[Gary Eickmeier]

An article in the Videomaker magazine this month on the Roland R-26 portable
explains the microphone complement: The thing is a six channel recorder with
4 microphones on top and two XLR inputs on the bottom. The curious part is
the built-ins on the top, which are an XY pair and two OMNI microphones on
the outside!

Can anyone think why they might have wasted space on this thing for two
omnis that are no more than 3 inches apart? What benefit might those be?
Ambience? They certainly can't record a stereo signal, and even if they
could, the XY pair would be much better for that, and I can't imagine the
omnis as a surround sound pair - or can I?

My little Zoom R2n is such an amazing little design I can't help comparing
the two. The Zoom has two pairs of mikes built in, an XY pair pointing in
one direction, and an M/S pair in the other direction. The M/S pattern is
adjustable for M vs S mix, or can be used in raw mode to mix in post.
Brilliant little design for stereo or surround sound, and in addition it has
another stereo input for two channels of external mikes if you don't want to
use the built-in XY pair. These externals can be recorded simultaneously
with the M/S pair for surround sound or you can use any combination of the
above.

I'm glad to see a proliferation of these fantastic little digital recorders,
but I question the design of the Roland. Does anyone see the point of the
two omnis on the top?

Gary Eickmeier

[gregz]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
An article in the Videomaker magazine this month on the Roland R-26 portable
explains the microphone complement: The thing is a six channel recorder with
4 microphones on top and two XLR inputs on the bottom. The curious part is
the built-ins on the top, which are an XY pair and two OMNI microphones on
the outside!

Can anyone think why they might have wasted space on this thing for two
omnis that are no more than 3 inches apart? What benefit might those be?
Ambience? They certainly can't record a stereo signal, and even if they
could, the XY pair would be much better for that, and I can't imagine the
omnis as a surround sound pair - or can I?

My little Zoom R2n is such an amazing little design I can't help comparing
the two. The Zoom has two pairs of mikes built in, an XY pair pointing in
one direction, and an M/S pair in the other direction. The M/S pattern is
adjustable for M vs S mix, or can be used in raw mode to mix in post.
Brilliant little design for stereo or surround sound, and in addition it has
another stereo input for two channels of external mikes if you don't want to
use the built-in XY pair. These externals can be recorded simultaneously
with the M/S pair for surround sound or you can use any combination of the
above.

I'm glad to see a proliferation of these fantastic little digital recorders,
but I question the design of the Roland. Does anyone see the point of the
two omnis on the top?

Gary Eickmeier

I guess you would have to listen to it. My omni ears are about 5-6 inches
apart.

A larger barrier, like a plate, or head, will enlarge the effect.

Greg

[Gary Eickmeier]

"gregz" wrote in message
...

I guess you would have to listen to it. My omni ears are about 5-6 inches
apart.

A larger barrier, like a plate, or head, will enlarge the effect.

But your ears are not omni, they are binaural - have a certain separation
and a barrier between them and pinna effects that both direct reception and
shape frequencies. Two omnis three inches apart would have almost no
difference in the signal recorded.

Gary Eickmeier

[Fran Guidry]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 2:34:06 PM UTC-10, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
An article in the Videomaker magazine this month on the Roland R-26 portable

explains the microphone complement: The thing is a six channel recorder with

4 microphones on top and two XLR inputs on the bottom. The curious part is

the built-ins on the top, which are an XY pair and two OMNI microphones on

the outside!



Can anyone think why they might have wasted space on this thing for two

omnis that are no more than 3 inches apart? What benefit might those be?

Ambience? They certainly can't record a stereo signal, and even if they

could, the XY pair would be much better for that, and I can't imagine the

omnis as a surround sound pair - or can I?



My little Zoom R2n is such an amazing little design I can't help comparing

the two. The Zoom has two pairs of mikes built in, an XY pair pointing in

one direction, and an M/S pair in the other direction. The M/S pattern is

adjustable for M vs S mix, or can be used in raw mode to mix in post.

Brilliant little design for stereo or surround sound, and in addition it has

another stereo input for two channels of external mikes if you don't want to

use the built-in XY pair. These externals can be recorded simultaneously

with the M/S pair for surround sound or you can use any combination of the

above.



I'm glad to see a proliferation of these fantastic little digital recorders,

but I question the design of the Roland. Does anyone see the point of the

two omnis on the top?



Gary Eickmeier

One idea I've seen suggested is the bass response of an omni, which is different from a directional mic. One might mix in a bit of the omni for that quality.

Fran

[swanny]

On 28/10/2012 11:35 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
An article in the Videomaker magazine this month on the Roland R-26 portable
explains the microphone complement: The thing is a six channel recorder with
4 microphones on top and two XLR inputs on the bottom. The curious part is
the built-ins on the top, which are an XY pair and two OMNI microphones on
the outside!

Can anyone think why they might have wasted space on this thing for two
omnis that are no more than 3 inches apart? What benefit might those be?
Ambience? They certainly can't record a stereo signal, and even if they
could, the XY pair would be much better for that, and I can't imagine the
omnis as a surround sound pair - or can I?

My little Zoom R2n is such an amazing little design I can't help comparing
the two. The Zoom has two pairs of mikes built in, an XY pair pointing in
one direction, and an M/S pair in the other direction. The M/S pattern is
adjustable for M vs S mix, or can be used in raw mode to mix in post.
Brilliant little design for stereo or surround sound, and in addition it has
another stereo input for two channels of external mikes if you don't want to
use the built-in XY pair. These externals can be recorded simultaneously
with the M/S pair for surround sound or you can use any combination of the
above.

I'm glad to see a proliferation of these fantastic little digital recorders,
but I question the design of the Roland. Does anyone see the point of the
two omnis on the top?

