Rob Danielson wrote:
> If a height of 15 inches or 15 feet seems to usually provide bette
> results, it might be because one is typically confronting conditions
> with a given array in which more or less ground reflection "helps."
Agreed. That's why I asked if anyone else has observed the same thing.
I assumed it might be unique to my rig and also to the kinds of tonal
and spacial imaging qualities I prefer.
<snip>
> Curt, are you using that height with your array with the 2nd
> boundary on the bottom?
Yea, but let's not go into that here. ; )
> Over all types of surfaces?
I haven't made a deliberate survey of different surface types, but I
have observed the effect over both paved and grassy surfaces.
> What is it that becomes "cleaner;" is there more clarity of sounds
> arriving at particular distances for example?
To my ear, both near and distant sounds seem to stand out somewhat
more distinctly in the small zone I referred to as the "sweet spot." I
suspect one reason might be that, as Greg noted, certain types of
background noise such as traffic noise, might be slightly reduced. If
that's the case, then I would further suspect that it might have
something to do with the happy accident of desirable phase
cancellation that might occur at certain distances above the surface,
and to which certain microphones or types of arrays respond in a way
that some of us find to be pleasant.
> I suspect there could be some common principles linking the
> decisions people are making.
Perhaps. Thank you for pushing us along on this, Rob. Let's keep
digging and see what we can learn.
Curt Olson
|