Monday, December 18, 2006

Holly Moore: A Few of My Favorite Things


The localization exhibited in the parallel boundary rig is crisp and distinct. When compared to other rigs and positions in the same test, such as position 3 using a front-facing rig with 21" spread and baffle, this one clearly illustrates where the sounds are projected from. It is extremely difficult to distinguish the directional value of the sounds with the baffle in the third position. The 8,9,3,4 positions clearly reveal the area in which they are coming. The distinct reverberations of the dings clarify their position in the space while positions 10,11,12,1,2 highlight the clarity of the EM158 mics without clearly distinguishing the direction in which the sounds are coming.

The difference in depth between the 8,9,3,4 positions compared to the 10,11,12,1,2 positions is great. When used on a parallel boundary rig, these mics impressively exemplify depth within the space. This rig differenciates the closeness of positions 10,11,12,1,2 to the distance of positions 8,9,3,4 much more than the second rig I chose, the pseudo SASS flush mounted with the same 3" inset. The depth is not greater than the triple boundary rigs such as the 6" separated triple boundary rig at position 11.

The architechtural value of this rig is not as great as my other two picks. There is a small amount of displace in the sounds, but it fails to clearly differentiate the open space used to test the rigs.


I found the pseudo SASS in the first position to be incredibly clear and crisp with every ding in each direction. This clarity, however, becomes problematic when judging its localization because the sounds tend to overlap in all positions making it difficult to differentiate the direction in which the ding is coming. Each ding appears very close to the position of the rig, causing problems with depth as well. There is greater depth between positions 11 and 1-4, however. The offset of the positioning highlights the architechtural value of the space.

The pseudo SASS offers great architectural value to the open space in which this test took place. The echo provided with the greater distance of the dings in the latter positions sheds light on the proximity of the walls according to the first position of the rig. The tapering off of the dings is a great effect for spacial recording.


This rig and EM158 mics, boundary 160 degree rear facing with 2.5" inset and 11" separation, was not my initial pick, but grew on me upon further listening. I came to the conclusion that this rig highlights localization, depth and architectural value more than my other two picks. When comparing this with the other two, this set up promotes the area in which the dings are occurring while pronouncing spacial value with its greater depth. There is a minute echo at each position, which exposes the warehouse space used. The area is slightly flattened by the other rig set ups while the direction of the dings is less obvious than the fourth position boundary rig.

Andy Chaney, Pieper Final Post

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.