At 7:58 AM -0700 7/9/05, Tim Nielsen wrote:
>AH! Makes sense, I was wondering why the two Rode's would have to be=A0
>two feet apart :)
>
>I returned the Earthworks to the guy who loaded them to me, but I'm=A0
>planning on doing a test at some point with the following rigs:
>
>Schoeps MS rig with an MK41 Hyper center, MK8 side
>Sennheiser MKH30/40 MS Rig
>Neumann RSM191 MS Mic
>Sanken CSM9 MS Mic
>Neumann 100 MS setup
>
>Scheops CMC XY Setup
>Neuman KM184 XY Setup
>
>These are all the rigs I have access to, and I think I can scrounge=A0
>up enough 722's to record all the setups simultaneous, with identical=A0
>settings. Should be interesting, but not sure when I'll get around to=A0
>coordinating everyones rigs for a day to do it.
That's an terrific line-up for side by side
testing. Being able to assess noise performance
with full gain thru a great pre like the 722's
and then evaluate M-S imaging performance-- this
would be very valuable for the recording
community. I'm not sure I'd try to run all of
the rigs at once. The chance of over-looking a
setting or factor is high. There are ways to
create repeatability. For the M-S imaging part
the toughest requirement may be the large, quiet
space.
>
>But it would be a good test of coincident stereo.
>
>I've already done such a test with the Neumann 100MS rig, and found=A0
>it be a VERY close match to the Schoeps. The neumann's were a tad=A0
>more detailed, the Schoeps a tad warmer. Giving the Schoeps about 7db=A0
>of gain, and high wide boost of about 3dB at 10k or so made them
>almost an identical match
That's interesting and not what I would have
expected based on common opinions about the tonal
character of these mics.
Very true about the amazing power of EQ in
digital posting. I can patch the Rode M-S pair
on the front of my quad speaker system and the
mkh-30/40's on the rear and play with EQ to make
the MKH's sound very similar to the Rode's and
vice versa. I'm not sure there's a lot of tonal
difference to make a big fuss about between most
well-made mics that have appropriate polar
patterns and are positioned well.
The MKH's produce a pronounced, remarkably
accurate sense of source direction, but, with
equalization, the Rodes seem to portray a better
sense of the distance from the source to the mic.
I suspect that the NT2A (fig 8) would also
benefit from partnering with a wider, more
tonally uniform MID like the 30 enjoys. We know
the (large diaphragm'd) NT1A is limited to about
6o degrees of uniform tonal coverage and this
narrow coverage is probably reducing the amount
of informative overlapping especially around 2
o'clock and 10 o'clock.
Both of these Rode mics are repeatedly reviewed
as "Vocal mics in the tradition of the Neumann
UA-87." Manufacturers are not spending a lot of
money trying to make and market mics for people
who go to places filled with broadband noise,
crank up their preamps and try to image animal
(and other) communications. What we do in the
field is different, perhaps so different that,
sometimes, it serves us better to ignore the
assumptions. Rob D.
>My Schoeps rig though has a hyper-cardiod
>center, which made the stereo image more focused in the middle, so it=A0
>picked up slightly different sound. But the Neumann's are great mics,=A0
>although some people I know who have them are having lots of RF
>interference problems where other mics don't seem to.
>
>Tim
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|