Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
> Yes, time will tell. So far I know of five 3032 sets. One recordist,
> Allan Haighton, mentioned he felt his pair could be better matched.
> Its a small pool, but even so it starting to suggest much better
> quality control than I'd expect for $170 mics.
That, of course is what everyone wants, a mic that's priced below it's
quality. I do believe the next question is sorting out just how
consistent these are. And finding out AT's opinion on the self noise,
because low noise is such a good selling point you'd expect them to
latch on to as low a test as they could find.
> It seems the boundary aspect of Curt's rig is quite a bit closer to
> the SASS than the Jecklin. His wood extends infron providing
> attenuation though different Hz affect than the foam baffle. The SASS
> mics are at a wider angle but both designs are fairly front-facing.
When I first looked at Curt's experiments it did look like he was
reinventing the SASS. Some of his other experiments duplicate other
boundary mic experiments.
A Jecklin is not a boundary mic, but a barrier mic. Different thing,
different theory backing it.
> I'd take your results over specs and manuf claims. If the SASS is
> based on PZM, and PZM requires a 4' X 4' collector for good low-end
> response, I don't understand why the SASS's low end would be
> excellent. Something to figure out someday.
And a parabolic can't pick up lower frequencies, so we have been told by
some ;-) What you get in actual use is reality, the rest is unproven
theory and will have to be adjusted to reality.
I don't even think the SASS was invented when the MKH-110's were produced.
> Except for the 17 foot tripod, the SASS is among the more "hike-able"
> rigs. Rob D.
Climb a tree to record high and leave the tripod home. It works well
without the tripod too. The high mic technique is also not unique to the
SASS. Any mic can be put up there and benefit in the same way.
Walt
|