Thanks all dudes!
Most of your answers can be synthesized with a 'try it and see' basis.
Thats what I'll be doing then, once I have gear and mikes enough to make co=
mparisons (and software and measurement tools too, we could give some words=
here also about what tools you use).
It is a pleasure to read your debates and opinions, specially now I am star=
ting to take it seriously.
About using parabolas, i guess my decision is to gather some coins and try =
to ask one of those swedish to send me a telinga set :)
Positioning a shotgun mic in a parabola seems quite an unexpected go since =
I'd be combining two different caption ideas (thanks David B.) and probably=
locating the capsule in the focus is not easy due to mike size and so on..=
. I guess the same happens when trying to locate there two isolated mics fo=
r a stereo take of a distant element.
Thanks Raimund also, your Goshawk take makes worth the try with my approach=
.
What's clear is that small/light mikes will fit best there and omnis pointi=
ng to reflected sound are best choice...
i guess the Telinga sets include good mikes on them, specially designed for=
better performance, but has anyone of you got better results by swapping d=
efault Telinga mikes with others?
Or, is my choice to get a Telinga set (dish, handle, mount) without mikes a=
nd put some specific models there?
Which models/brands go well here?
Thanks!
--- In "Avocet" <> wrote:
>
> > Question 2:
> Is the parabola approach designed to be used with JUST omni mics?
> Are other caption patterns allowed, or is it senseless to use
> directional mics here?
>
> Dani,
>
> As a supplementary answer, try any mic with a parabola and see what it
> does. However, bear in mind that a double mic or a gunmic will be
> wider or longer than the high frequency focus of the parabola so the
> basic parabola theory won't apply.
>
> > Does this enhance directivity for a shotgun?
>
> You would be combining two very different directional principles and
> it is unlikely that they would reinforce each other's characteristics
> but try it. And it is likely that they would reinforce each other's
> disadvantages.
>
> BTW I regard the MKH 416 one of the most useful mics available and
> can't see how it can be improved on except for the MKH 816 (still
> available second hand). If you have a bottomless pocket there is the
> MKH 8070 which has an amazing spec but I can't afford two of them for
> stereo. :-) I think the law of diminishing returns would act here,
> money-wise.
>
> Going to basic parabola theory:
>
> a) The focus is finer at higher frequencies and virtually non-existant
> at low freqencies.
>
> b) An omni mic will pick up both direct sound and reflected sound and
> at some frequenies these will tend to cancel out, but for most wanted
> frequencies the reflected sound swamps the direct.
>
> c) A cardioid theoretically avoids cancellation effect type b) but
> other diffraction effects still apply. A cardioid is always more
> susceptible to wind and handling noise. Take your pick on
> disadvantages.
>
> d) Stereo with a parabola is only possible using two points just
> off-focus on either side. The theory behind this is complex so trial
> and error is the best method of finding out what works.
>
> David
>
> David Brinicombe
> North Devon, UK
> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
>
|