I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will be
unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary mike
placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests that above 1K,
with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to pick up considerably
less early reflection than a standard single-point stereo mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that are
suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be placed
on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

"Robert Morein" wrote in
:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated
with his back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this
should cause major comb filtering problems, although I do not know
whether the result will be unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary
mike placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests
that above 1K, with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to
pick up considerably less early reflection than a standard
single-point stereo mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that
are suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be
placed on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

In an outdoor environment, the combing effect of a wall behind the
performer will be inaudible. Get a good omni and have at it.

Hi,
You can take a look at this:
http://www.crownaudio.com/pdf/mics/101062.pdf
F.

Robert Morein wrote:
I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will be
unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary mike
placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests that above 1K,
with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to pick up considerably
less early reflection than a standard single-point stereo mike.

Keep in mind that the only reflections that are avoided through the use
of a boundary mic are those that would have been caused by the boundary
that they are placed against. So if you place boundary mics on the
floor, you will avoid the problems that might be caused by floor
reflections. However, you will not in any way avoid the reflections
that come from the wall behind the performer.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that are
suitable for recording music?

If you're looking for a stereo boundary mic, you might consider this one
from audio technica:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wi...dea/index.html

They also have a couple of similar mono mics:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wi...081/index.html
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wi...e2b/index.html

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be placed
on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

It may reduce the low end response somewhat, but that may not be a
factor for the kind of recording that you're doing. Of course, the
greater the distance between the mic and the floor, the more opportunity
there is for reflections to become an issue. A thin layer shouldn't
cause any trouble. You may want the foam to extend out in front of the
mic to help diffuse any early reflections.

I often use boundary mics like this at the front of a stage to capture
the sound of a live audience. I place them on pads (to avoid picking up
footsteps from the stage), and I'm quite happy with the results.
However, my goal is not to avoid reflections; instead I use them because
they are unobtrusive. (Though lately I've been using a pair of figure-8
mics at the sides of the stage instead.)

Federico wrote:
Hi,
You can take a look at this:
http://www.crownaudio.com/pdf/mics/101062.pdf

This is pretty marketing-heavy. The PZM is occasionally a useful thing to have
in the bag, and it can be a cure for slap echo for things like conference
tables, but for the most part it tends to do more harm than good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Robert Morein wrote:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will be
unpleasant.

As buskers tend to play small high-pitched instruments, the performer's
own body will be blocking the sound from reaching the wall in the area
behind him. As long as the busker isn't sideways-on or in a corner,
there won't be any significant problem with reflected sound.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Federico wrote:

Hi,
You can take a look at this:
http://www.crownaudio.com/pdf/mics/101062.pdf

This is pretty marketing-heavy. The PZM is occasionally a useful thing to have
in the bag, and it can be a cure for slap echo for things like conference
tables, but for the most part it tends to do more harm than good.

Not if you leave it in the bag.


//Walt

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with
his back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should
cause major comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the
result will be unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary
mike placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests that
above 1K, with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to pick up
considerably less early reflection than a standard single-point stereo
mike.

Keep in mind that the only reflections that are avoided through the use of
a boundary mic are those that would have been caused by the boundary that
they are placed against. So if you place boundary mics on the floor, you
will avoid the problems that might be caused by floor reflections.
However, you will not in any way avoid the reflections that come from the
wall behind the performer.

I beg to differ. At mid-high frequencies, one can do a ray-trace to see the
density reflections that hit the mike. If the mike is looking "up" at the
performer, it will catch less than if it is looking directly at the wall in
back of the performer. Other than that, I agree that the magic of complete
reflection elimination occurs only for the boundary the mike is mounted on.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that are
suitable for recording music?

If you're looking for a stereo boundary mic, you might consider this one
from audio technica:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wi...dea/index.html

At a given price point, A-T mikes seem noisier than the competition. I own a
couple AT33r and it's noticeable. I would prefer a mike with 75 dB s/n.