Gary Eickmeier



I have a little Roland R09HR recorder which only has the two omni mics
at the top, about 3 inches apart. Using just these mics it does not do
too bad a job, here's a sample from sitting in the second audience row
at a wind symphony concert in a local church hall.

http://soundcloud.com/dr-geoff/armen...nces-iii-lorva

[Trevor]

"swanny" wrote in message
d.com...
On 28/10/2012 11:35 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
An article in the Videomaker magazine this month on the Roland R-26
portable
explains the microphone complement: The thing is a six channel recorder
with
4 microphones on top and two XLR inputs on the bottom. The curious part
is
the built-ins on the top, which are an XY pair and two OMNI microphones
on
the outside!

Can anyone think why they might have wasted space on this thing for two
omnis that are no more than 3 inches apart? What benefit might those be?
Ambience? They certainly can't record a stereo signal, and even if they
could, the XY pair would be much better for that, and I can't imagine the
omnis as a surround sound pair - or can I?

My little Zoom R2n is such an amazing little design I can't help
comparing
the two. The Zoom has two pairs of mikes built in, an XY pair pointing in
one direction, and an M/S pair in the other direction. The M/S pattern is
adjustable for M vs S mix, or can be used in raw mode to mix in post.
Brilliant little design for stereo or surround sound, and in addition it
has
another stereo input for two channels of external mikes if you don't want
to
use the built-in XY pair. These externals can be recorded simultaneously
with the M/S pair for surround sound or you can use any combination of
the
above.

I'm glad to see a proliferation of these fantastic little digital
recorders,
but I question the design of the Roland. Does anyone see the point of the
two omnis on the top?

I have a little Roland R09HR recorder which only has the two omni mics
at the top, about 3 inches apart. Using just these mics it does not do
too bad a job, here's a sample from sitting in the second audience row
at a wind symphony concert in a local church hall.


Isn't the point of the OP that an omni mic may sometimes be fine, but two
only 3" apart are redundant?
I bet they are just making sure that users who have no idea what an omni mic
is, are not upset.

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

swanny writes:

On 28/10/2012 11:35 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

snips

but I question the design of the Roland. Does anyone see the point of the
two omnis on the top?

No, not really, unless there was some way to telescope them out. A little more time
differential is needed to generate an image.

I have a little Roland R09HR recorder which only has the two omni mics
at the top, about 3 inches apart. Using just these mics it does not do
too bad a job, here's a sample from sitting in the second audience row
at a wind symphony concert in a local church hall.

http://soundcloud.com/dr-geoff/armen...nces-iii-lorva

It's not a bad tonal balance, but it is nearly mono.

A properly-spaced and splayed set of omnis, say at 50cm, with a touch of
directionality in the HF, either from defraction spheres or the mic itself, should
startle you at the realism of width and depth, as well as having pin-point imaging L
to R and front to rear.

On this sample, as good as it sounds otherwise, there was no image, sorry to say.

It *would* be cool if those little critters had something like old rabbit ears to
support the mics, though shortened to a useful distance. Would love to hear that.

Frank
Mobile Audio



--

[swanny]

On 29/10/2012 9:49 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
swanny writes:

On 28/10/2012 11:35 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

snips

but I question the design of the Roland. Does anyone see the point of the
two omnis on the top?

No, not really, unless there was some way to telescope them out. A little more time
differential is needed to generate an image.

I have a little Roland R09HR recorder which only has the two omni mics
at the top, about 3 inches apart. Using just these mics it does not do
too bad a job, here's a sample from sitting in the second audience row
at a wind symphony concert in a local church hall.

http://soundcloud.com/dr-geoff/armen...nces-iii-lorva

It's not a bad tonal balance, but it is nearly mono.

A properly-spaced and splayed set of omnis, say at 50cm, with a touch of
directionality in the HF, either from defraction spheres or the mic itself, should
startle you at the realism of width and depth, as well as having pin-point imaging L
to R and front to rear.

On this sample, as good as it sounds otherwise, there was no image, sorry to say.

It *would* be cool if those little critters had something like old rabbit ears to
support the mics, though shortened to a useful distance. Would love to hear that.

Frank
Mobile Audio



Yes, it is nearly mono. Reasonable with headphones (this is an audience
perspective recording, so the orchestra is sort of 10 to 2 o'clock only
from the sitting position), but very narrow on monitors in a normal
playback environment. I agree that 3 inches is too close for any real image.

I saw an interview with Tony Faulkner where he spoke about using omni's
spaced 67cm, with an ortf cardioid pair between them on a single bar
giving very good results.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sun 2012-Oct-28 17:49, Frank Stearns writes:
It *would* be cool if those little critters had something like old
rabbit ears to
support the mics, though shortened to a useful distance. Would love
to hear that.

YOu and me both, but then, those little rabbit ears would be fragile, and most people who would take one of thsoe into
the field for recording probably don't carry them in a nice
case, but just chuck the thing in a bag or something
similar. Those little rabbit ears would get the crap beat
out of them.

But, that would be cool, a pair of spaced omnis on a neat
little field recorder. I'd sign up in a minute, even if I
didn't like the user interface for old blind man quite as
well as another for that feature, and get myself a custom
made case, or something like the Otterbox or similar to
carry the thing around in.



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"swanny" wrote in message
d.com...


I saw an interview with Tony Faulkner where he spoke about using omni's
spaced 67cm, with an ortf cardioid pair between them on a single bar
giving very good results.

Yes - there is a professional in my area who records regularly with two DAP
omnis (about $2700 apiece) spaced about 3 ft apart on a tall stand, and the
results are fantastic. I mean tight, pinpoint imaging with no lack of
centerfill and as wide as the whole front of my room. Just glorious,
wonderful sound.

Gary Eickmeier