type rigs deliver a super clean
image without any of the "wavy" microphone interactions that are common to
ORTF, M-S and Spaced-Omni arrays. They also excel at reaching deep into the
soundscape, pulling in faint distant sounds better than some other types of
arrays. This is highly desirable in a lot of recording situations. And the
SASS-type arrays deliver exceptionally crisp articulation. I suspect its the
combination of all these attributes that make the SASS approach to be so well
liked my so many recordists.
When I stumbled onto the "wing" idea a few years ago, I was amazed by the
incredibly vivid sense of spacial definition these rigs deliver. I had never
hear anything like it before and haven't since; I was hooked. Unlike the SASS
rigs with their deep "reach," distant sounds tend to drop off much more quickly
with these winged rigs. But to my ear, the effect is much more natural and more
desirable most of the time. Winged arrays render a slightly more diffuse image
than the SASS arrays, which contributes to the "spacial definition" attribute
that I value. And despite the more diffuse image, I find that sound source
vectoring is absolutely dead-on accurate if the mics are positioned correctly.
So what accounts for these differences? Two factors, as far as I can tell:
1) There's a huge difference between perpendicular-to-boundary mic mounting
(wing arrays and parallel boundary arrays) and flush-to-boundary mic mounting
(SASS-type arrays). To my ear, perp-to-boundary mounting seems to capture more
complexity, which I think translates into what I call "depth" and "spacial
definition." Flush mounting, as I mentioned, seems to pull in distant sounds
better, but the imaging seems to be "flatter" and less natural sounding -- at
least to me.
2) The bottom plate "wing" structure seems to capture additional reflections
that, to my ear, translates to greater complexity and interest without
unpleasant phasing effects.
It's all about choices and preferences -- tradeoffs and compromises where
choosing "this"means giving up "that."
Such is life,
Curt Olson
http://minnesotasoundscapes.com
Mic arrays discussed in more detail, with photos and sample recordings:
http://minnesotasoundscapes.com/mic_rigs.html
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|