They also have a couple of similar mono mics:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wi...081/index.html
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wi...e2b/index.html

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be
placed on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

It may reduce the low end response somewhat, but that may not be a factor
for the kind of recording that you're doing. Of course, the greater the
distance between the mic and the floor, the more opportunity there is for
reflections to become an issue. A thin layer shouldn't cause any trouble.
You may want the foam to extend out in front of the mic to help diffuse
any early reflections.

I often use boundary mics like this at the front of a stage to capture the
sound of a live audience. I place them on pads (to avoid picking up
footsteps from the stage), and I'm quite happy with the results. However,
my goal is not to avoid reflections; instead I use them because they are
unobtrusive. (Though lately I've been using a pair of figure-8 mics at
the sides of the stage instead.)

But is the tonality such that you would not consider using them as mains?

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
lid.invalid...
Robert Morein wrote:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with
his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause
major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will
be
unpleasant.

As buskers tend to play small high-pitched instruments, the performer's
own body will be blocking the sound from reaching the wall in the area
behind him. As long as the busker isn't sideways-on or in a corner,
there won't be any significant problem with reflected sound.

For one busker, yes. For a small ensemble, no.

On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:10 -0400, in
rec.arts.movies.production.sound "Robert Morein"
wrote:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will be
unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary mike
placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests that above 1K,
with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to pick up considerably
less early reflection than a standard single-point stereo mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that are
suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be placed
on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

Hmmm, why dont you just go out with a couple of mics, with a
"busker",record something, and see what happens. listen to the
recordings, then try again, and see what works

Theory is fine, but you need to mix it with practice


martin

I just want to point out that a directional (cardioid) bonduary mic (the
PCC160 is not actually a PZM) can be more effective than a semi-omni (half
sphere).
For on-the-street buskers I'd place the microphones on the curb right in
front of the players... something closer to an XY or maybe you can
experiment with an AB too....
F.

"martin griffith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:10 -0400, in
rec.arts.movies.production.sound "Robert Morein"
wrote:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with
his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause
major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will be
unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary
mike
placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests that above
1K,
with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to pick up
considerably
less early reflection than a standard single-point stereo mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that are
suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be
placed
on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

Hmmm, why dont you just go out with a couple of mics, with a
"busker",record something, and see what happens. listen to the
recordings, then try again, and see what works

Theory is fine, but you need to mix it with practice

I don't have the mikes.
martin

"Federico" wrote in message
...

I just want to point out that a directional (cardioid) bonduary mic (the
PCC160 is not actually a PZM) can be more effective than a semi-omni (half
sphere).
For on-the-street buskers I'd place the microphones on the curb right in
front of the players... something closer to an XY or maybe you can
experiment with an AB too....
F.
You are speaking here of boundary mikes?

Robert Morein wrote:
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...
I beg to differ. At mid-high frequencies, one can do a ray-trace to see the
density reflections that hit the mike.

Ray tracing is frequency dependent only if you are factoring in the
frequency dependent absorption/reflection at surface boundaries. Where are
you assuming dependency comes from?

If the mike is looking "up" at the
performer, it will catch less than if it is looking directly at the wall in
back of the performer.

This is incorrect. A boundry mic looks everywhere equally assuming the
element is omni. It logically sees below it a mono acoustic image of
everything above it, that's all. This eliminates reflective interference
from the boundry on which it is placed.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...
I beg to differ. At mid-high frequencies, one can do a ray-trace to see
the
density reflections that hit the mike.

Ray tracing is frequency dependent only if you are factoring in the
frequency dependent absorption/reflection at surface boundaries. Where
are
you assuming dependency comes from?

If the mike is looking "up" at the
performer, it will catch less than if it is looking directly at the wall
in
back of the performer.

This is incorrect. A boundry mic looks everywhere equally assuming the
element is omni. It logically sees below it a mono acoustic image of
everything above it, that's all. This eliminates reflective interference
from the boundry on which it is placed.


