Hi,
Somewhat related;
I recently experimented with using two ("that looks good enough") matched omni
mics next to each other to form a dipole mic. From the two omnis, a figure 8 is
obtained plus the omni+omni is used to form two cardioids. Not for the faint of
heart, the processing matrix and pre and post EQ is rather cumbersome. My blog
entry includes a link to Marks original dipole microphone article which is very
informative.
http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=1175
Keith did you consider a boundary using the NT5's?
http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=1213
Ive since made a quad dipole mic using for omni capsules sitting on the top of
a zoom h2 recorder directly soldered to the original (internal) mic inputs.
Blumlien (dual figure 8) and other patterns should be possible. But to stress
the matching & matrixing is rather problematic would be an understatement.
-Mike.
--- In "Grant Finlay" <> wrote:
>
> --- In "oystercoveau" <bdfarm@> wrote:
> >....I guess the reason why I like the idea of MS is the more focused centre
> >mike supported by adjustable stereo ambiance from the sides....
> > Keith
>
> Yep,
> Thats the very reason why I use M/S.
> Sometimes it's not as spacious as I'd like, thats why I'm looking at getting
> a stereo set of mkh8040's as well.
> I've never mixed my recordings with music, but to me the idea of using an
> orft setup sounds better in theory. That way the SFX are in a wider
> soundstage. Of coure it's easy to do that but pulling down the M channel in a
> M/S recording, It's a matter of personal taste I guess...
>
> Just thought I'd mention an alternative set up that sounds a lot easier then
> what you are planning to do.
>
> Regards,
> Grant.
>
|