> Thanks, David. Now I understand a "sonel" is a section of area on the
perceived lateral plane of a stereo image as identified by a sound it confines?

I don't think this is a useful concept, David. There is no physics by which a
stereo panorama is divided into discrete zones. What is experienced is various
degrees of compression or expansion of the perceived image spacing in different
parts of the panorama, like optical pincushion or barrel distortion.

Here's an AES paper comparing of some variations, "Unified theory of microphone
systems for stereophonic sound recording" by M. Williams, 1987, preprint no.
2466. I remember a great paper that compared the perceived geometry of different
arrays like ORTF, XY, and Blumlein, but I can't find it--I do remember that ORTF
won with the most accurate panorama.

-Dan

Yesterday I received the Olympus LS5, virtually a LS11 without accessories, but
with the same internal electronics, except for 2GB of internal memory instead of
8Gb. I think it might be of some interest in a comparison with the Olympus LS7
and the Sony M10.
I tested these three recorders (in order: Olympus LS5, LS7, Sony M10) to verify
the quality of their internal microphones. Fine tuning of levels in post
production was required for LS7 (+4db) and for Sony M10 (+4db).
Setting Rec levels are: LS5 LOW Mic Sense level 10 (range 1,10); LS7 MID Mic
sense level 7 (range 1,16); M10 HI Mic Sense level 3 (range 1,10).
You can find the test on Soundcloud at:
http://soundcloud.com/marco-pesente/sets/3-recorders-olympusls5
There are three files: original, 689Hz Hi Pass filtered, Normalized after
filtered.
Different from a previous test, I have used a clock in place of a wild bird, to
avoid as much as possible any background noise.

As previously suggested by Vicki Powys, in a few weeks I will try to run a
practical test using external electret mics and plug-in-power (PIP), probably
Primo Em172 microphones in a stereo configuration with a single capsule for
channel. All will be performed simultaneously.

I hope this can help someone in the choice of these little recorders.
Obviously my tests just want to be of practical tests, with no pretense of
comparison with the exhaustive table of Raimund in Avisoft , it must be clear!

I forgot one important thing: I turned off the Olympus LS7 central
omnidirectional microphone (as you know it has three internal microphones: two
lateral cardioids and the central one omnidirectional).

Good test Marco!

In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)
my choice is 1. M10  2. LS7  3. LS5.  The M10 has much lower noise
levels than both the Olympus models.

I will be very interested to hear your test using external mics,
perhaps the results will be quite different?


Vicki


On 14/07/2012, at 5:38 PM, m.pesente@... wrote:

> Yesterday I received the Olympus LS5, virtually a LS11 without
> accessories, but with the same internal electronics, except for 2GB
> of internal memory instead of 8Gb. I think it might be of some
> interest in a comparison with the Olympus LS7 and the Sony M10.
> I tested these three recorders (in order: Olympus LS5, LS7, Sony
> M10) to verify the quality of their internal microphones. Fine
> tuning of levels in post production was required for LS7 (+4db) and
> for Sony M10 (+4db).
> Setting Rec levels are: LS5 LOW Mic Sense level 10 (range 1,10);
> LS7 MID Mic sense level 7 (range 1,16); M10 HI Mic Sense level 3
> (range 1,10).
> You can find the test on Soundcloud at:
> http://soundcloud.com/marco-pesente/sets/3-recorders-olympusls5
> There are three files: original, 689Hz Hi Pass filtered, Normalized
> after filtered.
> Different from a previous test, I have used a clock in place of a
> wild bird, to avoid as much as possible any background noise.
>
> As previously suggested by Vicki Powys, in a few weeks I will try
> to run a practical test using external electret mics and plug-in-
> power (PIP), probably Primo Em172 microphones in a stereo
> configuration with a single capsule for channel. All will be
> performed simultaneously.
>
> I hope this can help someone in the choice of these little recorders.
> Obviously my tests just want to be of practical tests, with no
> pretense of comparison with the exhaustive table of Raimund in
> Avisoft , it must be clear!
>

> There is no physics by which a stereo panorama is divided into
> discrete zones.

Dan,

No physics perhaps, but we often need to describe a stereo illusion
and in particular how well it resolves. That's what the sonel
provides.

> What is experienced is various degrees of compression or expansion
> of the perceived image spacing in different parts of the panorama,
> like optical pincushion or barrel distortion.

Perhaps it is pushing a simple concept too far, but there is often
pincushion or barrel distortion between the original sound object and
the recorded sound image and unless we can describe this in an
elemental way, how else can it be quantified?

> Here's an AES paper comparing of some variations, "Unified theory of
> microphone systems for stereophonic sound recording" by M. Williams,
> 1987, preprint no. 2466.

How does he describe the individual placings in the stereo image?

