Phil Schroter, you wrote,
>I am doing this for many years now but more and more I begin to
>realize that a single point stereo mic doesn't bring the results I
>am finally searching for.
>Currently, I am using a Rode nt4 but the stereo image is, in my
>opinion and as you'd expect it from a mic that consists of two
>single capsules, a little too... it's difficult to describe, to
>compressed, the individual sound sources can be heard where they
>should be, but between them tthere is a lack of space that gives the
>whole recording a strange and in a way unrealistic character, in my
>opinion.
>I Think, correct me, if I'm wrong, a nice and clean, a typical and
>ideal stereo recording that would satisfy my completely would be
>only possible wehn using two independent different mics.
I have a similar reaction to single-point recordings on headphones.
On speakers it's harder to tell. You might experiment with the ORTF
and Jecklin Disc arrays. They add in some time differences that might
provide what you need.
I suggest studying the samples provided by Bruce Wilson that compare
ten different stereo mic arrays:
Short version: 50 sec., 16-bit 48kHz .WAV, 10.6 MB
http://wilson.dynu.net/sounds/StereoPatternTest-NT2000-short.wav
Short version, 44.1 kHz .WAV for CD burning, 9.7 MB:
http://wilson.dynu.net/sounds/StereoPatternTest-NT2000-short44k.wav
Long version: 5 min., 192 kbps 48 kHz stereo .mp3, 6.8 MB
http://wilson.dynu.net/sounds/StereoPatternTest-NT2000.mp3
Long version 44.1 kHz .WAV for CD burning, 50 MB:
http://wilson.dynu.net/sounds/StereoPatternTest-NT2000-44k.wav
-Dan Dugan
|