At 3:59 PM +0000 2/5/09, mopani_wyness wrote:
>Hi Rob
>
>I'm very happy to share the details of the mics and the array.
>
>I used two Rode NT1as in an ORTF array, mounted on a modular
>suspension set up, the name of which escapes me. I recorded to HiMD
>via a portable phantom module. This was before I made up an omni
>head-spaced rig with a pair of AT3032s and bought a Fostex FR2le.
>
>I find the stereo image much 'tighter' with the ORTF and have
>started using it a lot more recently, particularly in larger scale
>projects, because of the contrast with the omnis.
James--
It is a constant learning process for me-- combining the "right"
mics, arrays & adjustments even after finding the right. "spot."
ORTF (always, "purely" with cardioids) specifies an angle of 110
degrees with a 17 cm spread. I can hear treble "hot spots" at the
centers of the NT1-A cardioid polar patterns with that wide angle
listening to Drawing the Night Curtain. There is considerable
left-right "contrast" as you describe. One clue to me is that the
louder, treble-emphasized calls "jump-out" and momentarily define the
center of the field, not so with most of the softer sounds. Defining
the "space" or atmosphere across the center seems to be a challenge
for most arrays. As Curt has speculated, the attributes of
"perfection" may also migrate within each of us.
If you' haven't already come across them, John Hartog's experiments
with NT1-A's using only a 60 degree angle between the mics with and
without a baffle might be useful to listen to.
http://www.rockscallop.org/JVp2.html NT1-A's mics are what I
describe as quite "treble-centric" -- maybe even more so than other
popular cardioids.
>
>Something I'm going to do very soon as part of this project (once it
>stops snowing) is to capture a strong northeast wind howling through
>a particularly well sited woodland. I'll do it in 4 synchronous
>channels, omnis and Rodes, and both pairs about 200 metres apart,
>the omnis in a sheltered dip and the Rodes atop a shooting platform.
>Then in the stereo mix, I'll run slow crossfades between the two.
>That should afford a nice measure of dynamic panorama which might
>just liven up a long form piece. Nature recording in the raw.
Fun to think about. Of course, "wind" is the sound of _something_
vibrating like a canopy of leaves or bare branches creaking overhead
or in close-up: lower rattles to higher pitched whistles and the
highest, "zizz." Edges seem to be key. The howling of a rocky crag
is something I've not been lucky enough to study in-person, as yet.
That would be a fun challenge.
As an exercise, I suspect that the LF and HF components of what
you'll pick-up at each mic will produce the most distinguishable
qualities only to a range of about 100-150 feet. A very wide open,
obstruction-less space with the only sound making objects at great
distances would be an exception. So, in the woods, it might prove
academic to spread the mics as far as 200m if there are good,
wind-sound-producing objects closer that easier to access. The
variety of roars one can get from changes in wind velocity through
bare tree branches is fantastic. They have been a bear to represent
with clarity in "post" the times I have tried.
I enjoy that you're not afraid to roll out the cable! Rob D.
>best
>
>James
--
|