David

David Brinicombe
North Devon, UK
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce

> I tested these three recorders (in order: Olympus LS5, LS7, Sony M10) to
verify the quality of their internal microphones. Fine tuning of levels in post
production was required for LS7 (+4db) and for Sony M10 (+4db).
> Setting Rec levels are: LS5 LOW Mic Sense level 10 (range 1,10); LS7 MID Mic
sense level 7 (range 1,16); M10 HI Mic Sense level 3 (range 1,10).
> You can find the test on Soundcloud at:
> http://soundcloud.com/marco-pesente/sets/3-recorders-olympusls5
> There are three files: original, 689Hz Hi Pass filtered, Normalized after
filtered.
> Different from a previous test, I have used a clock in place of a wild bird,
to avoid as much as possible any background noise.

Thank you very much!

-Dan

David,
> No physics perhaps, but we often need to describe a stereo illusion
> and in particular how well it resolves. That's what the sonel
> provides.

How does your method compare to the common method of simply pointing a finger to
where one hears sounds in the stereo spread to identify the limits of the stereo
image as measured in angular degrees with respect to the listener?

John Hartog
rockscallop.org

hi there,

i came across an posting from 2010 where foam was discussed and a link
from rob danielson to where he sourced his foam from...


Glad to share. :) I asked the same question on the old BndryMic list
and this is the source Rob replied with:

Quarter Sheet 24" x 72" x 4" $ 45.12 $ 13.00 shipping
http://www.foamfory ou.com/charcoal_ foam.htm# Charcoal

maybe this will help.

P.
_________________

--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Gianni Pavan <gianni.pavan@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi, I found some types of open cell foam sold in blocks to make
filters for
> acquaria; the type I found are not very soft and have open cells up to
2-3
> mm in diameter. We use them to protect hydrophones as they don't hold
air
> bubbles.  However I never tested them to verify their acoustic
properties
> in air and their efficacy against wind.
>
> Gianni
>
> 2012/7/8 John Crockett jladd@...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 7/14/2012 1:49 PM, bleublancrouge24 wrote:
> hi there,
>
> i came across an posting from 2010 where foam was discussed and a link
> from rob danielson to where he sourced his foam from...
>
>
> Glad to share. :) I asked the same question on the old BndryMic list
> and this is the source Rob replied with:
>
> Quarter Sheet 24" x 72" x 4" $ 45.12 $ 13.00 shipping
> http://www.foamfory ou.com/charcoal_ foam.htm# Charcoal
>
> maybe this will help.
>

That URL is corrupt as posted in your e-mail, it will not work... (Looks
like a typo or a character is missing where the space is).

--
--
Mitch Hill

(Sent from HP DV6T)

Thanks, P.
I see it in Message #43324
the correct link without spaces is:

http://www.foamforyou.com/charcoal_foam.htm#Charcoal

John Hartog
rockscallop.org

--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "bleublancrouge24" <peterlopata@...>
wrote:
>
> hi there,
>
> i came across an posting from 2010 where foam was discussed and a link
> from rob danielson to where he sourced his foam from...
>
>
> Glad to share. :) I asked the same question on the old BndryMic list
> and this is the source Rob replied with:
>
> Quarter Sheet 24" x 72" x 4" $ 45.12 $ 13.00 shipping
> http://www.foamfory ou.com/charcoal_ foam.htm# Charcoal
>
> maybe this will help.
>
> P.

It works ok as http://www.foamforyou.com/charcoal_foam.htm# Charcoal (I removed
one space, hopefully the list doesn't put it right back again).

There are two densities of charcoal foam, and that both are listed as suitable
for noise treatment and packaging. Which one?

Can anyone see anything on the specs page that distinguishes these from the
other foams, apart from colour? They aren't the densest. Maybe low resilience?

Peter Shute


--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

________________________________
From: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun Jul 15 04:13:26 2012
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Foam for SASS foam info



On 7/14/2012 1:49 PM, bleublancrouge24 wrote:
> hi there,
>
> i came across an posting from 2010 where foam was discussed and a link
> from rob danielson to where he sourced his foam from...
>
>
> Glad to share. :) I asked the same question on the old BndryMic list
> and this is the source Rob replied with:
>
> Quarter Sheet 24" x 72" x 4" $ 45.12 $ 13.00 shipping
> http://www.foamfory ou.com/charcoal_ foam.htm# Charcoal
>
> maybe this will help.
>

That URL is corrupt as posted in your e-mail, it will not work... (Looks
like a typo or a character is missing where the space is).

--
--
Mitch Hill

(Sent from HP DV6T)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The price $45.12 suggests the charcoal firm.

I notice the charcoal firm at foamforyou.com is density is 1.5-1.7 lbs./cu.ft. 
The grainger.com charcoal sheet that I previously linked to is 3 lbs./cu.ft.
Grainger also lists 2 lbs./cu.ft charcoal sheets, and 1.45 lbs./cu.ft balls and
cubes.

