Topic: Microphone configurations for LD mics.

[Brian Skalinder]

I have a pair of AT3035's and was wondering about setting them up correctly. Which configuration is recommended?

There's no real "correct" configuration.  Some people prefer coincident techniques (XY, Blumlein, Mid-Side), others near-coincident (ORTF, DIN, AB, etc.).  Some people use "standard" configurations very specifically (e.g. precisely 17cm and 110º), while others use these "standard" configurations as a starting point and tweak the spacing or angle depending on the recording circumstances.  Best way to figure it out is to experiment as you go.  Try XY-90º to start, then next show try ORTF or DIN, etc.  You'll eventually figure out which configurations you prefer in which scenario.

Personally, I like LDs coincident (XY, Mid-Side, or Blumlein).

[Corbin]

Ok, so now that I'm in the right thread....

I have a pair of AT3035's and was wondering about setting them up correctly. Which configuration is recommended? I'm also wondering about the "LOW CUT" switch and the "PAD" switch. I have always used the low cut on (I think on is the correct way to put that.... it shows it cutting the low end, as opposed to a straight line) and used the -10dB pad. I'm wondering if I'm using those correctly as well.

Thanks for any help!

Butler.

I'm not sure about the lowcut switch Butler maybe someone else can explain it better.  But my guess would be that you want it flat, and not 'cutting' any of the low end.
Now that your using the FR2LE, I'm pretty sure that you shouldn't be running the -10db pad either.  Maybe Brian can confirm this, but it's my understanding that it's preferable to use the pad on your FR2LE rather than the mics...Something about degrading the signal before it even reaches your Fostex.  That's how I run my 660 (no pad on the mics, -20db pad on the 660)
A

[DSatz]

I can't tell how old the messages in this thread may be, so at the risk of replying to something that was posted in "aught-three" ... When sound is so loud that it threatens to overload the microphone's own electronics (a capsule is nearly impossible to overload with sound alone), use the pad in the microphone. It works between the capsule and the amplifier circuitry of the microphone.

But the pad in a microphone usually reduces the output of the capsule without affecting the (fixed) noise level of the mike's electronics. Thus it raises the microphone's noise level relative to its sensitivity. The pad at the input of a recorder generally doesn't have this problem, so if you can use the pad in (or at) the recorder, it's generally preferable.

Nowadays most microphones can handle such high sound pressure levels that the only times they actually overload are when the sound levels are actually hazardous to your hearing--or else when something else less obvious is going on, such as wind noise or inadequate powering.

Different scenario: If a recorder's inputs are being overloaded with the signals from the microphones, and the recorder has no pad, then it's better to buy in-line resistive pads and use them at the inputs of the recorder, rather than use the microphones' built-in pads for this purpose. Same reason as above: You'd be increasing the noise level of the recording.

In a pinch, however, a moderate amount of extra noise is preferable to overload distortion ("brickwalling")--so if you have no alternative, use the pads in the microphones, by all means.

--best regards

P.S.: Just to get back to the topic of this thread for a tiny moment: According to the gentlemen who developed the ORTF miking arrangement, large-diaphragm microphones shouldn't be used. Even small-diaphragm microphones that are "side addressed" should not be used. They have their reasons, which I can go into if anyone here is interested.

[crackmc]

I can't tell how old the messages in this thread may be

each post is date/time stamped at the top