At 10:18 PM -0700 7/8/05, Tim Nielsen wrote:
>Interesting. Rob, and I think a fair test for spacialization,=A0
>although I wonder if the Rode's would have performed better were they=A0
>coincident. You can hear the outer positions seem more washy on the=A0
>Rode, and I think that's mainly because of the separation between the=A0
>mics. MS is really a coincident micing technique, and I guess I'd=A0
>have to argue you can't trust what you're hearing if the mics are two=A0
>feet apart, you're not comparing two MS rigs, you're comparing one=A0
>true MS rig, and a pseudo MS rig. Especially at 20 feet to the=A0
>source, 2 feet is a fairly large space. Also, for me, one of the=A0
>great things about MS is that it's mono compatible, but not if the
>mics are two feet apart.
No, not nitpicking at all. Sorry I was not clear.
The two mics making up each pair are as close as
possible and carefully aligned. So, both rigs are
perfectly coincident. Any oddness in the stereo
imagery is not from anything I know how to
improve upon or fix. What I was trying to write
was I wanted to put both PAIRS right on top of
each other so the sound source to mic distance
would be the same for both pairs. (I have no
outdoor lights and I couldn't get the aluminum
ladder out without waking up the hood.)
>
>Again, just nitpicking, it's a great experiment.
>
>But the Rode's sound pretty good for 1/5th the price or so of the
>Senn's.
>
>I did take my newly arrived NT1A's outside yesterday and recorded a=A0
>test between them, my Schoeps MK2 Omni's, and the Earthworks QTC1
>omnis (on loan). I put the NT1A's about 3 feet apart pointing out
>about 90 degrees, just as a guess.
>
>They sounded OK, but the Schoeps sounded the best I thought=A0
>(although, omni to cardiord, not a fair test). The NT1A's were=A0
>certainly more 'directional' in the stereo image (as would be expected).
>
>Wondering how most people using NT1A's are arranging them, are you
>doing XY, or spaced ORTF, something like that?
Theres's stuff in the archive about this. It
depends on several factors but closer to an angle
of 60 degrees spread about 12" gives a pretty
uniform 120 degree field. I asked the Rode rep
about the angle for distant subjects and he
agreed that 90 is too wide. On the other hand,
you can use their treble centric properties to
really isolate two sources well if they have Hi
Hz relief with surrounding sounds.
>
>The Earthworks sounded just plain bad. Very hissy compared to the=A0
>others, and the image was boring and uninspiring. I think the=A0
>Earthworks are nice drum mics, maybe orchestral, but too noisy for=A0
>nature sound.
>
>I guess I'm still a Schoeps guy at heart.
Noise wise too? I'd love to hear a test! Rob D.
>
>Tim
>
>On Jul 8, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>> Rode and Full Compass were kind enough to send me a NT2-A to test for
>> M-S stereo imaging and noise performance along side my MKH 40/30
>> pair. The NT2-A is a variable pattern mic including Figure 8. I
>> used the fig 8 with a wide cardioid Rode NT1-A for my Rode M-S pair.
>> This pair runs ~$600 new.
>>
>> I didn't have time to get out to the country so I did the test in my
>> backyard at 1 am. It was calm and pretty quiet for the city. The only
>> close, ambient sound is a window air conditioner about 90 yards away
>> located 3/4 left.
>>
>> The QuickTime movie is 5.1mb:
>> http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/Rode&SennMSCompareIMA.mov
>>
>>
>> The first test looks at the stereo imaging or localization abilities
>> of the two rigs. The mic pairs were not placed on top of each like
>> they should b ideally,..but rather side by side about 2 feet apart.
>> The sound source positions are 20 feet away. The main thing I'm
>> interested in here is whether you can accurately tell where the sound
>> is coming from. Differences in voice levels can be attributed,
>> partially, to the horizontal spread between the mics. I experimented
>> with the M-S matrix variables for some time before choosing settings
>> for both pairs that maximized the localization performance. This was
> > tricky. For example, I found that I had to run the Mid level higher
>> with the Rode pair to create sufficient Left/Right separation
>> (through phase cancellation).
>>
>> The next two tests are combination acoustic space, motion and noise
>> tests. Note that the preamp gain is set to maximum-- so the "reach"
>> into space and the tax on noise performance are at the maximum. I
>> recorded the two pairs at the same time with my 744T recorder.
>>
>> I repeated my announced position in the first test, once for each
>> mic. But the second and third tests are the exact same events through
>> the different mics. The Rodes were run through an MP-2 external
>> preamp (which I tested before and found to be a very close match to
>> the 744's internal pre). No EQ. Playback levels matched in post.
>>
>> I have some observations of course, but I'll let your ears be the
>> judge for now. Rob D.
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> "Microphones are not ears,
>> Loudspeakers are not birds,
>> A listening room is not nature."
>> Klas Strandberg
>>
>>
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>
>> Visit your group "naturerecordists" on the web.
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|