John Hartog
rockscallop.org

--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Peter Shute <pshute@...> wrote:
>
> It works ok as http://www.foamforyou.com/charcoal_foam.htm# Charcoal (I
removed one space, hopefully the list doesn't put it right back again).
>
> There are two densities of charcoal foam, and that both are listed as suitable
for noise treatment and packaging. Which one?
>
> Can anyone see anything on the specs page that distinguishes these from the
other foams, apart from colour? They aren't the densest. Maybe low resilience?
>
> Peter Shute
>
>
> --------------------------
> Sent using BlackBerry
>
> ________________________________
> From: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
> To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun Jul 15 04:13:26 2012
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Foam for SASS foam info
>
>
>
> On 7/14/2012 1:49 PM, bleublancrouge24 wrote:
> > hi there,
> >
> > i came across an posting from 2010 where foam was discussed and a link
> > from rob danielson to where he sourced his foam from...
> >
> >
> > Glad to share. :) I asked the same question on the old BndryMic list
> > and this is the source Rob replied with:
> >
> > Quarter Sheet 24" x 72" x 4" $ 45.12 $ 13.00 shipping
> > http://www.foamfory ou.com/charcoal_ foam.htm# Charcoal
> >
> > maybe this will help.
> >
>
> That URL is corrupt as posted in your e-mail, it will not work... (Looks
> like a typo or a character is missing where the space is).
>
> --
> --
> Mitch Hill
>
> (Sent from HP DV6T)
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re the foam:

I am puzzled, how can John Crockett's green foam be specified at 1.5
pounds per cubic foot, if his scrap green piece 4 x 6 x 9 inches
weighing 125 grams would, as a cubic foot, actually equal around 2.2
pounds?  (if I did my maths right :-)

John's green foam piece was approx. the same weight-for-size as my
grey piece.

The original Crown SASS foam weighs the same as my grey piece.

Rob Danielson was using 1.5 to 1.7 pounds per cubic foot density foam.

I guess it is hard to accurately weigh a small piece of foam, so
maybe some variations have occurred because of that.

But if the weights of the smaller pieces was accurate, then this
suggests John Hartog's link to the Grainger charcoal foam of 2 pounds
per cubic foot would be the closest match to the original Crown SASS
foam.


Vicki Powys
Australia






John Crockett wrote:

> BTW, my green foam, at 1.5 lbs per cubic foot density, is similar
> to the foam linked to on the diyboundarymic blog. So maybe it is
> the "right" stuff. Just not identical to what Crown is using, which
> may be proprietary.
> On 12/07/2012, at 2:08 AM, John Crockett wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Vicki,
>>
>> The foam I am able to find locally is green (whatever that means!).
>> It is called high-density foam (they also sell "regular" density,
>> which is white), and although the clerks in the store had no idea
>> about open or closed cell, it is absorbent like a sponge, so I
>> guess it is open-cell. It isn't nearly as dense as I expected, less
>> so, I think, than the foam mattress pad I mentioned. It is quite
>> squishy. The 4" x 6" x 9" scrap I bought weighs 125 grams.
>>
>> Could I possibly have the right thing? I can return it if I bought
>> the wrong material, but how can I tell? Does anyone know?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> John Crockett
>> Westminster, Vermont
>>
>
On 15/07/2012, at 6:05 AM, hartogj wrote:

> The price $45.12 suggests the charcoal firm.
>
> I notice the charcoal firm at foamforyou.com is density is 1.5-1.7
> lbs./cu.ft.  The grainger.com charcoal sheet that I previously
> linked to is 3 lbs./cu.ft. Grainger also lists 2 lbs./cu.ft
> charcoal sheets, and 1.45 lbs./cu.ft balls and cubes.
>
> John Hartog
> rockscallop.org
>
> --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Peter Shute <pshute@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> It works ok as http://www.foamforyou.com/charcoal_foam.htm#
>> Charcoal (I removed one space, hopefully the list doesn't put it
>> right back again).
>>
>> There are two densities of charcoal foam, and that both are listed
>> as suitable for noise treatment and packaging. Which one?
>>
>> Can anyone see anything on the specs page that distinguishes these
>> from the other foams, apart from colour? They aren't the densest.
>> Maybe low resilience?
>>
>> Peter Shute
>>

Vicky, your math looks right. I'm curious though, with the irregular shape of
original SASS foam, did you calculate volume from actual measurements or make a
best guess estimate?

