Hi Rob!
Yes, it will take some engineering to make a good suspension, especially if=
you want the capsules close, in Blumline configuration. It must be a long
and bulky thing. I will probably get another CAD and make a suspension for=
myself. No problem to make two. Not for quite a long time, though.
I have made a mount for a Telinga dish, already, and will test it asap.
Do I hear you right? Do you get lower self noise with the Rode NT-1A, used=
in wide cardioid pattern?? If so, I'm surprised.
For nature sound, the output of CAD could be some 6 db better.
Klas.
At 17:36 2004-04-14, you wrote:
>At 1:17 PM +0200 4/14/04, Klas Strandberg wrote:
> >Preliminary, after only a few days test, and with a questionmark for
> >reliability - I claim that the CAD 179 is the "best buy" under 200 dolla=
rs.
> >
> >A bit heavy and ugly, with a linearity which is "average" - it's still a
> >lot of microphone for the price. Stepless directivity from omni to eight
> >and very low self noise. Good handling noise.
> >
> >Two of them will make an good stereo pair, making both XY, Blumline and =
M/S
> >possible.
> >
> >You need phantom power, though.
> >
> >Klas.
>
>
>Hi Klas-
>Have you managed to mount your 179 in such a way that you can
>hand-hold easily it in the field? Perhaps because of it's weight and
>response down to 10Hz, all my usual rubber band tension tricks aren't
>eliminating subtle, lo-Hz vibrations from cable.
>
>I've had a pair for about two months now and I was able to compare
>the noise between 5 units. It did vary enough for me to pick out the
>best two by ear pretty easily (monitored with an SD mp-2 w/
>headphones) The noise I heard in the CAD 179's is lower in tone,
>more "sputtery," than the tight hiss I get with my mkh's and Rodes.
>
>I agree about the linearity. A boost in sensitivity around 3K on the
>5 manuf provided charts suggested the 179's have extra bite in the
>power range and I could hear this. The lower mid response critical to
>spatial rendering seemed a bit more linear than the NT1-A maybe
>because of harmonics created by a smoother very low Hz response. All
>five mics had a considerable presence rise starting at 10K Hz which
>is pretty typical of the large condensers I've studied.
>
>I tried Blumline with a pair-- first time I've experimented with
>this. This arrangement seems very well suited when the soundfield
>has at three or four sources at 90 degrees. The net result is each
>of the 3-4 sources is spread fairly evenly across the stereo image,
>stereo. Pretty cool. If I can get the shock mount issue solved, I'd
>like to give it serious testing with in the field, initially with
>M-S. To build a field-worthy shock-mount for stacking two, one on
>top of the other with unobstructed fields will take some engineering.
>Any one have pictures of a home made blumline shock mount for two
>large condensers?
>
>The phantom power for the 179 does suck about three times the juice
>of an MKH or NT1A.
>
>For Omni and Figure 8 polar patterns, I don't know of a better deal
>in terms of noise and flexibility. But if a wide cardioid pattern is
>preferable, the Rode NT-1A is lighter in weight, has more output
>(about 2-3dB) and considerably less self noise [about -6 to -8db(A)]
>at $199. Rob D.
>
>Here's an in depth review of the CAD-179:
>http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct01/articles/cadmics.htm
>
>
>--
>Rob Danielson
>Film Department
>University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|