Every once in a while my intuition fails me However, I note the
following. If a performer's instrument is 20" from a rear reflective
surface, then a stand-mounted mike in front of the performer sees a 40" path
difference. If a mike is placed on the floor 20" from the performer's feet,
then doodling with the triangles gives approximately a 67" reflection path
length from the rear wall, plus the absence of floor bounce. Perhaps you can
argue from experience that the increase in path length, with consequently
closer nulls, is not a significant improvement. I don't know; I lack the
practical experience. But can anyone definitively say what will happen
unless it is tried?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"martin griffith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:10 -0400, in
rec.arts.movies.production.sound "Robert Morein"
wrote:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with
his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause
major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will
be
unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary
mike
placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests that above
1K,
with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to pick up
considerably
less early reflection than a standard single-point stereo mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that are
suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be
placed
on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

Hmmm, why dont you just go out with a couple of mics, with a
"busker",record something, and see what happens. listen to the
recordings, then try again, and see what works

Theory is fine, but you need to mix it with practice

I don't have the mikes.
martin


Martin, i have a small pile of boundary mics which i use as the need arises.
a Crown PZM did a wonderful job for me picking up bagpipes... but then i'm
coming to the conclusion that anything will work with bagpipes .

you need to think first of the most prominent problems you will encounter
before worrying about secondary problems. your biggest enemy will be wind
noise and crowd noise.

i find that optimal placement is in front and/or above the audience. usually
i use a pair of Rode nt-5 on a spreader bar on a mic stand with a boom at
full extension. on a moderately windy day it takes a couple of windscreens
on each mic.

with a PZM or PCC, unless you are standing there guarding it you get people
walking on it, standing on it and talking, drinks poured in it, and just
about anything else that is undesirable and irritating.

"Robert Morein" wrote in
:

Every once in a while my intuition fails me However, I note the
following. If a performer's instrument is 20" from a rear reflective
surface, then a stand-mounted mike in front of the performer sees a
40" path difference. If a mike is placed on the floor 20" from the
performer's feet, then doodling with the triangles gives approximately
a 67" reflection path length from the rear wall, plus the absence of
floor bounce. Perhaps you can argue from experience that the increase
in path length, with consequently closer nulls, is not a significant
improvement. I don't know; I lack the practical experience. But can
anyone definitively say what will happen unless it is tried?

Your analysis works only if the performer is facing the wall.

Having tried, I can say that the body of the performer between the
instrument and the wall blocks enough of the reflection to make the
question immaterial.

As a thought experiment, imagine recording the the performer from behind,
against the wall. That muted, fuzzy, almost-lost-in-the-street-noise sound
is what would have been hitting the wall.

Robert Morein wrote:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with
his back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause
major comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result
will be unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary
mike placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests that
above 1K, with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to pick up
considerably less early reflection than a standard single-point stereo
mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that are
suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be
placed on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

You need to stop theorizing (and trolling) and actually get out there &
record something. This really ain't rocket surgery. (thanks Fletcher)

And stop cross posting to RAO & all those other clueless groups, dammit.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...

If you're looking for a stereo boundary mic, you might consider this one
from audio technica:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wi...dea/index.html

At a given price point, A-T mikes seem noisier than the competition. I own a
couple AT33r and it's noticeable. I would prefer a mike with 75 dB s/n.

I think that may be a mischaracterization. However, I also think that
boundary mics like these are typically designed for conferencing rather
than studio recording, so S/N may not be the top design priority.
Considering the environment in which you'll be working, it doesn't seem
that it needs to be a big consideration for your work either, but if you
prefer another brand, I'm sure you can find one.

I often use boundary mics like this at the front of a stage to capture the
sound of a live audience.

But is the tonality such that you would not consider using them as mains?

They wouldn't be suitable as mains in a live performance environment,
and that is 99% of my work. To be honest, I've never needed to use them
in any other application - with one exception.

That one exception was when a group of performers that I was recording
opted to perform their final encores without using the house PA at all.
They came to the front of the stage and performed in pure acoustic
fashion for the audience. I had anticipated this and repositioned my
mics so that this performance would be captured. In all honesty, I'd
have to assess the result as unusable, but I don't think that was
because of the tonality of the mics.