John Hartog
rockscallop.org

--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, vickipowys <vickipowys@...> wrote:
>
> Re the foam:
>
> I am puzzled, how can John Crockett's green foam be specified at 1.5
> pounds per cubic foot, if his scrap green piece 4 x 6 x 9 inches
> weighing 125 grams would, as a cubic foot, actually equal around 2.2
> pounds?  (if I did my maths right :-)
>
> John's green foam piece was approx. the same weight-for-size as my
> grey piece.
>
> The original Crown SASS foam weighs the same as my grey piece.
>
> Rob Danielson was using 1.5 to 1.7 pounds per cubic foot density foam.
>
> I guess it is hard to accurately weigh a small piece of foam, so
> maybe some variations have occurred because of that.
>
> But if the weights of the smaller pieces was accurate, then this
> suggests John Hartog's link to the Grainger charcoal foam of 2 pounds
> per cubic foot would be the closest match to the original Crown SASS
> foam.
>
>
> Vicki Powys
> Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Crockett wrote:
>
> > BTW, my green foam, at 1.5 lbs per cubic foot density, is similar
> > to the foam linked to on the diyboundarymic blog. So maybe it is
> > the "right" stuff. Just not identical to what Crown is using, which
> > may be proprietary.
> > On 12/07/2012, at 2:08 AM, John Crockett wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi Vicki,
> >>
> >> The foam I am able to find locally is green (whatever that means!).
> >> It is called high-density foam (they also sell "regular" density,
> >> which is white), and although the clerks in the store had no idea
> >> about open or closed cell, it is absorbent like a sponge, so I
> >> guess it is open-cell. It isn't nearly as dense as I expected, less
> >> so, I think, than the foam mattress pad I mentioned. It is quite
> >> squishy. The 4" x 6" x 9" scrap I bought weighs 125 grams.
> >>
> >> Could I possibly have the right thing? I can return it if I bought
> >> the wrong material, but how can I tell? Does anyone know?
> >>
> >> Many thanks,
> >>
> >> John Crockett
> >> Westminster, Vermont
> >>
> >
> On 15/07/2012, at 6:05 AM, hartogj wrote:
>
> > The price $45.12 suggests the charcoal firm.
> >
> > I notice the charcoal firm at foamforyou.com is density is 1.5-1.7
> > lbs./cu.ft.  The grainger.com charcoal sheet that I previously
> > linked to is 3 lbs./cu.ft. Grainger also lists 2 lbs./cu.ft
> > charcoal sheets, and 1.45 lbs./cu.ft balls and cubes.
> >
> > John Hartog
> > rockscallop.org
> >
> > --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Peter Shute <pshute@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It works ok as http://www.foamforyou.com/charcoal_foam.htm#
> >> Charcoal (I removed one space, hopefully the list doesn't put it
> >> right back again).
> >>
> >> There are two densities of charcoal foam, and that both are listed
> >> as suitable for noise treatment and packaging. Which one?
> >>
> >> Can anyone see anything on the specs page that distinguishes these
> >> from the other foams, apart from colour? They aren't the densest.
> >> Maybe low resilience?
> >>
> >> Peter Shute
> >>
>

John,

I added a small wedge of grey foam to square up the shape, then
weighed it.

I would also comment here that the additional black dye added to the
Crown SASS foam may also very slightly affect its acoustic
properties :-)


Vicki


On 15/07/2012, at 10:31 AM, rock_scallop wrote:

> Vicky, your math looks right. I'm curious though, with the
> irregular shape of original SASS foam, did you calculate volume
> from actual measurements or make a best guess estimate?
>
> John Hartog
> rockscallop.org
>
> --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, vickipowys
> <vickipowys@...> wrote:
>>
>> Re the foam:
>>
>> I am puzzled, how can John Crockett's green foam be specified at 1.5
>> pounds per cubic foot, if his scrap green piece 4 x 6 x 9 inches
>> weighing 125 grams would, as a cubic foot, actually equal around 2.2
>> pounds?  (if I did my maths right :-)
>>
>> John's green foam piece was approx. the same weight-for-size as my
>> grey piece.
>>
>> The original Crown SASS foam weighs the same as my grey piece.
>>
>> Rob Danielson was using 1.5 to 1.7 pounds per cubic foot density
>> foam.
>>
>> I guess it is hard to accurately weigh a small piece of foam, so
>> maybe some variations have occurred because of that.
>>
>> But if the weights of the smaller pieces was accurate, then this
>> suggests John Hartog's link to the Grainger charcoal foam of 2 pounds
>> per cubic foot would be the closest match to the original Crown SASS
>> foam.
>>
>>
>> Vicki Powys
>> Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Crockett wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, my green foam, at 1.5 lbs per cubic foot density, is similar
>>> to the foam linked to on the diyboundarymic blog. So maybe it is
>>> the "right" stuff. Just not identical to what Crown is using, which
>>> may be proprietary.
>>> On 12/07/2012, at 2:08 AM, John Crockett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Vicki,
>>>>
>>>> The foam I am able to find locally is green (whatever that means!).
>>>> It is called high-density foam (they also sell "regular" density,
>>>> which is white), and although the clerks in the store had no idea
>>>> about open or closed cell, it is absorbent like a sponge, so I
>>>> guess it is open-cell. It isn't nearly as dense as I expected, less
>>>> so, I think, than the foam mattress pad I mentioned. It is quite
>>>> squishy. The 4" x 6" x 9" scrap I bought weighs 125 grams.
>>>>
>>>> Could I possibly have the right thing? I can return it if I bought
>>>> the wrong material, but how can I tell? Does anyone know?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>
>>>> John Crockett
>>>> Westminster, Vermont
>>>>
>>>
>> On 15/07/2012, at 6:05 AM, hartogj wrote:
>>
>>> The price $45.12 suggests the charcoal firm.
>>>
>>> I notice the charcoal firm at foamforyou.com is density is 1.5-1.7
>>> lbs./cu.ft.  The grainger.com charcoal sheet that I previously
>>> linked to is 3 lbs./cu.ft. Grainger also lists 2 lbs./cu.ft
>>> charcoal sheets, and 1.45 lbs./cu.ft balls and cubes.
>>>
>>> John Hartog
>>> rockscallop.org
>>>
>>> --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Peter Shute <pshute@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It works ok as http://www.foamforyou.com/charcoal_foam.htm#
>>>> Charcoal (I removed one space, hopefully the list doesn't put it
>>>> right back again).
>>>>
>>>> There are two densities of charcoal foam, and that both are listed
>>>> as suitable for noise treatment and packaging. Which one?
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone see anything on the specs page that distinguishes these
>>>> from the other foams, apart from colour? They aren't the densest.
>>>> Maybe low resilience?
>>>>
>>>> Peter Shute
>>>>
>>
>
>

