At 10:23 PM -0700 8/30/10, Eric Benjamin wrote:
>
>
>1) How bad is the figure-8 pattern on the M179?
>It's about the same as other microphones of equivalent size. That's becaus=
e
>it's the size of the microphone capsule that largely controls how the patt=
erns
>deteriorate at high frequencies. I do own a pair of M179s but I haven't us=
ed
>them much because my brother-in-law has had them for the past five
>years. I had
>almost forgotten that I had them!
Which reminds me of the multi-pattern mics with figure 8 options,..
I've used and have been privy to students using fig 8/cardioid mode
CAD 179's, Rode NT2-A's & NT2000's for M-S. I wouldn't describe the
results are severely handicapped. The depth imaging in M-S compared
to mics with smaller diaphragms is definitely different but not bad
or uninteresting.
The self-noise of the CAD 179 auditions higher than 11 dB(A) to me
but the other two are very quiet mics. The NT2-A is similar to the
NT2000, with grainier HF.
The specs do show that their figure 8 polar patterns are slightly
lopsided, but a recordist, (Bruce,Wilson?) posted some ambitious
blind stereo array tests using NT2000's a few years back and the
arrays using the figure 8 mode were well liked by folks on this list.
The Rodes are heavy mics but they do fare well well in the elements.
One can get 3 NT2000's for the price of one mkh-30 or MK8. Popular in
studios, they hold their value pretty well too.
>
>My microphone of choice for the side microphone in MS has always been the
>Schoeps Mk8. That's because it's an excellent microphone and I was able to
>borrow them from work.
>
>2) Why is the self-noise of all of the capsules listed below so bad?
>A figure-eight condenser microphone has a couple of strikes against it in =
the
>SNR department. It operates in what is called resistance-controlled mode; =
the
>diaphragm resonance is at middle frequencies and the design of the
>backplate is
>such that there is a ton of damping. Having the resonance of the microphon=
e
>diaphragm at middle frequencies sounds like a terrible thing, and it
>would be if
>there were only an ordinary amount of damping. That would give a response =
that
>was just a big haystack in the middle of the audio range. But the damping
>depresses the resonance so much that the response looks like an upside-dow=
n
>bathtub.
>
>That damping lowers the sensitivity of the microphone, which in turn
>means that
>the signal, relative to the noise of the FET, is small. And furthermore th=
e
>noise of the damping itself may become a contributor to the overall noise.
>
>The Sennheiser MKH30 is an outlier, and I believe that the reason for that=
is
>that Sennheiser doesn't use as much damping, which would tend to leave a
>midrange peak, except that the electronics of the Sennheiser MKH series ha=
s
>equalization in it. If any of you are Sennheiser experts and have an
>alternative explanation I'd like to hear it.
>
>Eric
There's the MKH-80/800 which sounds very different from the MKH-30 to
me in figure 8 mode. Rob D.
>
>________________________________
>From: Gregory O'Drobinak
><<gmodrobinak%40sbcglobal.net>>
>To:
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m
>Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 9:47:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Inexpensive M/S setup for experimentation=
?
>
>Eric:
>
>1) How bad is the figure-8 pattern on the M179? And have you
>listened to it? I'd
>
>like to hear your opinion.
>
>2) Why is the self-noise of all of the capsules listed below so bad,
>except for
>the Sennheiser (and the M179)?
>
>Thanls!
>
>-Greg
>
>________________________________
>From: Eric Benjamin <<ebenj%40pacbell.net>>
>To:
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m
>Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 11:30:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Inexpensive M/S setup for experimentation=
?
>
>> Steve Duncan wrote
>> the figure-8 mic, which seems to be the hard part
>
>You got that right!
>
>There are a few relatively inexpensive large diaphragm microphones that ha=
ve a
>Fig8 pattern. The one that occurs to me off hand is the CAD M179. It's
>typically available for about $200. But being a large diaphragm microphone=
it
>has relatively poor polar patterns. On the other hand, the Fig8 pattern is
>always the best pattern on a multi-pattern microphone.
>
>Personally, I'd prefer to use a small diaphragm microphone for the Fig8. T=
hat
>list is short:
>
>Schoeps Mk8
>Sennheiser MKH30
>Neumann KM120
>AKG CK94
>
>The cheapest of these is the CK94 which ran about $820 the last I checked.
>
>Can anyone think of a good, inexpensive, Fig8 condensor microphone?
>
>I guess it's up to you to do it yourself!
>
>Eric
>
>________________________________
>From: Steve Duncan <<steve%40swduncan.com>>
>To:
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m
>Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 8:40:34 PM
>Subject: [Nature Recordists] Inexpensive M/S setup for experimentation?
>
>It seems like the barriers to making one's own stereo boundary mic out of
>capsules are fairly low - sites like Rob D's & Curt O's cover the basic
>concepts, and the components are inexpensive and fairly easy to find. But =
for
>M/S it seems much less simple, which got me thinking - what would be the
>easiest/cheapest way to experiment with M/S, starting with a handheld reco=
rder
>and no mics? What are the options?
>
>The cardioid part seems the easiest - there are several choices. There is =
at
>least one free plugin for decoding M/S on the computer, but a Rolls
>MX310 or the
>
>like could do it in the field, using a cable with two connectors wired out=
of
>phase at one end, right? That leaves the figure-8 mic, which seems to be t=
he
>hard part as there aren't many inexpensive options.
>
>Has anyone been doing this without a heavy investment?
>
>
>
>
>
--
|