[Tobiah]

I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound. The mics are
17cm apart, just because it's a natural fit, and complies
with ORTF so that I can say that there is some reason
that I chose that distance.

http://tobiah.org/stand

Tobiah

[geoff]

Tobiah wrote:
I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound. The mics are
17cm apart, just because it's a natural fit, and complies
with ORTF so that I can say that there is some reason
that I chose that distance.

http://tobiah.org/stand

Tobiah

Naa, you'll be OK. It resonates at 2300Hz.

Ain't a LDC an odd choice for nature recording. Quiet indeed, but double
the cancellations which must impact more on distant or low-level 'targets'
?

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:22:15 +1200, "geoff"
wrote:

Tobiah wrote:
I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound. The mics are
17cm apart, just because it's a natural fit, and complies
with ORTF so that I can say that there is some reason
that I chose that distance.

http://tobiah.org/stand

Tobiah

Naa, you'll be OK. It resonates at 2300Hz.

Ain't a LDC an odd choice for nature recording. Quiet indeed, but double
the cancellations which must impact more on distant or low-level 'targets'
?

geoff


There's a whole heap of nature recordings from this mic on a web site
somewhere, and they are absolutely stunning. The only thing you need
to be careful of is to use a decent windshield.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Tobiah wrote:

I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound.

It needs something "antireflex" on the top side and/or the top side to have
a curved cross-section, like a D with the arch upwards or both, ie. apply
stealth no-focused-reflection design. My opinion.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

The mics are
17cm apart, just because it's a natural fit, and complies
with ORTF so that I can say that there is some reason
that I chose that distance.

http://tobiah.org/stand

Tobiah

[Tobiah]

I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound.

It needs something "antireflex" on the top side and/or the top side to have
a curved cross-section, like a D with the arch upwards or both, ie. apply
stealth no-focused-reflection design. My opinion.

I'm having trouble visualizing what you are describing. Do you
mean to suggest some sort of half-dome shape behind the mics that
avoids reflection back to the mics?

Thanks,

Tobiah

[Tobiah]

I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound.

Naa, you'll be OK. It resonates at 2300Hz.

Ok, I didn't actually consult a calculator.

Ain't a LDC an odd choice for nature recording. Quiet indeed, but double
the cancellations which must impact more on distant or low-level 'targets'
?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cancellations' here.

I actually chose the mics as a general solution for all of my
recording needs. They've been pretty versatile so far. This
particular mic does happen to be a lauded favorite among nature recordists.
This may be primarily due to the low self-noise however, rather
than other sound shaping characteristics.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:44:33 -0700, Tobiah wrote:

I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound.

It needs something "antireflex" on the top side and/or the top side to have
a curved cross-section, like a D with the arch upwards or both, ie. apply
stealth no-focused-reflection design. My opinion.

I'm having trouble visualizing what you are describing. Do you
mean to suggest some sort of half-dome shape behind the mics that
avoids reflection back to the mics?

Don't fret, the bar is just fine as it is, and no nasty reflections
will result.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Tobiah wrote:

I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound.

It needs something "antireflex" on the top side and/or the top side
to have a curved cross-section, like a D with the arch upwards or
both, ie. apply stealth no-focused-reflection design. My opinion.

I'm having trouble visualizing what you are describing.

Simplest: 3 mm felt on the topside

Do you
mean to suggest some sort of half-dome shape behind the mics that
avoids reflection back to the mics?

You have flat topside of the bar, I suggest that it should be ""domed"" so
as to rule out any reflection upwards. Don Pearce suggests that it doesn't
matter. Honestly I never did see it as a possible problem with my K&M stereo
bars, but your bar is wider.

Also I didn't see reflections from the floor around a mic stand as
constituting "An Issue" until I tried adding anti-reflextion objects -
pillows that happened to be available in abundance at a recording location
and noted the improvement of the stereo image. I will not bother if the
recording is live, but if it isn't, and if something to put on the floor
around the micstand is available I will deploy it.

That said, I can also make quite a few points in favor of Don's view on
this, one of those being the acoustics of the NT1 mic screen and another
being the reflextion geometry for sound recored with horisontal incidence
.... O;-) ... but nonetheless I'll look for some black felt to glue on to my
K&M stereo bars anyway. It will have the additional advantage of visual
non-glare ...

Thanks,

Your welcome, oh - your bar looks very neat as it is, not without
importance!