vickipowys wrote:

> In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)
> my choice is 1. M10  2. LS7  3. LS5.  The M10 has much lower noise
> levels than both the Olympus models.

Yes, but it also has a sound stage that is, for me, unusable. The closely spaced
omnis act to record in something closer to mono than stereo.

A good recorder, but only if using external mics.

-- Robin Parmar

Hi Vicki,

The error is entirely mine. My original measurement of the scrap I bought was
inaccurate. I don't know how I managed that. The actual dimensions of my green
foam are 4 x 6.5 x 12 inches, which I work out to 1.5 pounds per cubic foot. I'm
confident in the weight of 125 grams as I was using an accurate lab scale.

I haven't found an affordable scrap of anything more dense yet.

I purchased my green foam from Jo-Ann Fabric, a national chain.

http://www.joann.com/airtex-foam-chairpads-2-high-density/xprd780100/

It is made by Airtex, but I cannot find any specs for the foam on the Airtex
site. Jo-Ann sell it by the foot in many thicknesses (only one example online),
and have off-cut scraps in the store.

I doubt it is ideal but it is all I can find around here.

John Crockett
Westminster, Vermont

--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, vickipowys <vickipowys@...> wrote:
>
> Re the foam:
>
> I am puzzled, how can John Crockett's green foam be specified at 1.5
> pounds per cubic foot, if his scrap green piece 4 x 6 x 9 inches
> weighing 125 grams would, as a cubic foot, actually equal around 2.2
> pounds?  (if I did my maths right :-)
>
> John's green foam piece was approx. the same weight-for-size as my
> grey piece.
>
> The original Crown SASS foam weighs the same as my grey piece.
>
> Rob Danielson was using 1.5 to 1.7 pounds per cubic foot density foam.
>
> I guess it is hard to accurately weigh a small piece of foam, so
> maybe some variations have occurred because of that.
>
> But if the weights of the smaller pieces was accurate, then this
> suggests John Hartog's link to the Grainger charcoal foam of 2 pounds
> per cubic foot would be the closest match to the original Crown SASS
> foam.
>
>
> Vicki Powys
> Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Crockett wrote:
>
> > BTW, my green foam, at 1.5 lbs per cubic foot density, is similar
> > to the foam linked to on the diyboundarymic blog. So maybe it is
> > the "right" stuff. Just not identical to what Crown is using, which
> > may be proprietary.
> > On 12/07/2012, at 2:08 AM, John Crockett wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi Vicki,
> >>
> >> The foam I am able to find locally is green (whatever that means!).
> >> It is called high-density foam (they also sell "regular" density,
> >> which is white), and although the clerks in the store had no idea
> >> about open or closed cell, it is absorbent like a sponge, so I
> >> guess it is open-cell. It isn't nearly as dense as I expected, less
> >> so, I think, than the foam mattress pad I mentioned. It is quite
> >> squishy. The 4" x 6" x 9" scrap I bought weighs 125 grams.
> >>
> >> Could I possibly have the right thing? I can return it if I bought
> >> the wrong material, but how can I tell? Does anyone know?
> >>
> >> Many thanks,
> >>
> >> John Crockett
> >> Westminster, Vermont
> >>
> >
> On 15/07/2012, at 6:05 AM, hartogj wrote:
>
> > The price $45.12 suggests the charcoal firm.
> >
> > I notice the charcoal firm at foamforyou.com is density is 1.5-1.7
> > lbs./cu.ft.  The grainger.com charcoal sheet that I previously
> > linked to is 3 lbs./cu.ft. Grainger also lists 2 lbs./cu.ft
> > charcoal sheets, and 1.45 lbs./cu.ft balls and cubes.
> >
> > John Hartog
> > rockscallop.org
> >
> > --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Peter Shute <pshute@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It works ok as http://www.foamforyou.com/charcoal_foam.htm#
> >> Charcoal (I removed one space, hopefully the list doesn't put it
> >> right back again).
> >>
> >> There are two densities of charcoal foam, and that both are listed
> >> as suitable for noise treatment and packaging. Which one?
> >>
> >> Can anyone see anything on the specs page that distinguishes these
> >> from the other foams, apart from colour? They aren't the densest.
> >> Maybe low resilience?
> >>
> >> Peter Shute
> >>
>

David Brinicombe wrote:

> A sonel is a sound pixel. The more separate sonels
> you can hear, the better the stereo image.

