Rob Danielson wrote:
> Walt wrote: Please see inserts
>
>
>>Rob D. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> For stereo on this budget, which can make the recording process and
>>> end results more engaging, I'd consider two Rode Nt3's condensers.
>>> They're acceptably quiet, robust, ruggedly made and best of all, they
>>> put out more signal than other low end mics so that one does not
>>> have to turn up the MiniDisc mic preamplifier as high and introduce
>>> more noise. The Nt3's run a 9 volt battery or phantom power should
>>> you do buy a preamp down the road. ~$160 each last time I looked.
>>> They do show up on eBay. Enclosed headphones a must for evaluatiing
>>> micing positions.
>>> Rob
>>
>>I take it you would use these for stereo by coincident miking?
>
>
> X-Y makes the smallest rig. a lttle less phase interaction
Size of rig is part of the reason why I'm going with M/S setups. But
without a low cost figure 8 that's kind of ruled out for budget stereo.
Unless you go with all in one mics like the Sony. Even there it's a fair
hop up in cost to the next higher level in all in one M/S.
>>What
>>angle would you use
>
>
> Adjustable of course, I use between 30 and 90 degrees. Smaller angles
> for closer phenomena
>
>
>>, and what size of stereo field would you expect them
>>to cover?
>
>
> depends on angle of course. There seems to be pretty consistent tonal
> colorarion to about 90 degrees with about a 60 degree X-Y angle. My
> students use 90 degrees a lot because its more dramatic.
I'd expect at 90 degrees you would see some "hole in the middle" begin
to show up.
>>As hypercardioids they are probably not going to be all that wide.
>
>
> For location ambience, I point them wherever the interesting, higher
> hz sounds are coiming from cuz the lows get in from all sides
> anyways. To get a whole frog pond or a field of birds, hyper/uni's
> never work too well, but being able to get more wood frog and less
> peeper, they work nicely.
That was my feeling, a lot like the MKH-30/MKH-60 M/S setup I made. Kind
of a in between setup. Wider than using a long shotgun or parabolic. But
a lot narrower than the SASS or such like.
>>I noted one reviewer saying a single mic was heavy for hand holding. So
>>with stereo I assume you are planning on using the setup only on a stand?
>
>
> a board with 20 penny nails and rubber bands about 9" by 12' is the
> smallest footprint we use.
Is this a hand held outfit, or a "stand". And how do you handle
windscreening around that? I'm still mumbling about how to set up my
pair of MKH-816's for stereo. Suspension and windscreen are the big problem=
.
>>How wind sensitive and humidity sensitive are these mics?
>
>
> not bad on wind with normal fake fur jackets. I've used them on a
> heavy dew night without cracklin. soaked wind screen et al.
>
> Considering how much we type about this, we really should do a
> "lowest noise/$ " website or collection of links incorporating the
> d-y-i and lower cost items.
Indeed. Info about humidity, wind sensitivity, even self noise is often
lacking in most info sources. What is needed is a mics for nature
recording page. That could cover all ranges of mics. Many of the nature
recording equipment pages are either very dated, or highly oriented to
call recording using relatively expensive mics.
There is, of course, the problem that nature recordists are a diverse
bunch. What one of us likes another may not. But it would sure be nice
to have a database of some kind on the specs that count for us. I'm sure
there are lots of other mics than Sennheiser's that will do nicely, but
particularily in the high price end it's a risk without knowing how well
they will handle our recording environment.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|