Hi Walter--
The mkh-20's in SASS! Of course. Easier for stationary field
applications than A/B. I'll have to track down that link you posted
with how to order just the SASS housing.
Barred Owl: 3 secs in on
B.SASS.MKH20.mp3
left channel.
Thanks a again for your thoroughness, great tests, should be a
permanent page along with links to the rig pictures,. SASS,.. a great
resource all together.
Are you going to pick up a pair of the Rode NT1A's cardioid
condensers with 5dB inherent noise? Not really suited perfectly for
frog ponds but at $200 each,.. possibly a key addition to the low
noise on a budget site?
Best
Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
Walter wrote:
>Rob Danielson wrote:
>> What a treat! I d/loaded the 2nd set.
>>
>> I get some of same low accentuated tone with my 30/40 M-S pair.
>> Almost seems like an interaction between the mics, maybe even
>> mechanical. Mysterious huh?
>
>That pair I'm least sure of. It is mounted just the same as the photos I
>put up of the MKH-30/60. The zepplin is a couple inches shorter.
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/ms_mkh30+60.html
>You should note that since taking those photos I've moved the front
>support behind the diaphragms.
>
>Lots to learn about.
>
>> The 110 really compares favorably to the 20. The later is the most
>> open to my ears, but just a shade over the 110. How far apart were
>> the 20's?
>
>The SASS is a imitation head, at least in one viewpoint. So the mics are
>ear spaced, about 7" for both SASS. But remember that between them is a
>Foam separator nearly 6" thick. And around them is a boundary mic surface.
>
>Remember, I have photos up:
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/sass_mkh110.html
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/sass_mkh-20.html
>
>Considering that in their day the 110's were one of two omni's in the
>MKH lineup and as such were in the same sort of role as the 20's it's
>not surprising they are similar. The specs of the 110 are closer to the
>20 than was the other omni. During the intervening time Sennheiser
>worked out how to get slightly better sensitivity and lower noise.
>
>One should not forget that the 110's are so much more capable than the
>20's at the low end. That can give their sound a heavier quality than
>the 20's. I think it will be more evident when I manage the frogs in a
>thunderstorm recordings I want to do.
>
>Note that the SASS setup I have for the MKH-20 will also carry my pair
>of 40's, or even the 60's. I'll have to get a sample to put up of at
>least the 40's. It's possible to switch mics in the field.
>
>> The 80's M-S stereo image spreads a bit more evenly than the 30/60's
>> but I still prefer the A/B stereo image because even though it has
>> less spread, i can get a better sense of depth from the timing
>> differences. The barred owl in the mhk- 20 recording really shows
>> this off...
>
>Remember a MKH-60 is a short shotgun. The soundfield of the MKH-30/60 is
>therefore, narrower than the 80's. Or at least than the 80's with the
>center set to cardioid. Remember, the 80's have five different possible
>settable patterns. In a sense you may want to compare them to the
>MKH-30/40, both with mid that's cardioid in these samples. I really like
>the sound of a individual 80. The setup to use them M/S is quite
>different than the others as they are side mics. They are also in a
>"official" M/S suspension and zepplin that's 6" diameter rather than a
>little over 3" like the mono suspensions and zepplins used with the
>other two.
>
>And like all M/S, the spread is a setting.
>
>Barred owl? I just went back and checked. There is a Southern Leopard
>Frog making some quiet sounds in the second site. He's just slightly
>farther out than the foreground frogs, but only by 10-20 feet. But, I
>don't hear a owl in either of the MKH-20 recordings.
>
>Since I have pairs of these mics, I'll eventually try them that way. For
>field recording the configuration of M/S is definitely more convenient.
>Easier to suspend and windscreen too. With the 80's, of course, simple
>rotation in the clips would get a x/y.
>
>> I know these took quite a lot of time to do, Thanks Walt!
>
>I had to process them in anyway. The originals are on the order of 5-6
>minutes each. Picking a clip to save from each and batch processing them
>to mp3 did not take long. The longest part was uploading 4 megs through
>my modem, but I did not have to be involved in that once it was started.
>
>Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be too cold and nasty this
>week to make another foray.
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|