egproductions
Veteran
May be a tough ask but can you provide an example of a hollow sounding track versus and normal one. Just trying to train my ear to such things.
Blimp for Off Axis Rejection?
- Thread starter egproductions
- Start date
paulears
Veteran
The Rycote blurb is very clear on how the Cylcone has wonderful acoustic transparency - so no idea where the idea came from it helped control directivity.
I have 2 shotguns that life permanently in their zepplin type windshields. And an Audio technica that lives is a Rycote softie. Indoors or outdoors they never come off, because I have just the right noise free setup, and it takes time to remove the mic and reinstall it properly. The softie, from wrecking the previous one, also breaks down with constant removal - the inner mesh shielding coming away from the rubber end inside - so that stays on too, unless I really, really have to take it off - for visual reasons. It's rarely a problem, because the sound of them indoors is usually a reason I use a hyper instead - inside, I prefer what they do. My 416 performs ok with very accurate aiming, but miss the mouth and you pick up the reflections from the walls behind and that's not good.
I have 2 shotguns that life permanently in their zepplin type windshields. And an Audio technica that lives is a Rycote softie. Indoors or outdoors they never come off, because I have just the right noise free setup, and it takes time to remove the mic and reinstall it properly. The softie, from wrecking the previous one, also breaks down with constant removal - the inner mesh shielding coming away from the rubber end inside - so that stays on too, unless I really, really have to take it off - for visual reasons. It's rarely a problem, because the sound of them indoors is usually a reason I use a hyper instead - inside, I prefer what they do. My 416 performs ok with very accurate aiming, but miss the mouth and you pick up the reflections from the walls behind and that's not good.
Jim Feeley
Veteran
I own a Rycote Cyclone, and yep: It's really transparent (I typically use it with Schoeps microphones) and I can't imagine it adding/controlling directivity....
Good tip! I'll start using "attenuation" instead of "rejection". (even though to my ears saying "rejection" sounds completely fine, as I understand there can be more or less rejection with one microphone than another, but not everyone else realises that)
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Well technically it should probably be "off axis cancelation", but if you are not writing an engineering paper all of them are probably OK since we know what you are talking about and I have heard all three used by experienced sound folks.
I'm not sure what you can do about people's lack of understanding of the meaning of words. All three terms are generally accurate and all can be misunderstood. Attenuate implies that all sound off axis is being lowered equally, which is not the case. Cancelation might imply that all of the sound off axis goes away, also not the case.
What is happening is that off axis sound is being ported in such a way as to cause cancelation of most of the off axis frequencies, thus partially rejecting those sound and resulting in an effective attenuation of those sounds.
I'm not sure what you can do about people's lack of understanding of the meaning of words. All three terms are generally accurate and all can be misunderstood. Attenuate implies that all sound off axis is being lowered equally, which is not the case. Cancelation might imply that all of the sound off axis goes away, also not the case.
What is happening is that off axis sound is being ported in such a way as to cause cancelation of most of the off axis frequencies, thus partially rejecting those sound and resulting in an effective attenuation of those sounds.
Sly9
Active member
Why is it assumed that attenuation is lowered equally? Attenuation can occur in a non-linear fashion so I'm not understanding why it is always implied it is even in your eyes. In layman's terms, to attenuate is to reduce, and not necessarily evenly (though it could be done evenly).
"attenuation - the reduction of the amplitude of a signal, electric current, or other oscillation."
It seems to me you could use the term off axis attenuation in this circumstance and it would be correct (technically).
"attenuation - the reduction of the amplitude of a signal, electric current, or other oscillation."
It seems to me you could use the term off axis attenuation in this circumstance and it would be correct (technically).
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Kind of my point. Attenuation does not mean evenly for all frequencies, as rejection does not mean evenly for all frequencies, but both could mean that. When you put an attenuator on your cable you are assuming it is attenuating everything. In fact uneven attenuation is what filtering is.
The point being english is a very poor language for exactness. Changing from one multiple interpretation term to another doesn't fix the problem. If they don't understand the variability of "rejection" they probably are not going to do a lot better with "attenuation".
Slightly related is the old puzzle "how to you spell the third "two" in the sentence there are three "two's" in the English language.
The word "two" is in quotes because there is no spelling for that word, you can say it but you can't write it. English is one of the most interpretive and least exact languages in the world.