Hi Walter,
--- In Walter Knapp <>
wrote:
> From: "thorley_tom" <>
>
> > I have not been following thread so forgive me if you have already
discused it
> > but there is one microphone that will do just as you ask. The Audio
Technica
> > AT-895 RK, developed for the Sydney Olympics it has better off axis
rejection
> > than any commercial parabola that I know of and unlike parabolas is
broad
> > frequency. Walter I am sure you have investigated this mic and rejected=
it
for
> > it's downfall - very high self-noise but I have used it in conjunction =
with
Cedar
> > audio noise removal systems (I have a mate who works in the Sony
mastering
> > departement) and the noise is very stable and hence you can get very
good
> > results this way.
>
> You are talking one huge hunk of change. The mic itself lists just under=
> $3000, though that does include a full windscreen. The the Cedar system
> is not exactly chicken feed either.
I bought mine new for less than 1/2 rrp. (I think they have had trouble shi=
fting
units after the obvious applications - football games etc. - and maybe they=
are also doing deals in the U.S.). The Cedar system is certainly not
something I could justify spending money on, it definately takes a friend i=
n the
mastering house (or the police force!)
> Note also it's frequency response 60-12,000. That would not be a
> problem with frogs, but might be with a few birds.
Sure.
> Yes, I was not happy with it's self noise. If one turns up priced
> appropriately for it's specs on ebay I'd probably buy it. But that's a
> huge lot less than it's price. At it's core this is a fairly low end mic=
> oriented toward voice. The idea looks promising, and as you say, I'd
> looked at it already.
Subjectively the self noise sounds really bad too. It was not originally ai=
med at
voice it was designed primarily for sfx pickup in noisy environments (the
sound of a football being punted - noise in a stadium is so high anyway tha=
t if
you mix the AT895 into the crowd noise / commentary etc. it's self noise is=
lost).
> The real test is if it can fully reject a busy highway nearby, or
> airplane noise. Partial rejection I have.
For voice work it has found applications in F1 racing for pit lane broadcas=
ts,
this should give some indication of how good it is at reducing traffic nois=
e -
very good.
> It's more a shotgun mic replacement. Not near the gain of a parabolic.
> So, it might work in place of a parabolic up close, but unlikely if the
> subject is far and not all that loud. That self noise would really get yo=
u.
Without processing in post I agree.
> If you want to dream, think about a Sennheiser MKH version of this. Say,=
> based on a MKH60 core and using MKH80 capsules for the side mics.
Hugely
> expensive, but that would be a killer. That's the first thing I thought
> about when looking at the AT895.
I fully agree. I spoke to the people in developement at AT and they
aknowledged it's poor self noise, unfortunately they did not have any plans=
to
develop the AT895 further for at least a year and a half (that was 1 year =
ago
approx.). So here's hoping that someone else will take up the mantle?
However I think it is unlikely because the AT895 has cornered most of the
market and is suitable noise wise for most of it's intended uses.
> The other way is to baffle a parabolic. Pretty bulky, but might work if
> done well enough.
Please explain further unless you have alredy developed the idea in other
posts.
> Note the Telinga is directional all the way down to it's gain limit.
> Just not enough off axis rejection. Even with the dual science mic. I
> have some ideas about experimenting with a baffle on it. I need the gain.
Sure.
> Walt
>
All the Best,
Tom
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|