>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|