On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 10:38:24 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 04:38:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
arnyk_at_comcast_dot_net wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:13:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

Well, they've arrived and my initial tests - just me
talking - are impressive. My neighbour is having some
scaffolding put up, and while I was chatting a pole
clanged against something. On playback I was convinced
while I was listening that it happened again.

I am probably recording some music over the weekend, so
I'll report back what I find.

IME, they are most natural and transparent when some distance (3 feet or
more) from the acoustic source. If you use them close up, response rises
at
both ends of the spectrum.


I've already noticed the bottom end lift. The weekend job is a string
quartet in a church - instruments in an arc, and the mic about six to
eight feet from all of them.

What do you think about hole-in-the-middle? Is it too ambitious to use
the full 110 degrees with these? I feel unsure and I may shut them
down to about 90. The only thing in favour here is that no instrument
is actually going to be centre-stage.

That depends on a lot of things that I can't predict, like room acoustics.
I usually use 90.

If you want to adjust center imaging, you can always change that by
rematrixing the mics during mixdown.


True enough. I've pretty much finalized on 90 deg, maybe even a little
less because I don't think I will have anything like that much spread
of instruments. The acoustics of the space are pretty good - I've used
it before - but I don't want the sound too wet. The musicians are all
very good and they frankly don't need it.

d


Any chance of a clip of your work?..

Sure, I'll post a chunk tomorrow.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com