It seems that the term "sonel" might be confusing, as it was coined by York
University researchers Kapralos et al. for a different purpose. For them, sonel
mapping is a Monte Carlo method for geometric acoustics, using a particle-based
method to overcome the limitations of ray-based techniques.

I believe instead it is more appropriate to follow Mills' vocabulary of the
minimum audible angle (MAA), which refers to the smallest detectable amount of
sound source displacement. Like other JNDs (just noticeable differences) it
depends on the frequency of the source. Remarkably, this can be as precise as 1
degree (at 500 Hz), but of course this was in a tightly controlled listening
environment.

Using MAA to measure the quality of a location recording is a different matter
-- but is an intriguing possibility! Certainly a listener would be able to
distinguish a lot more than 3 or even 9 distinct sound source positions...
likely more than 20. This makes sense when one considers that we hear a moving
source in the stereo field tracing a smooth path, and not jumping from one
discrete position to another.

Refs:
Kapralos, B., Jenkin, M., and Milios, E. (2006) "Sonel mapping: A stochastic
acoustical modeling system". Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

Mills, A. W. (1958) "On the minimum audible angle". Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 30.4, 237–246.

-- Robin Parmar

Yes, Robin, I agree. This is why I have not yet decided on a small recorder to
replace my minidisc. None of the currently-produced, low-cost units gets it
quite right for me. The LS-5 might do it if it were available in the US. The LS7
would if it had a line input.

Marco, I have found these tests very helpful, especially to have both the
earlier test to demonstrate sonic image, and the later test to demonstrate self
noise. The earlier test clearly showed the inferior image from the PCM-M10 and
Roland R-05. Very quiet, but very monophonic. Did either recorder display more
than one Brini-sonel?

John Crockett
Westminster, Vermont



--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "robin_parmar_sound" <robin@...> wrote:
>
> vickipowys wrote:
>
> > In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)
> > my choice is 1. M10  2. LS7  3. LS5.  The M10 has much lower noise
> > levels than both the Olympus models.
>
> Yes, but it also has a sound stage that is, for me, unusable. The closely
spaced omnis act to record in something closer to mono than stereo.
>
> A good recorder, but only if using external mics.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>

Hi Robin,
Thanks for the references: the minimum audible angle (MMA) concept is
interesting.

With any on location localization test, even when the exact position of a sound
source is known, reverberations with the physical surroundings will always
distort the source's image to some degree.  For a typical walk around test, I
think clock position at increments of hour (30 degrees)or half-hour (15 degrees)
gives sufficient information to describe the general localization
characteristics -  for an array, on a specific location, for a specific playback
environment, and subjective to the spacial resolving abilities of the listener.

Beyond clock positions or angular degrees on the horizontal plane, vertical, and
radial distance modifiers may be useful. For most listeners and typical playback
systems, vertical modifiers "high" and "low" might be enough. For radial
distance, "near, mid, and far" always seam a bit inadequate to me.


John Hartog
rocscallop.org


--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "robin_parmar_sound"
> I believe instead it is more appropriate to follow Mills' vocabulary of the
minimum audible angle (MAA), which refers to the smallest detectable amount of
sound source displacement. Like other JNDs (just noticeable differences) it
depends on the frequency of the source. Remarkably, this can be as precise as 1
degree (at 500 Hz), but of course this was in a tightly controlled listening
environment.
>
> Using MAA to measure the quality of a location recording is a different matter
-- but is an intriguing possibility! Certainly a listener would be able to
distinguish a lot more than 3 or even 9 distinct sound source positions...
likely more than 20. This makes sense when one considers that we hear a moving
source in the stereo field tracing a smooth path, and not jumping from one
discrete position to another.
>
> Refs:
> Kapralos, B., Jenkin, M., and Milios, E. (2006) "Sonel mapping: A stochastic
acoustical modeling system". Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.
>
> Mills, A. W. (1958) "On the minimum audible angle". Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 30.4, 237–246.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>

This page recently appeared on the Olympus America website:

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1623

Does anyone know about this "new" LS-10S recorder? No instruction manual is
posted yet. SRP is $199.99 which places it between the LS-7 and LS-100, and
below the Sony PCM-M10. Could this be the recorder I've been waiting for (decent
internal mic noise and image, good external PIP preamps, line input, long
battery life, low cost)?

John Crockett
Westminster, Vermont

If the M10 is ok apart from the poor sound stage, I wonder how small one could
build external mics for it that do better. Ie small enough to leave permanently
attached and still be able to fit it in your pocket.

Would the SASS design many of us use with EM172 capsules scale down?

Peter Shute


--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

________________________________
From: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon Jul 16 04:56:00 2012
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal mics
comparison.



