At 12:41 PM +0000 12/22/06, tk7859 wrote:
>
>I was worried that the soft velcro fastening I am now using on the
>35-0192s would not be as effective as the firmer wood screw method of
>fastening used on the 0190s. Certainly it moves the capsules a little
>further away from the boundary so it might affect the stereo image?
>
Of course, using he same distance from the boundary for the two rigs
compared would be important. The boundary affect will be stronger
with the capsules right next to the boundary. I just place the
capsules as close as possible and leave it at that. The extra
thickness of the breadboard in #2 _should_ be okay, but you never
really know unless you compare with and without. We spent a good part
of the Fall in our Field Audio class testing boundary mics. Curt
Olson suggested we try a range from 3" to 1/2" for the inset
distance-- the measurement from the leading edge of the boundary to
the capsule. His suggestion has been borne out in the tests we did.
>Hopefully I will do a more rigourous test early tomorrow which will
>include the NT4/Art Phantom II. BTW the Phantom II seems to be very
>fussy regarding the voltage of its power supply. After testing
>different sources I have settled on using two 3000mAhr 7.2V NiMH
>battery packs, coupled in series, for portable use.
No problem here running 12 volts from 10X1.2 NiMH at 2300ma-10,000ma.
I always have to remember to double-check the external connector
polarity; its backwards.
Good news the capsules are consistent.
Rob D.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tom Robinson
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
|