Tom Robinson wrote:
> To make comparison easier a one minute extract from each of these have
> been put together here, with the NT4 extract being played first
>
> http://ad2004.hku.nl/naturesound/TomR/mp3compilation.mp3
>
> The NT4 recording has been amplified by 18dB to roughly match the
> level of the PTCTB and the compiled recording is here - again the NT4
> goes first.
>
> So, what do you think? Having had the opportunity to listen to the
> results several times I have my own views.
Rob Danielson replied:
> To my ears, with headphones, the impact created by the PCBTB is
> smoother, more spacious and slightly less hissy. No question in my
> mind which of these two rigs I'd prefer to have in the field.
Rich Peet added:
> Very well done, nice mic and beats the commercial model. The mp3
> actually converted to mono pretty well too.
Thank you Tom! I think you're confirming that this idea of
forward-facing omnis in close proximity to smallish head-spaced
barriers gives excellent localization, amazing spaciousness and solid
mono compatibility on even very small budgets. From my experience, I'd
say that the key factors in getting it right are -- in order of
importance: 1) setback from the leading edge of the barriers; 2)
orientation of the barriers to each other (parallel vs. angled inward
vs. angled outward); 3) distance between the mic capsules; 4) size of
the barriers. Of course, all these will vary depending on the specific
mics used.
Any thoughts about the impact of various barrier shapes?
Curt Olson
|