Hi Curt--
Assuming the positioning and sound sources are similar, the AT3032
head-spaced baffled rig does seem to have compromised lower-mid range
and high frequency responses. This is quite surprising compared to
Shure Beta58s in a narrow ORTF-type array, isn't it? I wasn't able to
re-coop the significant deficiencies with EQ.
http://tinyurl.com/nlphtm (QTmovie)
To the ear, its sounds as if the AT3032 head-spaced baffled rig is
picking up resonance from something, like the capsules are not in
open air. The resonance does sound, "hollow." A head-spaced baffled
rig with omni's certainly isn't a typical candidate for resonance.
It wasn't enclosed in any way was it?
I'm not surprised to hear a less than brilliant high-end with the
3203's, but I was surprised to hear more brilliance with the dynamic
mics until I looked at the 58's Hz response. http://tinyurl.com/oxy3zr
Assuming the cardioid Beta58 mics were 4-6 feet from the waves, they
may have been "rolling-off" under 500Hz pretty radically so the
resonant content between 160-500 Hz would be attenuated. I think 58's
are made for close vocal work and _ to use_ the proximity effect to
create the desired tonal balance. At more than a few feet, the Hz
response under 120Hz might become very minimal.
I have a hunch that most of the difference we're hearing stems from
the mics' tonal differences and the (importantly, loud) subject is a
better fit for the dynamic mics. As with Mikes material, pink noise
really shows up any challenges in the lower mid-range that mics/array
may have. Of course, one would need that range in recording
soundscapes at a distance and the 58's would probably sound quite
thin.
The Shure Beta58s in the narrow ORTF-type array turned out great! Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 10:06 AM -0500 7/16/09, Curt Olson wrote:
>
>
>Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>> Hi Curt--
>> I'm trying to narrow down what you mean by "hollow." By comparing
>> files that exhibit the problem with those that don't (or don't as
>> much), we'll all probably learn something.
>
>Good idea, Rob. Here are two quick and dirty examples (both are 1:20).
>
>1) This clip has the "hollow" sound that I want to learn to avoid. I
>recorded it couple months ago in a small rocky inlet with an AT3032
>head-spaced baffled rig:
>
><http://www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-hollow.mp3>http://www.tra=
ckseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-hollow.mp3
>
><http://tinyurl.com/l4ylsu>http://tinyurl.com/l4ylsu
>
>2) This clip seems to have a cleaner, less "hollow" sound. I recorded
>it the other day with a pair of Shure Beta58s in a narrow ORTF-type
>array:
>
><http://www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-not_so_hollow.mp3>http://=
www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/waves-not_so_hollow.mp3
>
><http://tinyurl.com/lm478b>http://tinyurl.com/lm478b
>
>> I'm wondering if micing distance and array used are the only other
>> variables we'd need to know,..
>
>They're probably the most important. Of course, we all know that mic
>placement is about more than just "distance," especially in shoreline
>areas that feature massive rock structures.
>
>Mike wrote:
>
>> Curt was there a sand bank or rise behind you?
>
>Nope. Massive rock structures.
>
>> I would imagine in such a diffuse pink noise environment a pair of
>> figure 8's may work better?
>
>After my last venture out, I would guess probably not, but it's worth
>a try.
>
>John Hartog wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>> Wondering if shadows and reflections from shifting wave faces have
>> something to do with the tone oscillations.
>
>I haven't checked out Mike's links yet, but I imagine the waves
>themselves -- always in motion, and with ever-changing angles of
>reflection -- could certainly cause a lot of tone shifts when close
>micing.
>
>Curt Olson
>
>
>
--
|