If a height of 15 inches or 15 feet seems to usually provide better
results, it might be because one is typically confronting conditions
with a given array in which more or less ground reflection "helps."
There are several qualities one can be trying to "help" when
adjusting mic height. The terms we are using are only partially
describing what folks are doing and observing.
Moving an array closer to rough-textured ground often lowers the
overall tonal balance. Is this the "fuller" sound quality you prefer,
Greg,.. I suspect you could mean more spatial? If the later, how?
Curt, are you using that height with your array with the 2nd boundary
on the bottom? Over all types of surfaces? What is it that becomes,
"cleaner;" is there more clarity of sounds arriving at particular
distances for example? Grant, what sound characteristics are
enhanced with the sense of "open" that you like? I suspect there
could be some common principles linking the decisions people are
making. Rob D.
At 5:51 PM +0000 8/4/09, Greg Weddig wrote:
>
>Curt,
>I would generally agree with you, though I don't have any evidence
>of such. Most of my ORTF recordings are done in that same range. I
>think the ground effect most likely provides a bit of a fuller
>sound, much like a PZM microphone would.
>
>Mostly I am trying to keep the mics out of the wind, and keeping
>them low I find, depending on the geography, helps shield them from
>nearby highway and city noise.
>
>--greg weddig
><http://gregweddig.net>http://gregweddig.net
>Paradise, CA
>
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m,
>Curt Olson <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ever the respectful contrarian, I've recently discovered -- much to my
>> surprise -- that the head-spaced barrier type mic rigs I'm currently
>> using seem to render a slightly cleaner image when I have them in a
>> "sweet spot" approximately 18" to 24" above the ground. This
>> improvement is very subtle, and might be peculiar to my current rigs.
>> I'm curious if anyone else has experienced the same thing.
>>
> > Curt Olson
--
|