"> In each mic, two capsules, one above the other, are windowed into a smal=
l cylinder. That boundary creates a smooth rather broad band of boost in th=
e "presence" range."
=3D=3D Interference tube
Wind the clock back to 2009
EM172 capsules:-
http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=3D1032
Bump mics using a single capsule.
http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=3D1213
A refinement of those was the cone mic's which curiously enough used a cone=
structure to boost the presence range.
Coincidence of course, but begs the question why nobody here paid much atte=
ntion?
before their time or ?
Looking forward to seeing the Polar response of the SSM.
Klas, see email dated 7.6.09
-M
--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> > It's unclear what's really going on inside the SSM, but my impression i=
s that it
> > is a type of spaced omni rig with very little baffling or boundaries. I=
s this
> > correct?
>
> In each mic, two capsules, one above the other, are windowed into a small=
cylinder. That boundary creates a smooth rather broad band of boost in the=
"presence" range.
>
> > ...Also, the lack of any substantial boundaries
> > for the SSM would account for its brighter quality,
>
> The brightness is an acoustical boost that comes from the cylinder. Klas =
suggests that one can use it for effect, or equalize it out for lower noise=
.
>
> > given the drop off of the
> > low end of capsules.
>
> I'm not aware of the low frequency response of the EM-172 capsule, but I =
don't know any reason why it should "drop off."
>
> > Do the capsules of the SSM need to be oriented in a particular directio=
n?
>
> Yes, they have significant directivity in the high frequencies.
>
> > Can
> > you give us some idea of the theory of operation?
>
> See above.
>
> > What exactly is the polar
> > response of the SSM?
>
> That would be very nice to have. Klas, can your University friends genera=
te that?
>
> -Dan
>
|