Peter Shute wrote:
> I'm interested in the pros and cons of using two ME66s for stereo records
> because I'm in a similar situation to David Darrell-Lambert in that I have
> one ME66 and I'd like to make stereo recordings sometimes. I'm finding the
> quality from the ME66 way better than the inbuilt mics of the PCM M10, even
> ignoring the poor stereo separation of the latter.
>
> I hadn't realised there might be a problem with a non matched second ME66. Is
> it simply a matter of tweaking the volume of one channel to fix this, or is
> there more to it?
There would be more to it than that, since the actual peaks and dips in the
frequency response might be different between the mics. But my guess is that in
this application they'd be close enough.
> And are there any workable arrangements
> other than crossing them at about 30 degrees?
I wouldn't cross them at all, but instead use them in parallel. It might serve
you well to experiment with Blumlein shuffling and try a baffle between them.
IIRC he used shotguns in some of his experiments, and the processing matrix
achieved greater "reach" than with a single microphone. The other obvious
improvement is that with two microphones you are picking up twice as much
signal.
I have been building a plugin for this processing task. Unfortunately it's only
going to be useful for those with Native Instruments Reaktor. Somehow I doubt
that's a common tool for nature recordists!
-- robin parmar
|