I wrote:
>> If I had two phantom power supplies, I would have run the test with
>> the 3031 ORTF rig and the 3032 parallel barrier rig, also shown in
>> the photo. That would have been a much better test, as both are a bit
>> "huskier." But alas...
Rob Danielson replied:
> I think it can be wise to use the same two mics if comparing rigs is
> the goal. Even four of the same model mics can have differences that
> interfere.
Me again:
>> Because of the tonal differences between the 3031s and the 183s, and
>> also, I'm guessing, because the imaging is so very different, it was
>> harder than I expected to get a decent level match across the whole
>> sample.
Rob:
> ...The calibration issue reveals another reason to use the same
> capsules. In your case, the AT3031's will probably produce more signal
> at the frequencies associated with urban presence than the 183's. If
> you are comparing mic performance in the same rig, no problem. But
> when you are comparing rigs, using different mics makes harder to tell
> whether differences in amplitude are from the rigs or mics.
You're right that it's only with the same capsules that can you make a
true "apples to apples" comparison. My test had a different purpose. It
was mostly "apples to oranges" to help me figure out whether I prefer
"apple" or "orange" in that setting. I'll be doing more of that to
better understand what circumstances might call for one type of rig or
another, at least to my ear. So far, I'm finding that in enclosed
spaces, ORTF rigs tend to render events in ways that I usually like
better. Outdoors, I'm leaning toward the parallel barrier rig, at least
for the time being.
Curt Olson
|