Tobiah

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Tobiah wrote:

Ain't a LDC an odd choice for nature recording. Quiet indeed, but
double the cancellations which must impact more on distant or
low-level 'targets' ?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cancellations' here.

I actually chose the mics as a general solution for all of my
recording needs. They've been pretty versatile so far. This
particular mic does happen to be a lauded favorite among nature
recordists. This may be primarily due to the low self-noise however,
rather than other sound shaping characteristics.

Equivalent self-noise is 5 dBA, getting a small membrane mic below 20 dBA
equivalent self-noise is non-trivial, so from that viewpoint it is a wise
choice for the context.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:07:41 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Tobiah wrote:

I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound.

It needs something "antireflex" on the top side and/or the top side
to have a curved cross-section, like a D with the arch upwards or
both, ie. apply stealth no-focused-reflection design. My opinion.

I'm having trouble visualizing what you are describing.

Simplest: 3 mm felt on the topside

Do you
mean to suggest some sort of half-dome shape behind the mics that
avoids reflection back to the mics?

You have flat topside of the bar, I suggest that it should be ""domed"" so
as to rule out any reflection upwards. Don Pearce suggests that it doesn't
matter. Honestly I never did see it as a possible problem with my K&M stereo
bars, but your bar is wider.

Also I didn't see reflections from the floor around a mic stand as
constituting "An Issue" until I tried adding anti-reflextion objects -
pillows that happened to be available in abundance at a recording location
and noted the improvement of the stereo image. I will not bother if the
recording is live, but if it isn't, and if something to put on the floor
around the micstand is available I will deploy it.

That said, I can also make quite a few points in favor of Don's view on
this, one of those being the acoustics of the NT1 mic screen and another
being the reflextion geometry for sound recored with horisontal incidence
... O;-) ... but nonetheless I'll look for some black felt to glue on to my
K&M stereo bars anyway. It will have the additional advantage of visual
non-glare ...

Thanks,

Your welcome, oh - your bar looks very neat as it is, not without
importance!

Tobiah

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



Should reflections ever prove to be a problem, and I would be
seriously surprised if they did, I would go for drilling holes rather
than disfiguring that beautiful wood with felt.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

Should reflections ever prove to be a problem, and I would be
seriously surprised if they did, I would go for drilling holes rather
than disfiguring that beautiful wood with felt.

Yes, that is a very good point, my first thought was to round the
top-surface since it looks flat to me and wide enough to constitute a
reflective surface above some 5 kHz. Trying a removable felt cover will
however be something that can be done with full respect for the wood and
indeed for the craftsmanship. It is indeed beautiful.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tobiah]

On 9/11/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Should reflections ever prove to be a problem, and I would be
seriously surprised if they did, I would go for drilling holes rather
than disfiguring that beautiful wood with felt.

Yes, that is a very good point, my first thought was to round the
top-surface since it looks flat to me and wide enough to constitute a
reflective surface above some 5 kHz. Trying a removable felt cover will
however be something that can be done with full respect for the wood and
indeed for the craftsmanship. It is indeed beautiful.


Thanks, I love working with rosewood. I bought a block of Cocobolo
about 3x3x24. I'm trying to think of more things to make
out of it. I think my next piece will be a mouse pad.

The top surface is slightly curved, as the entire piece was
hand-sanded. It seems to me that whatever would reflect
off the top of the bar would have to come from directly above, and
would hit the mics 90 degrees off-axis. If I got that technical,
I think I'd have to start worrying about the mic bodies as well.

Tobiah

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Tobiah wrote:

On 9/11/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Should reflections ever prove to be a problem, and I would be
seriously surprised if they did, I would go for drilling holes
rather than disfiguring that beautiful wood with felt.

Yes, that is a very good point, my first thought was to round the
top-surface since it looks flat to me and wide enough to constitute a
reflective surface above some 5 kHz. Trying a removable felt cover
will however be something that can be done with full respect for the
wood and indeed for the craftsmanship. It is indeed beautiful.

Thanks, I love working with rosewood. I bought a block of Cocobolo
about 3x3x24. I'm trying to think of more things to make
out of it. I think my next piece will be a mouse pad.

The top surface is slightly curved, as the entire piece was
hand-sanded.

OK, I then almost said nutting, leave it be as it is, not to worry.

It seems to me that whatever would reflect
off the top of the bar would have to come from directly above, and
would hit the mics 90 degrees off-axis.

Yes.

If I got that technical,
I think I'd have to start worrying about the mic bodies as well.

