soundhaspriority wrote:
Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics "has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

Turns out that coincident works pretty good. You can relate it
mathematically to Blumlein and to Ambisonics which also turn out to work
pretty good.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein