[[email protected]]

I have an ME64 that I've mostly used for mic'ing at closer distances of
2' to 6', and the mic has worked out okay for that.

But lately I've tried it as a mono room mic, in both a medium room
and a large room. I have noticed something unusual
upon listening back to the recordings, but I can't really
put my finger on it. Best I can describe it is it has a
vague hollow sound, which seems to vary, getting
quite light in effect and then coming on stronger, and
then down again. Seems to take away the clarity of
spoken word. Seem to notice it more with low
frequencies. The effect is kind of like when you have a bit of water
in your ears, that it affects the clarity of everything till the water
drains out. The effect I'm hearing seems like a pressure.

Like I said, it's hard to describe but from what I've put
forth here does this sound like classic poor
off-axis handling? I don't know what else it could be, otherwise.

Is there anything in the manufacturers specs which
helps to indicate how well a mic handles off-axis
frequencies?

[Don Pearce]

On 30 Sep 2006 04:18:47 -0700, wrote:

I have an ME64 that I've mostly used for mic'ing at closer distances of
2' to 6', and the mic has worked out okay for that.

But lately I've tried it as a mono room mic, in both a medium room
and a large room. I have noticed something unusual
upon listening back to the recordings, but I can't really
put my finger on it. Best I can describe it is it has a
vague hollow sound, which seems to vary, getting
quite light in effect and then coming on stronger, and
then down again. Seems to take away the clarity of
spoken word. Seem to notice it more with low
frequencies. The effect is kind of like when you have a bit of water
in your ears, that it affects the clarity of everything till the water
drains out. The effect I'm hearing seems like a pressure.

Like I said, it's hard to describe but from what I've put
forth here does this sound like classic poor
off-axis handling? I don't know what else it could be, otherwise.

Is there anything in the manufacturers specs which
helps to indicate how well a mic handles off-axis
frequencies?

Well, you're not alone. Here you can listen to the difference between
a Sennheiser mic from this series and a very old ribbon. Just me
talking briefly.

http://81.174.169.10/

No contest

d

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

[Laurence Payne]

On 30 Sep 2006 04:18:47 -0700, wrote:

Best I can describe it is it has a
vague hollow sound, which seems to vary, getting
quite light in effect and then coming on stronger, and
then down again. Seems to take away the clarity of
spoken word. Seem to notice it more with low
frequencies. The effect is kind of like when you have a bit of water
in your ears, that it affects the clarity of everything till the water
drains out. The effect I'm hearing seems like a pressure.

Maybe you're just hearing the room's effect at different frequencies?
Any reason you can't move the mic closer? That's the standard
solution for nasty room effects.

[Jürgen Schöpf]

wrote:

Is there anything in the manufacturers specs which
helps to indicate how well a mic handles off-axis
frequencies?


Manufacturers usually provide a polar pattern. The more apart the
different lines for different frequencies are, the more will off-axis
sound be non-linear, very roughly...
:-J

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:18:47 -0400, wrote
(in article .com):

I have an ME64 that I've mostly used for mic'ing at closer distances of
2' to 6', and the mic has worked out okay for that.

But lately I've tried it as a mono room mic, in both a medium room
and a large room. I have noticed something unusual
upon listening back to the recordings, but I can't really
put my finger on it. Best I can describe it is it has a
vague hollow sound, which seems to vary, getting
quite light in effect and then coming on stronger, and
then down again. Seems to take away the clarity of
spoken word. Seem to notice it more with low
frequencies. The effect is kind of like when you have a bit of water
in your ears, that it affects the clarity of everything till the water
drains out. The effect I'm hearing seems like a pressure.

Like I said, it's hard to describe but from what I've put
forth here does this sound like classic poor
off-axis handling? I don't know what else it could be, otherwise.

Is there anything in the manufacturers specs which
helps to indicate how well a mic handles off-axis
frequencies?


I'm guessing that your hearing is getting better. (Hopefully) that happens
over time. Your hearing more room (indirect sound) and less source (direct
sound).

Again, my mantra is, don't use interference tube shotguns for interiors, use
hyper or super cardioids.

What you're hearing is not poor off-axis response, it's off-axis response
period.

Any shotgun will do this. And if the environment is slappy enough and you're
far enough away from the source, a hyper or super will as well.

If you'd like to hear the difference and see why, go to my website, click on
the online archive open the VIDEO folder and download the Ty Ford Mic
Tutorial.mp4. Listen (and watch) with headphones on. My video explains the
whole thing and you can HEAR exactly what the problems (and solutions) are.

Regards,

Ty Ford




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

[Lorin David Schultz]

Ty Ford wrote:

Again, my mantra is, don't use interference tube shotguns for
interiors, use hyper or super cardioids.


The 64 is cardioid. Besides, any directional mic is an interference
tube, isn't it?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[[email protected]]

I'm wondering what is actually going on with the sound
waves when the interference tube mic's have that
hollow sound?

[Scott Dorsey]

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

Again, my mantra is, don't use interference tube shotguns for
interiors, use hyper or super cardioids.

The 64 is cardioid. Besides, any directional mic is an interference
tube, isn't it?

No. Most directional mikes get directionality by venting behind the
diaphragm. An interference tube system gets directionality with tuned
ports in front of the diaphragm.

SOME systems, like the new Schoeps "shotgun" use both.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I'm wondering what is actually going on with the sound
waves when the interference tube mic's have that
hollow sound?

It's comb filtering. Look at the narrowband response of an interference
tube mike. Or read Sank's original paper on the things, which is probably
in the AES Microphone Compendium.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:59:31 -0400, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article 7NBTg.4963$N4.3788@clgrps12):

Ty Ford wrote:

Again, my mantra is, don't use interference tube shotguns for
interiors, use hyper or super cardioids.


