At 7:43 PM -0700 4/26/06, Dan Dugan wrote:
>DAN DUGAN:
>> >The comparison didn't include my current favorite, spaced omnis with
>> >barrier. How about an MS vs Jecklin Disk shootout?
>
>ROB DANIELSON:
> >With two omni-directionals? Opposing, forward or angled? Spread how
> >far? Does your Jecklin primarily block high frequencies or is it
>>dense/large enough to affect <600Hz? Rob D.
>
>The Jecklin arrangement is standardized. The omni mics face forward
>at a standard spacing. I'm on dialup in Las Vegas for the NAB so I
>don't have access to my files. Google "Jecklin" and you'll probably
>find the info. I think Josephson Engineering has links to the pages.
>
>-Dan
>
Sorry, I may have misinterpreted "spaced omnis" as wider than 6.5"
When I position one ear at 90 degrees to pink noise source like a fan
and slide in a 12" diameter piece of cloth covered plywood as a
barrier, the greatest change I notice is attenuation between 800-2300
Hz. I assume the attenuation would extend to frequencies all the way
to the "top." This range, between 800-2300Hz, is often one of the
most "balanced" parts of the spectrum when mics are set in the open!
:-) There's less exaggeration and muddiness in this range and these
frequencies really help "open" up the space.
I do understand how a Jecklin dish can promote "tonal "perspective"
in space where high frequencies roll-off with natural (infinite)
gradation. A small, low mass barrier between the mics can make the
higher frequencies in each half more distinct and help reveal more of
this gradation.
I also tend to think that a large part of enhancing the "spatiality"
in a recording is about the sense of "containment" "enclosure" and
"local "resonance" that one can "help" mics portray. In these
attempts, dealing with 16-700 Hz seems to be paramount. I've used
barriers like stone walls, corners of buildings and large tree trunks
with interesting results, but the stereo micing systems we typically
employ are not very aggressive about affecting/shaping < 700 Hz.
Based on Brian's "first go" test of many patterns with the same mics
(the first such test I've heard in the open!) and some agreement that
no 9 (20" cardioid) is more "spatial" in ways the others are not,..
I'm thinking: spacing/timing differences,.. That said, does anyone
find it instructive that the Blumlein (No.6) might be the closest in
"spatiality" to No 9 !? Maybe its just the low Hz's enabling more Lo
hz imaging? Rob D.
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|