note:all recordings have been slowed down to 5% of their original speed
What Rob and myself talked about in terms of what to do for the final analysis revolved around the fact that I had to slow down all of the recordings so that I could hear them (I'm hearing impaired, mostly in the high frequencies). What this did, then, was created some interesting conditions in the sound recordings, such as the large amounts of sustain, which I gauged to be the most accurate aspect of what kind of space was coming across in the recording. Thus, Rob suggested to do a test with several sonograms of the same ding but from different positions, in order to sort of study the waveform and types of frequences each rig was picking up, as well as looking at how each frequency sustained with the rig. Below, you can see three of the tests that I thought really had a nice amount of sustain, which was test 3. I chose station 3 (my own), 7, and 10, and did sonograms on those stations. If you look below, you can see each rig, and the resulting sonogram that each had, as well as listening to the recording, too.
Picture of Test 3, Station 3 Rig compared against the Sonogram For Test 3, Station 3. 12 O'Clock Ding.
Listen to the slowed down recording of Test 3, Station 3
(Click on "download full URL" to download the mp4 file)
Picture of the Test 3, Station 7 rig, compared to the Sonogram for Test 3, Station 7. 12 O'Clock
Listen to the slowed down recording from Test 3, station 7
Picture of the Test 3, Station 10 Rig compared to the Sonogram for Test 3, Station 10, 12 O'Clock Ding
Listen to the slowed down recording from Test 3, Station 10
Where this test seems to hold the most promise is in terms of how the rigs performed according to what they were showing in terms of the frequency response. A quick note about the sonograms: what they represent is each frequency, high and low, and how long they were still showing a response. The higher up on the chart, the higher the frequency, as you can see on the sonograms. In terms of the results of this test, #3 and #7 performed much better than #10 did. As you can see on the sonogram above, #3 and #7 had very good responses across all of the frequencies, and they seemed to sustain much better, judging by the longer responses than on #10. #10 had very "thin" responses even in the initial part of the sonogram, I don't know if this meant that the sounds were not picked up very well by the microphone, but looking at the sonogram, they don't seem as strong as the ones in #3 and #7. I noticed that in #3, some of the mid-frequencies seemed to hold almost until the end, and the higher frequencies had a nice response. This sort of feels consistent with my initial observations about why I liked those recordings in the first place, because of the interesting sustain that they captured. I described it as feeling as if the sounds were being held by the microphone and the rig even after the initial sounds had passed. It gave the room a weird localization. #7 had similar characteristics in its sonogram as #3 did, although the sonogram got cut off a little bit at the end during the transfer process to blogger. #10 just didn't seem to sustain as well as the other ones did, and perhaps that was indicative of the rig type, where the other two were parallel boundaries and probably had a little bit of the sound being contained, or bouncing off the rigs, #10 did not have the same rig characteristics, and that seems to be reflected in the test. Also, I didn't notice any specific variations in this test because of it, but I intentionally chose ones that had a baffle, or that didn't have a baffle, so that I could contrast the parallel boundary sonograms with a baffle, and a parallel boundary without a baffle, etc. And then a rig without the parallel boundary, but with a baffle. However, I couldn't really discern any specific results in terms of the baffle or no baffle, I thought it might show a different type of frequency sustain, but it wasn't really reflected in the test.