a technique of two
> supercardioids at an angle of 110 degrees and=C2 spaced by 10 or 20 cm (l=
ike ORTF,
> but with super or hypercardioids) should give results that sound similar =
to
> Blumlein, but with much less intrusion of sounds from the rear.
I have made my own parabolic microphone, with 60cm diameter, two small para=
bolas instead of two super or hipercardioids, what would be the result? Wou=
ld it works, you can put the focus inside, ouside, in line with cardioids o=
r omnis.
Jos=E9
--- In Eric Benjamin <> wrote:
>
> Aaron Ximm wrote:
> > I have tried using Sennheiser MKH mikes in this configuration with
> mixed results so far.
>
> AND
> > the technique does not reject the rear at all
>
> I thought about this over night and I think that a technique of two
> supercardioids at an angle of 110 degrees and=C2=A0spaced by 10 or 20 cm =
(like ORTF,
> but with super or hypercardioids) should give results that sound similar =
to
> Blumlein, but with much less intrusion of sounds from the rear.
>
> Eric
>
> =C2=A0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aaron Ximm <>
> To:
> Sent: Tue, September 27, 2011 4:44:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] two Senheiser mkh 30 fig 8 in blumlein s=
etup
>
> =C2=A0
> Hi Jos=C3=A9,
>
> I was (and am) very interested in the Blumlein technique; I love the
> image it provides... BUT... have not been able to apply it widely for
> field recording.
>
> I have tried using Sennheiser MKH mikes in this configuration with
> mixed results so far.
>
> There are significant technical challenges, particularly with
> mounting/windscreening. The optimum arrangement for Blumlein is
> usually with the two microphones mounted facing one another end-to-end
> -- which is VERY tricky to do in a Rycote windscreen or something. I
> have the parts for a never-completed project to create a custom
> mounting to do just this in a very long windscreen, but even then the
> mounting to tripod would be difficult.
>
> You can do near-coincident mounting with decent results, but the
> imaging of near-field subjects can be impaired. :/
>
> The bigger obstacle however is definitely tactical -- the fact that
> the technique does not reject the rear at all (there is no rear...)
> can produce very odd imaging issues, particularly with moving sources.
>
> In the studio Blumlein is useful because you can control what is
> presented to the rear of the microphones by making sure that the mics
> have subjects within a certain range of the front -- but in the field,
> subjects to the "rear" are just as present as those in the "front."
>
> Subjects that move from one quadrant of the soundfield to another
> (e.g. flying over the mics front front left to rear right) produce
> *very* strange results...!
>
> This is VERY different from M/S, which is by design focused to front
> with excellent rear rejection. :)
>
> Best regards,
> aaron
>
> --
> =C2=A0
> =C2=A0 quietamerican.org
> =C2=A0 oneminutevacation.org
>
> =C2=A0 83% happy
> =C2=A0=C2=A0 9% disgusted
> =C2=A0=C2=A0 6% fearful
> =C2=A0=C2=A0 2% angry
>
>
>
>
|