Cardioids crossed at 90 degrees

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by James Boyk, Aug 21, 2003.

  1. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    Somone mentioned a new stereo mike that embodies coincident cardioids crossed at 90 degrees. I find it odd to use this arrangement, since the stereo given by this arrangement is much too narrow, and is also irregular in movement across the stage. This has
    been noted by others in the group in other contexts, and is also shown in the stereo miking demo recording made in my lab.

    On the other hand, what should the mike be instead? If it were ORTF--arguably the best you can do if you're confined to cardioids--it would be physically more awkward, and probably more vulnerable to damage. But perhaps 120 degrees would have been usefully
    better. As long as they were at it, though, why not make a coincident, 90-degree pair of condenser....figure-8's? Even go all the way and make single-diaphragm fig-8's, like the Schoeps MK-8.

    James Boyk
  2. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote:
    >Somone mentioned a new stereo mike that embodies coincident cardioids crossed at 90 degrees. I find it odd to use this arrangement, since the stereo given by this arrangement is much too narrow, and is also irregular in movement across the stage. This has

    been noted by others in the group in other contexts, and is also shown in the stereo miking demo recording made in my lab.
    >
    >On the other hand, what should the mike be instead? If it were ORTF--arguably the best you can do if you're confined to cardioids--it would be physically more awkward, and probably more vulnerable to damage. But perhaps 120 degrees would have been usefull

    y better. As long as they were at it, though, why not make a coincident, 90-degree pair of condenser....figure-8's? Even go all the way and make single-diaphragm fig-8's, like the Schoeps MK-8.

    With a single point stereo mike, you are confined to either an M-S pair or
    to cardioids. Something like an ORTF pair is too cumbersome to be practical;
    it kills the convenience that is the main reason for using a stereo mike.

    In the case of cardioids, the angle should be adjustable, as in the Nevaton
    microphone. But if it can't be adjustable, 120' seems like a good start.

    There are some coincident figure-8 microphones out there. Most of them
    are ribbon designs, though, since it's hard to make good small condenser
    figure-8s.
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  3. Narrow stereo is more interesting than mono. The Rode NT4 is the priced like
    a mono mic but sounds much better being crossed cardioids at 90. I agree
    that for a single point stereo mic to create an accurate linear image and
    positioning of sources it is not the best, but I think this is not its
    intended purpose.

    Regards
    David

    "James Boyk" <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote in message
    news:bi3afj$t2g$1@naig.caltech.edu...
    > Somone mentioned a new stereo mike that embodies coincident cardioids

    crossed at 90 degrees. I find it odd to use this arrangement, since the
    stereo given by this arrangement is much too narrow, and is also irregular
    in movement across the stage. This has been noted by others in the group in
    other contexts, and is also shown in the stereo miking demo recording made
    in my lab.
    >
    > On the other hand, what should the mike be instead? If it were

    ORTF--arguably the best you can do if you're confined to cardioids--it would
    be physically more awkward, and probably more vulnerable to damage. But
    perhaps 120 degrees would have been usefully better. As long as they were at
    it, though, why not make a coincident, 90-degree pair of
    condenser....figure-8's? Even go all the way and make single-diaphragm
    fig-8's, like the Schoeps MK-8.
    >
    > James Boyk
    >
  4. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    David Spearritt <spam@just.try.it> wrote:
    >Narrow stereo is more interesting than mono. The Rode NT4 is the priced like
    >a mono mic but sounds much better being crossed cardioids at 90. I agree
    >that for a single point stereo mic to create an accurate linear image and
    >positioning of sources it is not the best, but I think this is not its
    >intended purpose.


    What intended purpose does it HAVE then?
    --scott


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

    Jim Weld Guest

    If you're not strictly talking about small cardioids, then you have a few
    figure-8 stereo mics out there. I have used the Neumann tube sm-69 (there
    is also a fet version still available). There are also vintage AKG c-442
    and c-34(c34 is a small capsule). These are all dual-diaphragm
    multi-pattern mics. Blumlein or modified Blumlein is my favorite stereo
    miking arrangement. For the coincident pair in figure 8, I get a very
    natural left-to-right image with less than 90 degrees spread. (usually
    about 75-80 degrees)

    Single diaphragm mics like the Schoeps roll-off very quickly on the bottom,
    but otherwise probably sound pretty good.

    Jim Weld

    "James Boyk" <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote in message
    news:bi3afj$t2g$1@naig.caltech.edu...
    > Somone mentioned a new stereo mike that embodies coincident cardioids

    crossed at 90 degrees. I find it odd to use this arrangement, since the
    stereo given by this arrangement is much too narrow, and is also irregular
    in movement across the stage. This has been noted by others in the group in
    other contexts, and is also shown in the stereo miking demo recording made
    in my lab.
    >
    > On the other hand, what should the mike be instead? If it were

    ORTF--arguably the best you can do if you're confined to cardioids--it would
    be physically more awkward, and probably more vulnerable to damage. But
    perhaps 120 degrees would have been usefully better. As long as they were at
    it, though, why not make a coincident, 90-degree pair of
    condenser....figure-8's? Even go all the way and make single-diaphragm
    fig-8's, like the Schoeps MK-8.
    >
    > James Boyk
    >
  6. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    Try Blumlein (coincident figure-8's crossed at 90 degrees) with ribbons sometime. It is a revelation after using condensers. I would go so far as to say that Blumlein can't really be done with condensers; not because they're condensers, mind you, but becau
    se they have off-axis anomalies due to their disk-shaped relatively large diaphragms.

    James Boyk
  7. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    Scott Dorsey wrote: With a single point stereo mike, you are confined to either an M-S pair or to cardioids.

