> From: Tim Nielsen <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Rode & Senn M-S Report
>
>
>>> Note that M/S is not the only stereo setup. It would be good to
>>> compare
>>> some other field setups.
>
>
> True. But as I'm a hardcore MS person, my interest is mainly to test
> the high-end MS rigs, and since most people I work with have portable
> field MS rigs, I thought it'd be a useful test. Also, the two XY
> portable rigs I listed are there as well, and since the decoded MS is
> XY, we can see how the MS image holds up against an XY image. When
> I've done this test before, between Scheops MS and XY, we found that
> the image is, as expected, nearly identical. If anything, we felt the
> MS image was better.
Fair enough, my view on this differs slightly. Since it's being run and
discussed in naturerecordists, it is highly likely it will become sort
of a naturerecordists' recommended list of stereo mics. For that reason
it would be nice to see some other stereo setups included.
I'm interested in seeing the results no matter what mics are included.
It would be nice if you could devise some sort of environmental test for
these mics. No matter what they are like technically, if they can't
stand it outside they are of limited use in nature recording. One
technical question on that is if their sound characteristics change with
humidity, temperature or such like.
> Since very few people I know use any other stereo formats for
> recording, I don't really have access to their mics. I have some
> omni's, but no-one else I know does, so.
My MKH-20 pair spend nearly all their time in the modified SASS. If I
was closer I'd be happy to bring that by. There are a number of those
being used in nature recording. Bernie and I did a single comparison
recording of his M/S MKH-40/30 to my SASS when I was out there.
>>> It's best to get out and find a nice quiet natural site for testing. I
>>> use a pond at a wildlife preserve that's 30 miles south of here for a
>>> lot of this. You need to examine the performance of these systems
>>> in the
>>> type of site you wish to record.
>
>
> We have a nice pond on the ranch, and should be a good test. Ducks,
> Red-Winged Blackbirds, crows, enough stuff to get a good test. We
> also have a massive and silent scoring stage, so I can maybe do an
> imaging test there. Again, not sure when I'll have time to do this,
> maybe in August.
For nature recording, no stage is big enough, we record in a infinite
size stage. I see no reason why all the tests could not be done in
outside sites.
Listen to your pond in the middle of the night, if it's really isolated
from human noise, it should be a pretty quiet ambiance.
>>> As Bernie has pointed out, at the high end there is no best mic, you
>>> should choose a mic at this level based on the sound you like.
>
>
> Totally true. You realize it more and more when you hear these mics.
> I remember just assuming Schoeps were the best (cause I had them). To
> hear the Neumanns, then the MKH, you realize that they don't sound
> all that different. Noise character is close enough, very high
> imaging capability, it's like you're picking your favorite flavor of
> chocolate truffles.
Interesting way to put it. I pick and choose more between my setups on
the basis of the sort of area coverage they give. There are differences
in the sound character of each, but as you say, not all that great.
> And I would agree, for an MS rig, it's paramount, that the Figure 8
> and front facing mic be of the same family. I do know people who have
> done differently, but the MKH, the Schoeps, etc, those mics are
> designed to work together in MS setups.
That, of course is a problem as there are only limited choices in Figure
8's that are in a matched system set.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|