Yes, Robin, I agree. This is why I have not yet decided on a small recorder to
replace my minidisc. None of the currently-produced, low-cost units gets it
quite right for me. The LS-5 might do it if it were available in the US. The LS7
would if it had a line input.

Marco, I have found these tests very helpful, especially to have both the
earlier test to demonstrate sonic image, and the later test to demonstrate self
noise. The earlier test clearly showed the inferior image from the PCM-M10 and
Roland R-05. Very quiet, but very monophonic. Did either recorder display more
than one Brini-sonel?

John Crockett
Westminster, Vermont

--- In
naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com<mailto:naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>,
"robin_parmar_sound" <robin@...> wrote:
>
> vickipowys wrote:
>
> > In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)
> > my choice is 1. M10 2. LS7 3. LS5. The M10 has much lower noise
> > levels than both the Olympus models.
>
> Yes, but it also has a sound stage that is, for me, unusable. The closely
spaced omnis act to record in something closer to mono than stereo.
>
> A good recorder, but only if using external mics.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

I would like to know if someone has a binaural head or a SASS available to rent
for a possible job late July to August.
The client hasn't confirmed yet the job but is asking for specific things to
use.

Please PM.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Emanuele

Robin Parmar wrote:
"Certainly a listener would be able to distinguish a lot more than 3 or even 9
distinct sound source positions... likely more than 20. This makes sense when
one considers that we hear a moving source in the stereo field tracing a smooth
path, and not jumping from one discrete position to another."

Is it possible that the image of a moving source isn't really as smooth as it
seems, due to our brains filling in the gaps?

Peter Shute


--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

________________________________
From: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon Jul 16 01:43:30 2012
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Sonels and Splash



David Brinicombe wrote:

> A sonel is a sound pixel. The more separate sonels
> you can hear, the better the stereo image.

It seems that the term "sonel" might be confusing, as it was coined by York
University researchers Kapralos et al. for a different purpose. For them, sonel
mapping is a Monte Carlo method for geometric acoustics, using a particle-based
method to overcome the limitations of ray-based techniques.

I believe instead it is more appropriate to follow Mills' vocabulary of the
minimum audible angle (MAA), which refers to the smallest detectable amount of
sound source displacement. Like other JNDs (just noticeable differences) it
depends on the frequency of the source. Remarkably, this can be as precise as 1
degree (at 500 Hz), but of course this was in a tightly controlled listening
environment.

Using MAA to measure the quality of a location recording is a different matter
-- but is an intriguing possibility! Certainly a listener would be able to
distinguish a lot more than 3 or even 9 distinct sound source positions...
likely more than 20. This makes sense when one considers that we hear a moving
source in the stereo field tracing a smooth path, and not jumping from one
discrete position to another.

Refs:
Kapralos, B., Jenkin, M., and Milios, E. (2006) "Sonel mapping: A stochastic
acoustical modeling system". Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

Mills, A. W. (1958) "On the minimum audible angle". Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 30.4, 237–246.

-- Robin Parmar





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Peter is it not possible to improve the sound stage using shuffling or other
mid/side techniques? See http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=1744

The SASS boundary would scale but as the size is reduced so is the boundary
effect and you move its effect upwards towards the high frequency region.

A tiny barrier between four coincident omni's with post processing may be the
way to go if your after a smaller rig, or a dipole setup - in the field it
sounds mono so perhaps not that useful.

The audio at 02:29 – 03:28 is a Dipole Microphone in the example on my blog:-

http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=1297

The omni's are EM172's and 2 per channel - they fit inside the original
Edirol/Roland CS15 microphone.

Circa 2010 vintage.

-Mike.




--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Peter Shute <pshute@...> wrote:
>
> If the M10 is ok apart from the poor sound stage, I wonder how small one could
build external mics for it that do better. Ie small enough to leave permanently
attached and still be able to fit it in your pocket.
>
> Would the SASS design many of us use with EM172 capsules scale down?
>
> Peter Shute
>
>
> --------------------------
> Sent using BlackBerry
>
> ________________________________
> From: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
> To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon Jul 16 04:56:00 2012
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal mics
comparison.
>
>
>
> Yes, Robin, I agree. This is why I have not yet decided on a small recorder to
replace my minidisc. None of the currently-produced, low-cost units gets it
quite right for me. The LS-5 might do it if it were available in the US. The LS7
would if it had a line input.
>
> Marco, I have found these tests very helpful, especially to have both the
earlier test to demonstrate sonic image, and the later test to demonstrate self
noise. The earlier test clearly showed the inferior image from the PCM-M10 and
Roland R-05. Very quiet, but very monophonic. Did either recorder display more
than one Brini-sonel?
>
> John Crockett
> Westminster, Vermont
>
> --- In
naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com<mailto:naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>,
"robin_parmar_sound" <robin@> wrote:
> >
> > vickipowys wrote:
> >
> > > In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)
> > > my choice is 1. M10 2. LS7 3. LS5. The M10 has much lower noise
> > > levels than both the Olympus models.
> >
> > Yes, but it also has a sound stage that is, for me, unusable. The closely
spaced omnis act to record in something closer to mono than stereo.
> >
> > A good recorder, but only if using external mics.
> >
> > -- Robin Parmar
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

John Crockett wrote:

> This page recently appeared on the Olympus America website:
>
> http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1623
>
> Does anyone know about this "new" LS-10S recorder?

