Thanks for the helpful comments, Julius. I agree. No. 9 also has an
expansive, "situated" feel. The low-mid Hz movement/phasing of the
jet could be helping No. 6 stand out. No. 9 might be a little more
even across middle. Do you think 6 & 9 have greater timing
differences from wider spreads? No.7 is also curious because the
high frequencies are less harsh (especially compared to No.s 1-5 &
10) and its stereo field is quite evenly distributed. Playing back
and forth between No. 6 and No. 9, make me think No. 9 might be ORTF
omnis, perhaps with a barrier? No's 1-5 & No 10 do seem to have more
of the "treble-centric" character I associate with large cardioid
diaphragms. If I ever get some NT2000's I'll surely base my first
experiments around 9, 7 and 6. Rob D.
Quoting Julius Thyssen <>:
> > I won't post the pattern used for each one right now,
> > as I'd like your unbiased opinion of which pattern
> > sounds the most realistic, the most natural, the best image
> > placement, and the best soundfield capture.
>
> I listened to the recording(s), both on my HD600 headphones,
> my Shure earbuds, and on speakers, and I can say that for me
> pattern 6 sounds the most pleasant. By far actually.
> It stands out from the others in that there are
> no weird phase-deviations in any of the sources.
> Nothing is 'pulling my ear', so to speak.
>
> I also think, however, taste in this very much depends on
> the recordings you have done or heard yourself in your life.
> *For me* 6 is the favored part of this recording, with the
> others I can't seem to find a spot to hang on to, I have
> no idea where I am. With 6 I'm right there and it's solid.
>
> Maybe this helps you, as I haven't tried guessing what
> the positioning was where, I simply listened carefully.
> --
> Julius
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|