On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:13:41 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Spending the day with Ofcom

What have U dun to deserve that;!....

It's the Technology Research and Development Symposium - but at least
it is at the Plaisterer's Hall in the City - so a brilliant venue.
Those livery companies knew how to build - particularly those chaps.

d

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

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:12:44 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Pic here - set up for ORTF,

ORTF???.. Wasn't that some Belgian broadcaster?..

That or French. They designed a technique that gave natural sounding
imaging by putting a pair of cardioids head-width apart, and facing
out a fair bit. (As if you didn't know)

d

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

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:12:44 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Pic here - set up for ORTF,

ORTF???.. Wasn't that some Belgian broadcaster?..

That or French. They designed a technique that gave natural sounding
imaging by putting a pair of cardioids head-width apart, and facing
out a fair bit. (As if you didn't know)


Now you've reminded me yes I do remember

Pain in the a**e getting on the wrong side of 50 odd isn't it;!....
d


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:13:41 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Spending the day with Ofcom

What have U dun to deserve that;!....

It's the Technology Research and Development Symposium - but at least
it is at the Plaisterer's Hall in the City - so a brilliant venue.
Those livery companies knew how to build - particularly those chaps.

d

Yes it is the Plasters trade association save anyone looking it up..

Suppose it should be done well then..

Dunno what they didn't call Ofcom Consult-a-COM be more in line with
what their doing
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:54:19 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:13:41 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Spending the day with Ofcom

What have U dun to deserve that;!....

It's the Technology Research and Development Symposium - but at least
it is at the Plaisterer's Hall in the City - so a brilliant venue.
Those livery companies knew how to build - particularly those chaps.

d

Yes it is the Plasters trade association save anyone looking it up..

Suppose it should be done well then..

Dunno what they didn't call Ofcom Consult-a-COM be more in line with
what their doing

They have one technical man left - Peter Spital, really bright bloke
but not far off retirement. As for the rest, they are all marketing
people. If they want any technical work done now it all goes out to
companies like Aegis.

d

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

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:51:42 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:12:44 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Pic here - set up for ORTF,

ORTF???.. Wasn't that some Belgian broadcaster?..

That or French. They designed a technique that gave natural sounding
imaging by putting a pair of cardioids head-width apart, and facing
out a fair bit. (As if you didn't know)


Now you've reminded me yes I do remember

Pain in the a**e getting on the wrong side of 50 odd isn't it;!....

But SO much preferable to the alternative ;-)

d

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

"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.

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

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

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?..
--
Tony Sayer

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