Yes, re-read what I wrote.

Tobiah

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/11/2011 2:16 PM, Tobiah wrote:

I love working with rosewood. I bought a block of
Cocobolo
about 3x3x24. I'm trying to think of more things to make
out of it. I think my next piece will be a mouse pad.

I seem to remember back from when I was making banjos that
cocobolo was very irritating to the skin and lungs and that
you had to be careful with where the dust went when you
sanded it. Did you itch or sneeze a lot?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[geoff]

Tobiah wrote:
I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound.

Naa, you'll be OK. It resonates at 2300Hz.

Ok, I didn't actually consult a calculator.

Ain't a LDC an odd choice for nature recording. Quiet indeed, but
double the cancellations which must impact more on distant or
low-level 'targets' ?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cancellations' here.

I actually chose the mics as a general solution for all of my
recording needs. They've been pretty versatile so far. This
particular mic does happen to be a lauded favorite among nature
recordists. This may be primarily due to the low self-noise however,
rather than other sound shaping characteristics.

The time difference from one side of the diaphram to the other. Presumably
outweighted by the lack of self-noise.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the culinary reports
sound good ;-)

geoff

[Tobiah]

I seem to remember back from when I was making banjos that cocobolo was
very irritating to the skin and lungs and that you had to be careful
with where the dust went when you sanded it. Did you itch or sneeze a lot?


I hadn't really thought of that. I did some of the sanding in a
smallish room, because I am renting and have limited space. I didn't
notice any reaction to working with the wood. I did try to keep the
mics away from the sanding area, even though I had the screens on them.

[Tobiah]

Ain't a LDC an odd choice for nature recording. Quiet indeed, but
double the cancellations which must impact more on distant or
low-level 'targets' ?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cancellations' here.

The time difference from one side of the diaphram to the other. Presumably
outweighted by the lack of self-noise.

Oh, I see. For quite high frequencies, you could have a high part of
the wave acting on a large diaphragm at the same time as the low part
of the wave is acting on the opposite edge. So if you built a 3 foot
diaphragm, that problem would extend much farther down the frequency
spectrum.

Thanks for pointing out that effect.

Is that why they can have a lower "transient response"? I suppose the
varied arrival time of an event with a very fast attack could smear
things a little.

Toby

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Tobiah wrote:

Oh, I see. For quite high frequencies, you could have a high part of
the wave acting on a large diaphragm at the same time as the low part
of the wave is acting on the opposite edge. So if you built a 3 foot
diaphragm, that problem would extend much farther down the frequency
spectrum.

Thanks for pointing out that effect.

It's a serious problem, but it's also responsible for some of the high
end artifacts that people like in large diaphragm mikes. If you get a high
enough resolution polar plot of the thing, it looks very spiky because
of those effects (combined with the diaphragm breakup effects).

Is that why they can have a lower "transient response"? I suppose the
varied arrival time of an event with a very fast attack could smear
things a little.

That's more just a result of having a higher mass diaphragm than anything
else. It's harder to move a heavier thing quickly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Tobiah wrote:

I made if from a piece of Cocobolo. I hope it doesn't
resonate at 2000Hz and affect the sound. The mics are
17cm apart, just because it's a natural fit, and complies
with ORTF so that I can say that there is some reason
that I chose that distance.

http://tobiah.org/stand

Tobiah

I like it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 9/11/2011 2:16 PM, Tobiah wrote:

I love working with rosewood. I bought a block of
Cocobolo
about 3x3x24. I'm trying to think of more things to make
out of it. I think my next piece will be a mouse pad.

I seem to remember back from when I was making banjos that
cocobolo was very irritating to the skin and lungs and that
you had to be careful with where the dust went when you
sanded it. Did you itch or sneeze a lot?

Rosewoods in general are toxic and/or allergenic.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

Rosewoods in general are toxic and/or allergenic.

Wood-dust is unsafe to inhale, all wood contains substances that are active
against bacteria, fungi/mold and insects, worms or whateverelse that might
eat the wood, some contain more than others.

Even from a simple "mechanical" viewpoint the dust should be avoided. Lungs
are designed for breathing air with a minimal particle content.

It is possible to speculate that these substances also matter in the choice
of types of wood to make kitchen implements of, but I haven't heard "wood
people" mention that as a parameter for choice of wood.

Just being nice does not allow you to last 2000 years if mechnanically
defenseless and standing on the same spot, a reasonable gp toxicity is
likely to help.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen