From: lnz@lucid.com (Leonard N. Zubkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Help sought on choosing microphones
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:49:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: lucid.1992Apr7.194949.6256
Organization: Lucid, Inc.

In article <TONYB.92Apr7133251@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke ) writes:

   I'm curious to hear exactly what was wrong with your SASSP.  While I thought that
   mine was a bit flimsy for an $850 (list) item, it was pretty well put together
   and has performed well.  The Mk II version is supposed to have, according to
   Bruce Bartlett, "A more open (and less harsh) uppper midrange".  If that is true,
   it would address one of my only complaints about the device.

This was a SASS-P Mk II version from a local dealer.  The particular flaw was
that the foam was significantly thicker *nearl 1/4 inch or so) on one side than
the other, and the thicker foam had permanent circular indentations in it.  I
decided that given that the unit had easily noticible cosmetic flaws that had
escaped quality control, I did not want to risk it having acoustic or
electronic flaws as well, this being about three days before I needed to use it
live, and with no good way to verify its performance beforehand.

   As for your particular application, I have to agree with your ex-post-facto
   conclusion that perhaps ORTF makes more sense.  The Crown picks up a great
   deal of hall ambience (even when in pretty close to the performance).  That's
   fine if the hall sounds nice and the audience is quiet, but I've had trouble
   in situations where that wasn't the case.

Indeed, judging after the fact by comparing the results of my Jecklin Disc with
the ORTF configuration, I'm much more pleased with the latter.  The ORTF
configuration seemed to pick up just enough audience response in the places
where it was appropriate.  Actually, looking at the response curves of ORTF
versus SASS they both extend somewhat backward of the mics.  I think the major
difference is that I could place the ORTF mics much closer (3-4 ft) from the
performers than the 8-10 ft you've mentioned that the SASS needs.

   I just got a cut-sheet on the AT-4033 from Full Compass.  If AT isn't fudging
   the data, the off-axis response (60 degrees) that they publish is quite amazing.
   And the things are cheap as hell!  Kinda noisy, though.

Yes, I got that same cut sheet from Audio-Technica.  My only concern is that at
60 degrees, there looks to be a 3-4dB peak at 8kHz and up.  I don't know how
this will compare to the C460B, which actually looks a bit more uniform in that
frequency range, and dips at 16 kHz rather than peaks.  As for noise, how much
practical difference is there between 14 and 17 dB-A, and S/N ratios of 80dB
versus >= 77dB?  At least for my purposes, where the performers are relatively
close and not terribly quiet, I don't think it will matter.  It still is
significantly quieter than the SASS-P at 20.5 dB-A.

The other point that's been raised is the tradeoff between getting a used 414
vs. a new 460.  The 414 has deeper flatter bass response, but with its larger
diaphram probably won't have the transient response of the 460, and also has a
much less uniform off-axis response at high frequencies.  For guitar and
vocals, the transient response might be more important to me.  My hope is that
the AT-4033 might be the best of both worlds; it certainly looks to have good
bass response, and they claim great transient response due to the 2 micron
diaphram.  Does anyone know how the diaphram is constructed on the 414?

		Leonard