--- In Aaron Ximm <> wrote:
> Humm, I might do some reengineering on the joint if it's feasible to
get a
> good mating, idea zero is to just make a female-female ring...
I'd not want to try things like machining the matching female threads
and so on. It would be quite a job to do right.
> I ended up with this odd approach so as to be able to rapidly adapt
in the
> field to spaced approaches (ORTF/baffled omni) by simply un-mating the
> end-on mounts, re-attaching the end caps, and moving the mounts to a
small
> T-bar or similar -- I think ideally the mics will only have to be
rotated
> a bit in place.
You might want to try the various configurations without windscreening
first and sort out what works for you. It's going to be very hard to
come up with a universal suspension and windscreen to cover any
choice. Once you have narrowed down your choices then get into designing.
> The trick is, any spaced approach I want to try requires two separate
> enclosures -- boy in this regard I covet those Schoeps ball-joints that
> let you rotate the capsule and squeeze two colette mics into a single
> zeppelin!
But Schoeps have other problems as nature recording mics.
> So this is the best I've come up that will support both coincident *and*
> spaced strategies with a local minimum of kit size...
>
> In six months I might well end up punting on this and reverting to the
> less-flexible single-zepp approach, true...!
>
> ...but on the other hand a whole motivation for the multi-pattern
mics (as
> they are) (cough) is to be able to try a bunch of different strategies
> with a compact kit... :)
Note that with that 6" setup I can run a number of patterns. First off
is the whole series of M/S by just switching the mid. Then I could do
coincident setups by just shifting to picking up out 90 degrees from
the M/S direction and rotating the mics some.
Walt
>From the Bush
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|