At 11:27 PM -0700 7/1/07, umashankar wrote:
>in theory, it should be an omni mic, but in practice, cardioids work
>better. all you need to make sure is that it is a widish cardioid,
>so it 'sees' the whole dish and not just a small part.
Why would you generalize that cardioids are better? Maybe someone
knows how much of a parabolic dish would be ideally covered evenly by
each mic if stereo or by one mic if monaural.
When I compare the polar patterns at 5KHz, the AT3031 Cardioid is
down about 7dB at 90 degrees off-axis and the The AT3032 Omni is down
about 3dB at 90 degrees off-axis:
http://ad2004.hku.nl/naturesound/3031-32_Card_Vs_Omni_PolPat.gif
The rear rejection with a cardioid mic might be a good thing,
especially for an monaural parabolic dish? Rob D.
= = = =
>
>umashankar
>
>
>i have published my poems. you can read (or buy) at lulu.com
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: no_mas_films <>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 9:45:18 AM
>Subject: [Nature Recordists] Cardioid Vs. Omni for use in Parabolic
>mic setup...
>
>
>Recently I asked the group to recommend a good relatively low cost
>microphone for use in the 22" parabolic mic setup I am building. I was
>suprised that one of the mics was a omni (the AT3032)... now I AM
>truely confused as I was under the impression that a cardioid would be
>better by rejecting sound from anywhere other then the focal point of
>the reflector. Please share your expertise with this newbie! Help!
>Thanks, Chris
|