Here's a snippet of one of the songs. As you can hear, it isn't likely
to win them another grammy:

http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/SweetheartsX.mp3

By the same token, though, that suggests that you, too, may get marginal
results with this approach, and for all the same reasons: Your
environment also includes a potential audience that will be oblivious to
your recording. And in most cases positioning a mic at the floor isn't
the best way to capture the sound of a standing or sitting
musician/vocalist. I think you'll find yourself better off with a
simple stereo mic positioned up where you can get a fairly balanced
sound from the performer(s).

Agent 86 wrote:


And stop cross posting to RAO & all those other clueless groups, dammit.


****, I hadn't noticed that. Bob M., no more responses from me at least if
r.a.o. is included in your crosspost list. Sometimes crossposing is
justified but never to that bunch of loons.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Federico wrote:
I just want to point out that a directional (cardioid) bonduary mic (the
PCC160 is not actually a PZM) can be more effective than a semi-omni (half
sphere).

Agreed. All of the mics mentioned so far in this thread have been
half-cardioid mics (unless I've missed something?). Scott mentioned
PZMs in passing, but all of the Crown mics and AT mics that have been
referenced are directional mics. None have been PZMs.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
lid.invalid...
Robert Morein wrote:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated with
his
back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this should cause
major
comb filtering problems, although I do not know whether the result will
be
unpleasant.

As buskers tend to play small high-pitched instruments, the performer's
own body will be blocking the sound from reaching the wall in the area
behind him. As long as the busker isn't sideways-on or in a corner,
there won't be any significant problem with reflected sound.

For one busker, yes. For a small ensemble, no.

I still wouldn't worry about the acoustic effect of the wall, you will
have much more serious problems with the rest of the environment.



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

TimPerry wrote:


Martin, i have a small pile of boundary mics which i use as the need arises.
a Crown PZM did a wonderful job for me picking up bagpipes... but then i'm
coming to the conclusion that anything will work with bagpipes .

Nothing works better.....

[...]

with a PZM or PCC, unless you are standing there guarding it you get people
walking on it, standing on it and talking, drinks poured in it, and just
about anything else that is undesirable and irritating.

In the UK there is an additional hazard of morrismen deliberately
hitting it with their sticks and batting it right across the street.
(Yes, they did it to mine)

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote in
id.invalid:

In the UK there is an additional hazard of morrismen deliberately
hitting it with their sticks and batting it right across the street.
(Yes, they did it to mine)

Translation: morrismen?

Carey Carlan wrote:

Translation: morrismen?

Morris dancing: the ethnic dance tradition of the English people.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Federico wrote:
I just want to point out that a directional (cardioid) bonduary mic (the
PCC160 is not actually a PZM) can be more effective than a semi-omni (half
sphere).

Yes.

For on-the-street buskers I'd place the microphones on the curb right in
front of the players... something closer to an XY or maybe you can
experiment with an AB too....

If I had to record buskers, I'd use a mono omni mike and I'd place it so the
balances were right. Just getting guitar/vocal balances or even worse
drum/vocal balances is the real struggle since I'd imagine most of these
guys aren't so well balanced to begin with.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:50:50 -0400, Carey Carlan wrote
(in article ):

"Robert Morein" wrote in
:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated
with his back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this
should cause major comb filtering problems, although I do not know
whether the result will be unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary
mike placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests
that above 1K, with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to
pick up considerably less early reflection than a standard
single-point stereo mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that
are suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be
placed on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

In an outdoor environment, the combing effect of a wall behind the
performer will be inaudible. Get a good omni and have at it.

Maybe, but I've been in some situations in which a nearby wall, sign, window
or something else has created a reflection that's pretty unflattering. You
really don't know until you get there.

And with omnis, unless you get real close, there's the rest of the street
noise. Maybe a PZM mounted on a board that can be adjusted and aimed at the
talent. Even 18" x 18" (maybe covered in felt on the mic side) might knock
down some of the street noise.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 18 May 2006 18:16:03 -0400, Robert Morein wrote
(in article ):

At a given price point, A-T mikes seem noisier than the competition. I own a
couple AT33r and it's noticeable. I would prefer a mike with 75 dB s/n.

Would you hear it on a street?