The 64 is cardioid. Besides, any directional mic is an interference
tube, isn't it?



if you want to define interference tube that way, go ahead. I don't.

Regards,
Ty Ford



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

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:22:43 -0400, wrote
(in article . com):

I'm wondering what is actually going on with the sound
waves when the interference tube mic's have that
hollow sound?


It's not what's going on in the tube as much as it is the fact that
interference tube mics are mics non-directional at mid and low freqs. You're
hearing wall, ceiling, floor, window, driveway bounce at those frequencies.

Regards,

Ty Ford



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

[[email protected]]

It's comb filtering. Look at the narrowband response of an interference
tube mike. Or read Sank's original paper on the things, which is probably
in the AES Microphone Compendium.


Could it be comb filtering going on with the ME64 that
caused the hollow sound I heard?

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
It's comb filtering. Look at the narrowband response of an interference
tube mike. Or read Sank's original paper on the things, which is probably
in the AES Microphone Compendium.

Could it be comb filtering going on with the ME64 that
caused the hollow sound I heard?

Maybe. The ME64 is a lousy-sounding mike. But it might also be reproducing
a lousy-sounding room too. Comb filtering due to standing waves in a room is
very common also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

the fact that interference tube mics are mics non-directional at mid and low freqs.


Is it the same with hypers, that they are only directional at
mid and low?

[[email protected]]

the fact that interference tube mics are non-directional at mid and low freqs.

Is it the same with hypers, that they are not directional at mids and
lows?

[Lorin David Schultz]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

No. Most directional mikes get directionality by venting behind
the diaphragm. An interference tube system gets directionality
with tuned ports in front of the diaphragm.



Really? The capsule of my ME80 isn't at the end of the mic? I always
figgered all them little slots *were* vents to the back of the capsule.

I don't learn something new EVERY day, but I did today! Thanks Scott!

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Lorin David Schultz]

Ty Ford wrote:

if you want to define interference tube that way, go ahead. I
don't.


Naw, turns out I was just wrong. That happens a lot.

I has been korrected.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[[email protected]]

Comb filtering due to standing waves in a room is
very common also.

Thanks, Scott.

What properties can I look for in a mono mic model that will
better handle comb filtering of standing waves, so as to
avoid the hollow sound?

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 04:44:41 -0400, wrote
(in article . com):

the fact that interference tube mics are mics non-directional at mid and
low freqs.


Is it the same with hypers, that they are only directional at
mid and low?


Well, sort of. The plots that are published show a minimal amount of detail,
typically. Specifically, what is it you want to know?

Regards,

Ty Ford

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

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 05:37:08 -0400, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article 855Ug.49663$cz3.4037@edtnps82):

Scott Dorsey wrote:

No. Most directional mikes get directionality by venting behind
the diaphragm. An interference tube system gets directionality
with tuned ports in front of the diaphragm.



Really? The capsule of my ME80 isn't at the end of the mic? I always
figgered all them little slots *were* vents to the back of the capsule.

I don't learn something new EVERY day, but I did today! Thanks Scott!

Lorin,

The only shotguns I know about that don't have the element at the bottom of
the tube are Pearls and the Sanken CS-3.

Regards,

Ty Ford


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

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
the fact that interference tube mics are non-directional at mid and low freqs.

Is it the same with hypers, that they are not directional at mids and
lows?

Look at the data sheet. The lowest frequency at which it retains
directionality depends a lot on the capsule design. But everything is
an omni when you get low enough.

You really might want to read a good introduction to microphones, like the
Focal Press book.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

What properties can I look for in a mono mic model that will
better handle comb filtering of standing waves, so as to
avoid the hollow sound?

If it's a room problem, there is nothing you can do to the mike to reduce it,
other than to use a more directional mike to get less room sound.

This is why there is a difference between $20/hr. studios and $200/hr studios.
It's the room.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

The only shotguns I know about that don't have the element at the bottom of
the tube are Pearls and the Sanken CS-3.


Does this mean that the CS-3 and the Pearls would be better
for indoor usage, getting less of the indoor hollow sound, than other
shotguns?

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 05:22:48 -0400, wrote
(in article .com):

The only shotguns I know about that don't have the element at the bottom of
the tube are Pearls and the Sanken CS-3.


Does this mean that the CS-3 and the Pearls would be better
for indoor usage, getting less of the indoor hollow sound, than other
shotguns?


Not necessarily, but maybe. A lot depends on how bad the room bounce is. The
Pearl has multiple capsules fitted into the tube. I have reviews of each mic
in my online archive.

Regards,

Ty Ford


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

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
The only shotguns I know about that don't have the element at the bottom of
the tube are Pearls and the Sanken CS-3.

Does this mean that the CS-3 and the Pearls would be better
for indoor usage, getting less of the indoor hollow sound, than other
shotguns?

No.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

I just read a user experience on another forum that the
CS-3 is much better than the 416 and Schoeps shotgun
at pulling usable dialog in difficult indoor situations where
there is a lot of ambiant garbage.

[Lorin David Schultz]

wrote:

I just read a user experience on another forum that the
CS-3 is much better than the 416 and Schoeps shotgun
at pulling usable dialog in difficult indoor situations where
there is a lot of ambiant garbage.

So what? My DeWalt is better for drilling holes, too. Neither has
anything to do with YOUR situation.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I just read a user experience on another forum that the
CS-3 is much better than the 416 and Schoeps shotgun
at pulling usable dialog in difficult indoor situations where
there is a lot of ambiant garbage.

Damn near anything will work better than a typical shotgun at getting
usable dialogue in indoor situations with a lot of ambient noise. It
is NOT the right tool for the job and it is probably the worst possible
tool for the job. Shotguns indoors are really a terrible mistake.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."