    I don't follow this. They could certainly be hyper-cardioids or super-cardioids, or figure-8's. Did you mis-state what you meant?

    James Boyk
  8. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote:
    >Try Blumlein (coincident figure-8's crossed at 90 degrees) with ribbons sometime. It is a revelation after using condensers. I would go so far as to say that Blumlein can't really be done with condensers; not because they're condensers, mind you, but beca

    use they have off-axis anomalies due to their disk-shaped relatively large diaphragms.

    This is precisely why the Pearl and Milab guys have gone to those goofy
    rectangular diaphragms. Kavi Alexander built a stereo mike using them, and
    some of the later incarnations sounded pretty good.

    What is with the lack of carriage returns? Your messages were always formatted
    properly before. Has something changed today?
    --scott

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

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    In article <bi3gg3$308$2@naig.caltech.edu>,
    James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote:
    >Scott Dorsey wrote: With a single point stereo mike, you are confined to either an M-S pair or to cardioids.
    >
    >I don't follow this. They could certainly be hyper-cardioids or super-cardioids, or figure-8's. Did you mis-state what you meant?


    Well, I was considering hypercardioids and supercardioids as basically being
    subsets of that whole cardioid thing. Either way, it's a coincident pair of
    directional mikes.

    Figure-8s are sort of a different and third sort of thing.
    --scott

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

    Jim Weld Guest

    Thanks for the info. Once again I misunderstood the post. Also, I like a
    "modified Blumlein" pattern using two figure eight mics with about 6-7
    inches between capsules. Also aimed about 75 degrees. Good at a distance.


    "James Boyk" <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote in message
    news:bi3gd7$308$1@naig.caltech.edu...
    > Try Blumlein (coincident figure-8's crossed at 90 degrees) with ribbons

    sometime. It is a revelation after using condensers. I would go so far as to
    say that Blumlein can't really be done with condensers; not because they're
    condensers, mind you, but because they have off-axis anomalies due to their
    disk-shaped relatively large diaphragms.
    >
    > James Boyk
    >
  11. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    Scott Dorsey wrote: This is precisely why the Pearl and Milab guys have gone to those goofy
    rectangular diaphragms. Kavi Alexander built a stereo mike using them, and
    some of the later incarnations sounded pretty good.

    The problem is created not by the diaphragm's shape but by its dimensions. Unless the rectangular condensers are very narrow--as narrow as ribbons--they will still have the same problem.


    > What is with the lack of carriage returns? Your messages were always formatted
    > properly before. Has something changed today?


    Hmm. Sorry. I haven't changed anything. Mail I'm receiving today looks funny, too.

    James Boyk
  12. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    Jim Weld wrote: > Thanks for the info. Once again I misunderstood the post. Also, I like a
    > "modified Blumlein" pattern using two figure eight mics with about 6-7
    > inches between capsules. Also aimed about 75 degrees. Good at a distance.


    More power to you, but puh-leeze don't call it a Blumlein of any sort. It has nothing to do with Blumlein.

    James Boyk
  13. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    Scott Dorsey wrote: Well, I was considering hypercardioids and supercardioids as basically being
    subsets of that whole cardioid thing.

    Sure.


    > Figure-8s are sort of a different and third sort of thing.


    That was my point. No reason the NT4 couldn't have been fig-8's.


    James Boyk
  14. Bob Ross

    Bob Ross Guest

    James Boyk wrote:

    > No reason the NT4 couldn't have been fig-8's.


    except perhaps for the omission of that extra zero in the price point?

    /Bob Ross
  15. ScotFraser

    ScotFraser Guest

    << Something like an ORTF pair is too cumbersome to be practical;
    it kills the convenience that is the main reason for using a stereo mike. >>

    The Schoeps ORTF body is pretty small & convenient. I believe it's the MTSC-3
    model, & takes the Collette series capsules.



    Scott Fraser
  16. James Boyk

    James Boyk Guest

    Bob Ross wrote: except perhaps for the omission of that extra zero in the price point?


    Are 8's inherently more expensive to make than cardioids? Why?


    James Boyk
  17. Bob Ross

    Bob Ross Guest

    James Boyk wrote:

    > Are 8's inherently more expensive to make than cardioids?


    Apparently

    > Why?


    I couldn't tell you. Conjecture suggests that the (relatively) more uniform polar
    response at all frequencies that is typical of bidirectional mics doesn't come cheap, but
    that's just a guess. Perhaps Dave Josephson or Taylor Johnson or Skipper Wise or (etc
    etc) would care to chime in on this issue?

    /Bob
  18. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    Bob Ross <b.ross@verizon.net> wrote:
    >James Boyk wrote:
    >
    >> No reason the NT4 couldn't have been fig-8's.

    >
    >except perhaps for the omission of that extra zero in the price point?


    The way I figure it is that if Schoeps can't make a good small diaphragm
    figure-8 at THEIR price point, how can we expect Rode to do so?
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  19. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
    ><< Something like an ORTF pair is too cumbersome to be practical;
    >it kills the convenience that is the main reason for using a stereo mike. >>
    >
    >The Schoeps ORTF body is pretty small & convenient. I believe it's the MTSC-3
    >model, & takes the Collette series capsules.


    Okay, YOU can hang off the back of a motorcycle with it next time.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  20. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote:
    >Bob Ross wrote: except perhaps for the omission of that extra zero in the price point?
    >
    >Are 8's inherently more expensive to make than cardioids? Why?


    For condenser mikes? Yes, when they are even possible to make.
    Matching between the two sides is extremely critical.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Share This Page