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In article , Ty Ford wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:50:50 -0400, Carey Carlan wrote
(in article ):

"Robert Morein" wrote in
:

I will be recording in public places where, in many cases, the street
performer, or "busker", as they are sometimes called, may be seated
with his back to a masonry or tile wall. According to theory, this
should cause major comb filtering problems, although I do not know
whether the result will be unpleasant.

One way to avoid this comb filtering would be to use a stereo boundary
mike placed on the floor or sidewalk. A ray trace diagram suggests
that above 1K, with this arrangement, the mike could be positioned to
pick up considerably less early reflection than a standard
single-point stereo mike.

What are the more reasonable offerings of stereo boundary mikes that
are suitable for recording music?

Due to the rumblings of the infrastructure, the mike would have to be
placed on a foam pad. Would this impact mike performance?

In an outdoor environment, the combing effect of a wall behind the
performer will be inaudible. Get a good omni and have at it.

Maybe, but I've been in some situations in which a nearby wall, sign, window
or something else has created a reflection that's pretty unflattering. You
really don't know until you get there.

And with omnis, unless you get real close, there's the rest of the street
noise. Maybe a PZM mounted on a board that can be adjusted and aimed at the
talent. Even 18" x 18" (maybe covered in felt on the mic side) might knock
down some of the street noise.

I sure many have seen PZM's mounted on a large clear Plexiglass sheet.

greg

Ty Ford wrote in
:

And with omnis, unless you get real close, there's the rest of the
street noise. Maybe a PZM mounted on a board that can be adjusted and
aimed at the talent. Even 18" x 18" (maybe covered in felt on the mic
side) might knock down some of the street noise.

That's the greatest advantage of omnis. You can get real close. The
inverse square law is the best noise rejection scheme available, plus you
get a very realistic sound. Directional microphones in a noisy environment
are great for spoken word, but the more directional the mic, the more
aberrations you hear--bad things for music recording. And I don't count
PZM's on any size board as a good directional microphone.

Carey Carlan wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote in
id.invalid:

In the UK there is an additional hazard of morrismen deliberately
hitting it with their sticks and batting it right across the street.
(Yes, they did it to mine)

Translation: morrismen?

Do a Google search on "Cotswold Morris" or "Border Morris" - you'll soon
get the idea.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 May 2006 18:16:03 -0400, Robert Morein wrote
(in article ):

At a given price point, A-T mikes seem noisier than the competition. I
own a
couple AT33r and it's noticeable. I would prefer a mike with 75 dB s/n.

Would you hear it on a street?

I don't know. Perhaps, if the noise spectrum of the mike is different from
ambient.

I would try them, except I've already used them in ORTF, and been
displeased with the tonality.

TimPerry wrote:

Martin, i have a small pile of boundary mics which i use as the need arises.
a Crown PZM did a wonderful job for me picking up bagpipes... but then i'm
coming to the conclusion that anything will work with bagpipes .

[...]

You mean piper-wise or mic-wise?

Jez

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 18 May 2006 18:16:03 -0400, Robert Morein wrote
(in article ):

At a given price point, A-T mikes seem noisier than the competition. I
own a couple AT33r and it's noticeable.

Would you hear it on a street?


I don't know. Perhaps, if the noise spectrum of the mike is different
from ambient. I would try them, except I've already used them in ORTF,
and been displeased with the tonality.

Are you talking about the mics that you referenced above - the AT33r? What
are those exactly anyway? AT doesn't have any mic in their product line
with that designation. Perhaps you mean the ATM33? If so, I agree with
you - it's not a great microphone. Some people seem to like it, though.

Yes, I believe that's the mike.

Like many manufacturers, AT makes some inexpensive mics that are
definitely not representative of the quality of the upper part of their
product line. I'm not sure which mics you are referencing here, but AT
makes some excellent microphones for a wide variety of applications.

Yes, of course. I refer to the apparent fact that at the low end, A-T has
allowed their products to be surpassed by many other choices. Technical
excellence is evident in their high end offerings.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...

Perhaps you mean the ATM33? If so, I agree with
you - it's not a great microphone. Some people seem to like it, though.