The Olympus LS-10 had several deficiencies that were corrected in the LS-11 and
LS-5, notably the lack of ability to record in mono or split files. It makes
little sense for this model to be re-issued unless these were also fixed.

But I wonder, since the info page says this has 12h record time, the same as the
original LS-10, but half of that achieved on the subsequent models. This new
unit comes with a case but not the bundled software or remote of the original
LS-10.

If one wants a stripped-down package with 2GB internal memory and all the
firmware fixes, the LS-5 makes a lot more sense. It seems that Olympus are
re-issuing an inferior model just to get something else out for the US market.

How very odd.

-- Robin Parmar

Peter Shute wrote:

> Robin Parmar wrote:
> "Certainly a listener would be able to distinguish a lot more than 3 or even 9
distinct sound source positions... likely more than 20. This makes sense when
one considers that we hear a moving source in the stereo field tracing a smooth
path, and not jumping from one discrete position to another."
>
> Is it possible that the image of a moving source isn't really as smooth as it
seems, due to our brains filling in the gaps?

Indeed, yes, especially when one considers that all hearing involves the brain
"filling in the gaps"!

However the research that shows a 1 to 4 MAA (frequency determined) would seem
to support at least 40 discernible positions on the horizontal plane alone.

-- Robin Parmar

John Hartog wrote:

> With any on location localization test, even
> when the exact position of a sound source is
> known, reverberations with the physical
> surroundings will always distort the source's
> image to some degree.

It is worth noting that reverberation is also a localisation cue. In other
words, it can help pinpoint a source's location, just as in other cases it can
help mask it.

Sound localisation is pretty freaking complicated!

-- Robin Parmar

On 15/07/2012 21:36, lamacchiacosta wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know if someone has a binaural head or a SASS
> available to rent for a possible job late July to August.
> The client hasn't confirmed yet the job but is asking for specific
> things to use.
>
> Please PM.
>
> Thanks a lot in advance.
>
> Emanuele
>
Sorry everyone,

I'm in London UK.

Thanks.

Emanuele


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i too have been wondering if it might possible to clip on some kind of
primitive jecklin disk to the M10, though i've not had the time to
experiment with the idea yet.

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mike Rooke <yg@...> wrote:
> Peter is it not possible to improve the sound stage using shuffling or other
mid/side techniques? See http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=1744
>
> The SASS boundary would scale but as the size is reduced so is the boundary
effect and you move its effect upwards towards the high frequency region.
>
> A tiny barrier between four coincident omni's with post processing may be the
way to go if your after a smaller rig, or a dipole setup - in the field it
sounds mono so perhaps not that useful.
>
> The audio at 02:29 – 03:28 is a Dipole Microphone in the example on my blog:-
>
> http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=1297
>
> The omni's are EM172's and 2 per channel - they fit inside the original
Edirol/Roland CS15 microphone.
>
> Circa 2010 vintage.
>
> -Mike.
>
>
>
>
> --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Peter Shute <pshute@...> wrote:
>>
>> If the M10 is ok apart from the poor sound stage, I wonder how small one
could build external mics for it that do better. Ie small enough to leave
permanently attached and still be able to fit it in your pocket.
>>
>> Would the SASS design many of us use with EM172 capsules scale down?
>>
>> Peter Shute
>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Sent using BlackBerry
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
>> To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Mon Jul 16 04:56:00 2012
>> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal mics
comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Robin, I agree. This is why I have not yet decided on a small recorder
to replace my minidisc. None of the currently-produced, low-cost units gets it
quite right for me. The LS-5 might do it if it were available in the US. The LS7
would if it had a line input.
>>
>> Marco, I have found these tests very helpful, especially to have both the
earlier test to demonstrate sonic image, and the later test to demonstrate self
noise. The earlier test clearly showed the inferior image from the PCM-M10 and
Roland R-05. Very quiet, but very monophonic. Did either recorder display more
than one Brini-sonel?
>>
>> John Crockett
>> Westminster, Vermont
>>
>> --- In
naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com<mailto:naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>,
"robin_parmar_sound" <robin@> wrote:
>> >
>> > vickipowys wrote:
>> >
>> > > In all three tracks (i.e. judging the quality of the built-in mics)
>> > > my choice is 1. M10 2. LS7 3. LS5. The M10 has much lower noise
>> > > levels than both the Olympus models.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it also has a sound stage that is, for me, unusable. The closely
spaced omnis act to record in something closer to mono than stereo.
>> >
>> > A good recorder, but only if using external mics.
>> >
>> > -- Robin Parmar
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>