Rob Danielson wrote:
> 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)
I always appreciate the time you take to analyze the files we post
here. I should have mentioned that the 3032 clip already had some EQ
applied. The original file was even worse. Unfortunately I can't post
an unaltered segment, as it was so thoroughly experimental and such a
complete mess that I deleted it. The Beta 58 clip was unaltered.
> 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?
It's the same rig I used for the Chippewa Nights album. It was set
near the water in a small rocky inlet about 10-15 feet across. Lots of
resonance in that spot.
> 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.
Yup, that's absolutely true and correct thinking. But as you say...
> The Shure Beta58s in the narrow ORTF-type array turned out great!
> Rob D.
That's right. In practice, those darn 58s often do better than proper
theory would predict. I've made some surprisingly nice soundscape
recordings with them (in more robust sound environments, of course).
This thread popped up in the middle of my own efforts this summer to
understand some of the ins and outs of shoreline recording. I've been
trying a wide range of things -- some of them rather kooky and
unconventional, I confess -- just to see what happens, and to
hopefully learn something in the process.
Curt Olson
|