naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mic spacing vs spatial veracity

Subject: Re: mic spacing vs spatial veracity
From: "Arn=FE=F3r Helgason"
Date: Mon Aug 5, 2013 4:19 am ((PDT))
Hello, Gianni and thank you for the comment.

I have been using Nagra Ares BB+ since 2007. Korg didn't meet my
requirements at all. There were mainly 4 things I didn't like: The
switches, the self-noise, the hard disk and the structure of the
menu-system.

Best regards,

Arnthor Helgason

=DEann 5.8.2013 07:33, skrifa=F0i Gianni Pavan:
> nice recording
> I see you're using the Korg MR2. How you judge it ? in particular for the
> self noise on internal mics and on external inputs ?
>
> Gianni
>
>
> 2013/8/4 Mike Rooke <>
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Russell,
>>
>> Heres a system Ive coined the Hyper Co-Incident mic:
>> https://soundcloud.com/urlme/pmhc1-water-rain-pebbles
>>
>> This version is mounted inside and old AKG P3 dynamic mic body. (dynamic
>> element removed). In the recording a thin foam cover and rode dead kitte=
n
>> are used as a windscreen.
>>
>> The recording theme as its name suggests is water and thunder although i=
ts
>> more of a quick demo for the stereo image / low frequency response all t=
he
>> way to 16 Khz.
>>
>> BR
>> Mike.
>>
>>
>> --- In  "rock_scallop" <=
>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Russell,
>>> I think we have heard plenty of examples shared here on this group of
>> non-coincident arrays producing good stereo localization without any
>> aberrations being noticeable or problematic. I also think coincident arr=
ays
>> like XY, Blumlein, and MS will also produce localization aberrations, li=
ke
>> on-axis lobes, depending on the polar frequency response of the particul=
ar
>> microphones used. Ocean and stream sounds can be especially challenging
>> with any array, and I would agree, at least in specific instances, a
>> coincident array may help simplify things.
>>> John Hartog
>>> rockscallop.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In  Russell Dawkins <rdawkins@>
>> wrote:
>>>> Any stereo array can easily be tested for efficacy by the simple
>> expedient of (while recording) walking across the soundfield in an arc
>> equidistant from the mic array. If the spatial representation is accurat=
e
>> as captured, when the recording is played back over properly positioned
>> loudspeakers (=B130=BA for conventional stereo; =B145=BA for X-Y Blumlei=
n crossed
>> figure-of-eight) the footsteps should progress evenly from one side to t=
he
>> other. You could be forgiven for thinking this would be the result in mo=
st
>> cases, but in fact it seems to work only with crossed figure of eights a=
nd
>> M-S arrays, both coincident. All spaced arrays produce extremely aberran=
t
>> results with this experiment.
>>>> For most nature sound recordings I don't think it matters much -
>> especially of animal sounds - but to me it does matter when I am trying =
to
>> capture what might be called an acoustic, such as a stream or a beachfro=
nt
>> with waves (to realistically capture the movement of the breaking part o=
f
>> the wave).
>>
>>
>
>







<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