Paul wrote:
> Its my intention to use twin AT4022 mics with the Sony PCM M-10 and
> the Art Phantom 11 power supply. I would like to build a spaced
> timber baffle, to mount the mics. Are you able to tell me on the rig
> that you used, the distance between the mics, and the setback from
> the leading edge?
> I realize that there are many variations out there, but being non
> tech I have to start some where. If anyone else in this group has
> built similar, please feel free to respond. One last question. What
> is the audio difference between the above and using the AT4022's in
> a modified Crown SASS unit?
I'll take a stab at your last question, Paul. I've never had a chance
to play with a modified SASS, but I've heard many clips recorded with
them. And I have built several "flush-mount" rigs that have some
strong similarities.
So I'll re-state your question as: "side mount vs. flush mount," where
"side mount" means basically omni mics attached to opposite sides of
head-spaced parallel barriers or a solid baffle, facing forward, with
the capsules perpendicular to the boundaries, and "flush mount" means
omni mics protruding through openings in the boundaries, with the
capsules in roughly the same plane as the boundaries -- angled away
from each other and approximately head-spaced.
To my ear, flush mount rigs like this can deliver extremely "tight"
and precise localization across the stereo soundstage (depending, of
course, on a host of construction variables). This might be exactly
what you want. The trade-off, however, will always be a reduced sense
of spaciousness compared to a well-built side mount rig. Always. Crown
SASS units, with their unique "nose" feature, might tend to modify
that difference somewhat, but I'm sure not completely.
As with everything, it's about balancing trade-offs and compromises.
Pick your poison, eh?
Curt Olson
|