Dan Dugan wrote:
> Walt, you wrote,
>
>
>>It
>>would probably be kind of hard to do a drawing that was true pickup
>>distance that looked like much, however.
>
>
> Well, absolute distance has nothing to do with it, it's about ratios.
I think to at least some folks it's absolute distance. I tend to think
of that about mics when I'm out there. In terms of what area they are
covering. I understand your point about ratios as well, in studio
settings and other places where most sound sources are similar distance
that's probably a better way to think of it. In nature recording
thinking area coverage has a great deal of validity. Yes, it varies with
gain setting and so on, but there is a coverage pattern on the ground.
> Sennheiser published very nice 3-D drawings of pickup patterns in the
> introductory chapter of their annual "Micro Revue" catalog. I think
> they discontinued that publication a few years ago. Up to and
> including 1985, polar plots shown for their mikes used a linear
> scale. In 1986 they changed their polar plots to a log scale. I'm
> sure this was for uniformity with the rest of the industry; too bad,
> because the linear polar plots were more accurate, in that they
> showed the actual shape of the pattern in space.
If you have any of the old catalogs around, maybe you could scan these.
I'd like to see them. I've seen polar plots done both ways. Being
experienced at graphs, I don't have any real problems with either way.
But I'm sure many are not that familiar with what a log scale is saying.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|