Yes, I believe that's the mike.

Like many manufacturers, AT makes some inexpensive mics that are
definitely not representative of the quality of the upper part of their
product line. I'm not sure which mics you are referencing here, but AT
makes some excellent microphones for a wide variety of applications.

Yes, of course. I refer to the apparent fact that at the low end, A-T has
allowed their products to be surpassed by many other choices. Technical
excellence is evident in their high end offerings.

The ATM33 has been in their product line for several decades. Even so,
at a street price of about $160, there aren't many mics that are much
better except perhaps some of the extremely low-end chinese mics (which
may not be a fair comparison). But other "name" brands have similar
mics in the same price range, for example, the Shure KSM109 or the
dreaded AKG C1000. Even AT has surpassed it within its own product
line, for example with the AT3031 or the AT3035.

Try not to hold the ATM33 against them. It was probably not a bad
choice at its price point in, say, 1985.

wrote in message
oups.com...

TimPerry wrote:

Martin, i have a small pile of boundary mics which i use as the need
arises.
a Crown PZM did a wonderful job for me picking up bagpipes... but then
i'm
coming to the conclusion that anything will work with bagpipes .

[...]

You mean piper-wise or mic-wise?

Jez


....well, we were discussing microphones.

these pipers were police officers who had been standing bare legged in the
freezing cold for hours. if they wanted to play the kazoo or the comb it
would be OK with me.

Jim Gilliland wrote:

The ATM33 has been in their product line for several decades. Even so,
at a street price of about $160, there aren't many mics that are much
better except perhaps some of the extremely low-end chinese mics (which
may not be a fair comparison). But other "name" brands have similar
mics in the same price range, for example, the Shure KSM109 or the
dreaded AKG C1000. Even AT has surpassed it within its own product
line, for example with the AT3031 or the AT3035.

Hey don't forget the AKG C535! It's got more of a presence peak to it,
but the top end is smoother.

Try not to hold the ATM33 against them. It was probably not a bad
choice at its price point in, say, 1985.

Agreed. I think that, the ATM33 is one of the last microphones AT designed
before a process change in the way they built capsules. It's probably one
of only a couple microphones using their older electret design still left
in the line.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"TimPerry" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

TimPerry wrote:

Martin, i have a small pile of boundary mics which i use as the need
arises.
a Crown PZM did a wonderful job for me picking up bagpipes... but then
i'm
coming to the conclusion that anything will work with bagpipes .

I use PZMs any time they're suitable to the task. Not only do they reduce
early reflection problems, but they also increase the sensitivity of the
mike by 6db, relative to open air mikes. You can think of it as reducing
self-noise by 6db. They also don't call attention to themselves. I was
asked to record a funeral service solely because my PZMs were less obtrusive
than the PA mikes.

Norm Strong

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jim Gilliland wrote:

The ATM33 has been in their product line for several decades. Even so,
at a street price of about $160, there aren't many mics that are much
better except perhaps some of the extremely low-end chinese mics (which
may not be a fair comparison). But other "name" brands have similar
mics in the same price range, for example, the Shure KSM109 or the
dreaded AKG C1000. Even AT has surpassed it within its own product
line, for example with the AT3031 or the AT3035.

Hey don't forget the AKG C535! It's got more of a presence peak to it,
but the top end is smoother.

I like the 535, but it's quite a bit more money than the ATM33 or the
others mentioned above. It's bright, but quite usable on some sources.
It might seem a strange match, but it actually sounded great on Leon
Redbone's voice a few years ago (on stage, of course).

Try not to hold the ATM33 against them. It was probably not a bad
choice at its price point in, say, 1985.

Agreed. I think that, the ATM33 is one of the last microphones AT designed
before a process change in the way they built capsules. It's probably one
of only a couple microphones using their older electret design still left
in the line.

I was surprised to see that it WAS still in the line. I figured that
they had stopped selling it by now. I have a pair of them that I bought
at the AT warehouse sale about 15 years ago. They've wound up being my
absolute least used mics, but I didn't pay much for them. I really
should put them up on eBay.