I don't have access to Rob's files, but I did an experiment a while back th=
at might be of interest in the whole EQ question on the SASS:
Some time back Eventide had a free offer on their EQivocate plug-in. They =
apparently do this from time to time, so it's worth keeping your eye out fo=
r it if this is of interest:
https://www.eventideaudio.com/products/plugins/equalizer/equivocate https:=
//www.eventideaudio.com/products/plugins/equalizer/equivocate
Among other things, you can use it to record a source with two different m=
icrophones and reverse-engineer the difference in their frequency responses=
. The plug-in can then use that to EQ a track recorded with one microphone =
to better match a track recorded with a different microphone.
A few weeks ago I hauled all my gear down to a rocky shoreline and ran a b=
unch of side-by-side tests, three mics at a time, against a relatively flat=
omni (a bare EM-172). The resulting EQ files show the bass roll-off in my =
cardioids, the mid and high frequency boost from the SASS, and the differen=
ce between the mid and side channels on my M/S mic. It was pretty neat.
More to the point, though, I was able to go back and re-EQ some SASS recor=
dings I'd made of beach surf to better balance the LF, MF, and HF. Dependin=
g on the beach, I'd had issues with surf recordings sounding a little tinny=
and weird with my SASS. My guess is I had some strong component of the sou=
nd coming through right around the edge of the frequency at which the bound=
ary surfaces on the SASS were starting to provide acoustic gain. The EQ mad=
e with the EQuivocate measurements sounded a lot more pleasing.
I wouldn't use this on every source. Birds, for example, don't have this p=
roblem with the SASS. But ocean waves have so much power in the lower frequ=
encies, it was a real help.
I don't know if this is along the lines of what you're looking for, but it=
was a handy technique to better understand the frequency response of the S=
ASS.
Tom
|