On 14/02/2012 23:14, tk7859 wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Following comment by Emanuele and Haken in previous posts on this
> topic I decided to compare the performance of the MX391s in the new
> boundary rig with AT3032s in a similar rig. Another reason for the
> test was to better asses the stereo field because the initial test
> recording seemed to have a hole in the middle (probably due to the
> presence of a building directly in front of the position of the rig).
>
Hi Tom,
thanks a lot for your comparison.
It is hard to say what's the difference between the two recordings,
because you used two different recorders.
If you have someone around there to borrow a four track recorder you
could do the same test in a quieter place.
In your actual test the AT3032 sounds deeper and and the stereo image is
narrower to me while the MX391 is crispier and wide.
I think the difference in "wideness" is due by the construction itself:
the AT3032s are pointing front, having their capsule's focus on a real
parallel line, while the MX391 I think are facing side and thieir
capsule's focus is 180=B0 apart (I think, we will need to double check the=
construction specific of that mic) and that could be the "hole in the
middle" issue.
That could also cause a discrepancy in sound having some frquencies out
of phase.
The crispier sound of the MX391 could be just the auto self noise of the
mic.
In that particular recording I do prefer the MX391, the bass frequencies
are less present cutting out some undesired background noise and the
crisp sound give us more presence of the salty water.
--
Emanuele
www.ecsound.net
|