Matt-
I'd guess that its not likely any of the variables on such a small
profile are going to make X-Y "jump out" spatially like spaced arrays
can. Note also that speaker playback is a more critical situation to
shoot for.
Here's an NT-4 (X-Y) with some simple DIY spaced arrays:
http://www.uwm.edu/%7Etype/audio-reports/BoundaryMicExperiments/media/Stere=
oBoundaryMicRigsEM158_ACC.mov
or
http://tinyurl.com/nmj77b
More tests in this blog
http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html
Rob D.
At 12:45 PM -0400 7/22/09, Matt Blaze wrote:
>
>
>I'm curious about Sony's arrangement of the 90 degree, near-coincident
>microphones in the PCM-D1 and PCM-D50 recorders.. The capsules are
>about 1cm apart -- but in the wrong direction. Because the left-
>facing capsule is to the right of the right-facing capsule, the phase
>differences created by the spacing works in *opposition* to the
>amplitude differences created by the microphone orientation.
>
>It's probably not an absolutely fatal flaw -- 1cm represents only
>about 30 microseconds of time-of-arrival difference, and I"m don't
>know enough about psychoacoustics to say whether that's enough to
>cause a perceptible difference, but still. It's easy to see why they
>designed it the way they did -- a true laterally coincident
>arrangement would require the capsules to overlap, which would eat
>more depth (although the Zoom recorder manages to do it correctly).
>In any case, I wonder if this design might partially explain the
>rather disappointing spatial imaging performance of the Sonys in my
>recent tests.
>
>-matt
>
>mab blogs at <http://www.crypto.com/blog/>http://www.crypto.com/blog/
>
>
>
--
|