Would be nice to see a similar test with a fixed level audio source to see how much the various wind socks inhibit the desired noise.

Grammatically, it would be "fewer beans" since beans can be counted individually. :)

I saw a high-dollar Mercedes Benz commercial last night where they said their new coupe had "less doors" than their sedan. Seriously, their ad agency should know better.

John Cline, considering that most of the beans in New Mexico are refried, I'm surprised you would say that.
;?)

Good but not excellent.
One source of wind related noise is "parasitic turbulence", that's a term I've borrowed from aeronautical engineering. Any turbulence will create a sound, blimps and dead cats stop these at the microphone by preventing wind from reaching it. Taking steps to improve the airflow over things outside the blimp or furry can also help. Mic leads and XLR connectors can be a source of noise that'll get into recordings and it is quite likely to be right in the wanted spectrum of speech.
The high end location audio companies supply kit with special audio leads and connectors that reduce turbulence and don't conduct sound but ghetto solutions are pretty easily made. Wrap electical tape around XLR connectors, leave loops in cables. Pretty easy problems to solve once you know to look for them.

Bob.

I wonder where the division stops in grammar.

For example if a single water molecule is like a single door and water (being more than one water molecule) is like doors (being more than one door), would the proper grammar then be fewer water or less water?

"Water" is a conglomerate noun. You don't say "that glass has waters in it", you just say "water" so less is correct. If you wanted to refer to the individual molecules you would say "fewer water molecules".

So another conglomerate noun might be "geese"?

You'd be surprised how many 'professional' wind protectors actually change the sound. It's really worth considering the acoustic transparence when selecting materials to make your own wind protectors .....

Geese is the plural of goose, it would still be correct to say "fewer geese." The general rule is that for things that can be counted individually, it is "fewer." i.e. Fewer apples, less applesauce.

I think I would classify baked beans with sand in that while granular and technically possible to count the components, I wouldn't normally do so. I would measure them both by volume and therefore have more or less beans.

Technically, sand consists of grains of sand. "Less sand, fewer grains of sand."

I'm disappointed that the author baulked at dead cat but not dead wombat. Now dead rabbit or dead fox or even dead sheep would be OK since they were introduced. (So was dingo, but that was a long time ago.)

Yes, but do you count your beans or measure them by volume? Could I have thirteen fewer beans please?

I count my beans but, then again, I'm overly concerned with minute details. I guess that makes me pedantic.

:)

Back to the original discussion, $299 for a Rode Blimp with a dead wombat cover is a really decent deal.

Enough with the beans, bean beenies,

I have a question about wind noise. Most camcorders I've owned have had a wind noise fiter. For the most part, they are not magical, but do a crude job of reducing wind noise i.e. my ears can hear an improvement.

However, when trying to reduce wind noise in Sound Forge, I never seem to have any success in improving the audio. (I have to admit Sound Forge/audio cleanup is not my strong suit).

So, here's the question: Are there any Audio FX's available that use the same or similar algorithm as the internal camcorder wind filter, but give the user some additional params to adjust the quality?

...Jerry

I like to say "gooses" as it does start conversations immeadiatly. Clipped peak restoration sometimes helps reduce the wind noise in Forge.
JJK

If you shot a poor grainy video can you fix it in post? Most likely you could improve it somewhat, but not make it look good. Same with audio.

The dead furry animals (cats, wombats, buffaloes, etc.) prevent generation of the wind noise, which is by far the best approach. In a bad situation, generated wind noise could be much louder than the wanted signal and even lead to overload. If you use AGC then the wanted signal gets a variable level, dependent on the noise level.

Try using Izotope, DART, or other audio cleanup tool for possibly better results but I don't think it can be done well. Reduction of low level steady noise is reasonably feasible but high level very variable noise is not.

The in camera wind filter is just a low cut filter, useful but that's no different to what you can do in post. It does help to cut the lows out before recording as that gives more headroom.

Unfortunately by its very nature wind noise is impossible to filter out. Rx's HiQ filters might give you some joy but I'm inclined to doubt it.

For anyone has deep pockets the very best solution for a mic in high winds is this:

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/sitecore/shell/Controls/Rich%20Text%20Editor/~/media/PDF/Download/Users%20Manuals/WINDPAC_UM.pdf

We have one and it does an amazing job.... at an amazing price. Sadly DPA seem to no longer make them.

Bob.

"I like to say "gooses" as it does start conversations immediately."

One of my Pastors always introduces his wife as "This is my first wife, Grace." That really starts up the conversation.