Scott,
This is the main reason I am asking and although I did not mention the word=
'comb', that
is what I meant (I should have said to be more clear). This is why I am thi=
nking of using
almost 3 times the number of tubes to help fill in the gaps. But as I don't=
know just how
finely tuned each tube is, there could still be lots of comb filter effects=
present, even
with the extra tubes, thereby spoiling the recording.
>From the article I gave the link to, this type of microphone appears to hav=
e high gain and
has a very narrow pickup pattern, even better than a parabolic reflector.
I called it a machine gun rather than a shotgun, as it looks more like a ma=
chine gun.
Clearly if one was to use it, covering the whole barrel is a good idea apar=
t from
protection from the wind, so it does not then alarm other people who think =
you are about
to create havoc in the countryside!
Thanks,
Mike
><<Has anyone every made and used a machine gun microphone.>>
>
>This is known as an interference tube microphone, or a rifle mic. I
>have not heard one in use, but I have heard that the reason these are
>not in favor is due to very bad comb filtering effects.
>
>Scott Fraser
>
|