naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

2. Re: Miniature Pseudo-SASS Array

Subject: 2. Re: Miniature Pseudo-SASS Array
From: "Mike Rooke" picnet2
Date: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:24 am ((PDT))
>The only improvement that I could foresee is a cost-reduced model for
>those of us that are financially impaired.

4 capsules mounted in delrin/pvc rod + cable & plug would run to less than =
70 Euro.

Is the edge (top and bottom) diffraction of the cylinder detectable?
It must cause a comb filter effect depending on the elevation angle?

The SASS may use this effect by using more surface below the mics than abov=
e, or rather in its nose shape as Gregory has already pointed out.

-M.

--- In  Gregory O'Drobinak <=
.> 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 inten=
ded 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 t=
hat
> there will be more attenuation of the high frequencies and the polar resp=
onse
> will be changed as well. Hence the "muffled" quality of your rig. Had you=

> mounted your capsules in the exact spot=C2=A0of the original PZM mic caps=
ules, then
> the response should be quite clear.=C2=A0I believe that someone has just =
posted the
> link to the patent so that you can become familiar with the design parame=
ters.
>
> Do you have a second SASS with 3032s mounted? Can you send us a picture o=
f their
> mounting details? How about some some sound samples comparing that partic=
ular
> rig to the SSM?
>
> IMHO, I=C2=A0think that it would be unwise=C2=A0make the web page (that y=
ou sent us the
> link for) public. The difference between "evaluate" and "hear the differe=
nce" is
> slight. People can take that comparison different ways. Perhaps it's bett=
er not
> to compare the SSM to anything else. I very much enjoyed the "mailman com=
ing"
> clip, with the fluttering of the birds' wings. Let the SSM stand on its o=
wn.
>
> 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 localizatio=
n was
> different. BTW, some of the sound clips had some rather bad glitches at t=
he
> beginning. What was the cause of this?
>
> Well, I think that you have a fine product here and I wish you the best o=
f luck
> with it. The only improvement that I could foresee is a cost-reduced mode=
l 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=A0
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







<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