Greg,
I will test the SASS with mic capsules at both locations. I don't
have any birdsong though, only atmosphere. I doubt that it will make
a difference. Can you send me a simple drawing? (max 200k)
The website is not public and was never meant to be.
Comparing / evaluating: If I need to describe the SSM by saying that
"it is less forward looking than the SASS and less side reaching out,
but .... e.t.c."
Then I also need to know by own experiments that it is correct.
If I need only need selling arguments for the SSM, weight and size is
unbeatable.
Can you describe "glitches"?
Klas
At 10:08 2012-08-14, you wrote:
>Klas:
>
>The holes in the foam are there for a reason, so that there is some
>open space
>to the sides of the PZM capsules. The presence of that hole was not
>intended for
>mounting other capsules behind it. The hole is to open up the boundary to
>incident sound at the edge of the PZM element.
>
>
>As the mics get close to the nose of the SASS, the response varies such th=
at
>there will be more attenuation of the high frequencies and the polar respo=
nse
>will be changed as well. Hence the "muffled" quality of your rig. Had you
>mounted your capsules in the exact spot=C2 of the original PZM mic
>capsules, then
>the response should be quite clear.=C2 I believe that someone has just
>posted the
>link to the patent so that you can become familiar with the design paramet=
ers.
>
>Do you have a second SASS with 3032s mounted? Can you send us a
>picture of their
>mounting details? How about some some sound samples comparing that particu=
lar
>rig to the SSM?
>
>IMHO, I=C2 think that it would be unwise=C2 make the web page (that you
>sent us the
>link for) public. The difference between "evaluate" and "hear the
>difference" is
>slight. People can take that comparison different ways. Perhaps it's
>better not
>to compare the SSM to anything else. I very much enjoyed the "mailman comi=
ng"
>clip, with the fluttering of the birds' wings. Let the SSM stand on its ow=
n.
>
>I noticed that when I did the EQ to correct for the SSM's HF peaking
>that it's
>high end was very similar to that of the SASS. Of course, the
>localization was
>different. BTW, some of the sound clips had some rather bad glitches at th=
e
>beginning. What was the cause of this?
>
>Well, I think that you have a fine product here and I wish you the
>best of luck
>with it. The only improvement that I could foresee is a cost-reduced
>model for
>those of us that are financially impaired.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Klas Strandberg <>
>To:
>Sent: Mon, August 13, 2012 4:28:59 PM
>Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Miniature Pseudo-SASS Array
>
>=C2
>Vicky, Greg,
>
>Sorry for late answer, Greg!
>
>I got the SASS in 2010 because I wanted a reference when working with
>the different "Murie" mike's I had. When I got it, brand new, there
>were already two holes in the foam for the microphone capsules. That
>is where the 172's are located on the picture.
>
>But quite soon I got more into:
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/mod_sass.html
>approved on and used by a lot. The diaphragms are facing out.
>I have also used the SASS with AT3032.
>
>But my intention was not to evaluate "SASS" vs. "SSM", they are
>actually far too different for that. Only hear the difference.
>The most obvious difference is that the SASS is looking forward more
>than the SSM, which was not a problem for Crown, as it was meant to
>hang on a wall, anyway.
>
>A muffled sound is not wrong, it's a matter of taste. Also,
>headphones make more difference in that aspect than a reasonable
>microphone, not to speak about how hard the headphones are pressing
>against your ears. "Muffled" is a in my mind a word describing
>"characteristics", not "quality".
>
>Klas.
>
>At 22:30 2012-08-13, you wrote:
> >Well-spotted Greg. Looking closely, I certainly agree that Klas's
> >SASS rig has the mics positioned wrongly, they need to be further out
> >by half to one inch. And ideally they should have the diaphragms
> >flush with the boundary. I had not been able to grasp why Klas
> >thought of the SASS sound as muffled, I have never found that to be
> >the case with SASS, except occasionally for a sound directly front on
> >with a SASS that has a 'square' nose rather than a tapered one.
> >
> >Vicki
> >
> >On 13/08/2012, at 4:21 PM, Gregory O'Drobinak wrote:
> >
> > > Klas, The first thing I noticed is that your modified SASS array
> > > has the EM172s
> > > [correct me if I'm wrong; that's what they look like] mounted much
> > > too close to
> > > the 'nose' of the SASS, probably at least one half inch too far in.
> > > That very
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >Klas had written:
> >
> > > At http://klas.telinga.com/SSM-SASS/ there is a comparison between
> > > the Telinga SSM and the SASS. I put up this site only to ask a few
> > > people that I trust, to say their opinions.
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> >sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause=
.
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
>S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
>Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
>email:
>website: www.telinga.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|