naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

9. Re: Miniature Pseudo-SASS Array

Subject: 9. Re: Miniature Pseudo-SASS Array
From: "Gregory O'Drobinak" gmo_dunes2
Date: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:21 pm ((PDT))
Klas:

It went to your web page to listen to your sounds clips and I also studied =
the
photo of your two mic rigs. I haven't had the proper amount of time to real=
ly do
the critical listening to formulate=C2=A0in-depth opinions, but there are a=
 few
things that stood out right away.=C2=A0

The first thing I noticed is that=C2=A0your modified=C2=A0SASS array has th=
e EM172s
[correct me if I'm wrong; that's what they look like] mounted much too clos=
e to
the 'nose' of the SASS, probably at least one half inch too far in. That ve=
ry
well could explain some of the "muffled" quality that you describe on that =
web
page. They are inside the foam of the nose piece, thus any direct sound on =
axis
has to travel through foam, not through free air. This is not good; such
deviations can have a negative effect on the array performance.


To correctly translate the SASS operation using your capsules, you=C2=A0sho=
uld remove
the original PZM mics from the SASS and then mount the EM172s such that the=
y
have their centers in exactly the same spot as the original Crown PZM eleme=
nts.
In fact they may need to be slightly farther away from the nose foam since =
they
are larger in diameter than the original Crown PZM capsules. I think that y=
ou
know what I am saying here: if you want to use your capsules on a stock SAS=
S,
then mount them as the designers intended. Then you can make a=C2=A0more re=
asonable
A-B test=C2=A0using the SASS rig.=C2=A0

It's unclear what's really going on inside the SSM, but my impression is th=
at it
is a type of spaced omni rig with very little baffling or boundaries. Is th=
is
correct? The 'Treelark' clip seems to bear this out. Is that bird behind th=
e two
rigs? Where exactly was it located? I clearly hear a footfall that sounds l=
ike
it is coming from behind in the SSM section of the clip, but I don't hear t=
hat
much at all on the SASS section. Also, the lack of any substantial boundari=
es
for the SSM would account for its brighter quality, given the drop off of t=
he
low end of capsules.

Do the capsules of the SSM need to be oriented in a particular direction? C=
an
you give us some idea of the theory of operation? What exactly is the polar=

response of the SSM?

Both rigs on the "rain" recording have somewhat of a grainy quality and a
crunchiness in the "splat" of the drops that is no doubt due the=C2=A0type =
of capsule
that=C2=A0were used.=C2=A0This is a very tough test for many kinds of micro=
phones!=C2=A0

Finally, I don't understand your closing comment of "The SSM does not have =
the
same amplitude "level" left and right". Could you please elaborate on that?

Thanks!=C2=A0 Keep up the good work!

-Greg
=C2=A0



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU