Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Jose's observations re: pieper barn tests

Starting with the specific characteristics of : localization, tonal quality, and material/spatial signatures (ambience, echoes, depth), i liked:

the #16 double boundary rig with the Rodes mics seemed to consistently stand out in many of the tests - esp. in terms of tonal quality. the dings seemed fuller, richer, wetter on the tests recorded w/this rig.

the T9-2 and T10-2 ORTF rig also stood out in some of these areas, esp. localization and tonal quality.

I also thought that many of the triple boundary rigs captured many of these characteristics well, although localization in the 8, 9, 3, and 4 positions seemed to be diminished - most likely due to the rear boundary.

1 comment:

us said...

Hi Jose--

I did a blind test (no video ID) of your three favorites and found that I could say which was which based on your descriptions,.. but it was surprisngly hard to discern the Parallel Boundary from the ORTF rig with 12" spread,Omni Mics and no Baffle. Made me realize that the localization of the the NT2000 Parallel Boundary rig is a little mushier and the ORTF a little more defined than I had previously concluded.

Think you might prefer the warmer mics? In terms of localization and the Parallel Boundary rigs, I found the Primo EM158 mics's higher, sharper , tonal emphasis to aid with identifying source placement. But in terms of listenability, I likes the Rode Parallel boundary Rig better.

Rob D.