Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Omni and room analysis

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:38:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

After extolling how well omnis sound in a good room, I had the chance to do
it again. The first concert in a brand new facility that sounded much like
the room I recorded last weekend. I looked forward to the same success,
but I had to guess. No rehearsal in the hall between the time I was called
and the performance.

After the second selection, I took advantage of a pause in the program to
pull down the 4006's and change to my "old reliable" CMC641's.

The hall sounded almost as good, a little mushier in the low mids. The
group was pushed back on the stage with the sound from the back rows lost
behind the proscenium. But those weren't the real problem.

When you scout a hall, also scout the audience.

I had forgotten that this was going to be an unruly group of high school
students--half a dozen different groups performing in sequence with people
coming in and out of the hall constantly during the performance, talking
(sometimes on cell phones), and generally overloading the sound from the
stage with sound from the audience.

I'd rather surgically remove the room and recreate it digitally than live
with all that racket.

More about : omni room analysis

May 11, 2005 5:38:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yes. and it is the important things like this that make a big
difference in a recording, as opposed to things like tantalum vs. Mylar
coupling caps in the mixer.

thanks
Mark
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:38:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:
> After extolling how well omnis sound in a good room, I had
the chance
> to do it again. The first concert in a brand new facility
that
> sounded much like the room I recorded last weekend. I
looked forward
> to the same success, but I had to guess. No rehearsal in
the hall
> between the time I was called and the performance.
>
> After the second selection, I took advantage of a pause in
the
> program to pull down the 4006's and change to my "old
reliable"
> CMC641's.
>
> The hall sounded almost as good, a little mushier in the
low mids.
> The group was pushed back on the stage with the sound from
the back
> rows lost behind the proscenium. But those weren't the
real problem.
>
> When you scout a hall, also scout the audience.

Or, never make the same mistake twice.

> I had forgotten that this was going to be an unruly group
of high
> school students--half a dozen different groups performing
in sequence
> with people coming in and out of the hall constantly
during the
> performance, talking (sometimes on cell phones), and
generally
> overloading the sound from the stage with sound from the
audience.
>
> I'd rather surgically remove the room and recreate it
digitally than
> live with all that racket.

Been there, done that. One reason why for my own work, I
record the performance a number of different ways - spaced
omnis, spaced cardioids, X-Y hypercardioids, lots of spot
mics including a PZM inside the piano plus a fat cardioid
stuffed up its foot, and a direct box or two.

Performances are dear but quality tracks of recording are
cheap. With non-destructive editing I get as many shots at
the mix as I need to take.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:55:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9653621D8104gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191...
> After extolling how well omnis sound in a good room, I had the chance to
do
> it again. The first concert in a brand new facility that sounded much
like
> the room I recorded last weekend. I looked forward to the same success,
> but I had to guess. No rehearsal in the hall between the time I was
called
> and the performance.
>
> After the second selection, I took advantage of a pause in the program to
> pull down the 4006's and change to my "old reliable" CMC641's.
>
> The hall sounded almost as good, a little mushier in the low mids. The
> group was pushed back on the stage with the sound from the back rows lost
> behind the proscenium. But those weren't the real problem.
>
> When you scout a hall, also scout the audience.
>
> I had forgotten that this was going to be an unruly group of high school
> students--half a dozen different groups performing in sequence with people
> coming in and out of the hall constantly during the performance, talking
> (sometimes on cell phones), and generally overloading the sound from the
> stage with sound from the audience.
>
> I'd rather surgically remove the room and recreate it digitally than live
> with all that racket.

maybe go with PZMs? the hemisphrical pickup placed tward the show can help
reject crowd noise
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:51:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TimPerry" <timperry@noaspamadelphia.net> wrote in
news:jNqdnVzsW-YMWB_fRVn-gw@adelphia.com:

>> I'd rather surgically remove the room and recreate it digitally than
>> live with all that racket.
>
> maybe go with PZMs? the hemisphrical pickup placed tward the show
> can help reject crowd noise

The Schoeps do the job well, except that I have to insert reverb later.

I have never liked the sound of PZM's. I can't describe it except to say
that they sound "undefined". Perhaps a fuzzy high end?
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:51:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The Schoeps do the job well, except that I have to insert reverb later.
>
>I have never liked the sound of PZM's. I can't describe it except to say
>that they sound "undefined". Perhaps a fuzzy high end?

Try the Schoeps boundary mikes. They still have the rising top octave
response, but they are a lot cleaner than the Crown stuff.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 2:11:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:52:56 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article <d65of8$eot$1@panix2.panix.com>):

> Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Schoeps do the job well, except that I have to insert reverb later.
>>
>> I have never liked the sound of PZM's. I can't describe it except to say
>> that they sound "undefined". Perhaps a fuzzy high end?
>
> Try the Schoeps boundary mikes. They still have the rising top octave
> response, but they are a lot cleaner than the Crown stuff.
> --scott
>

exactamundo!

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:32:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The Schoeps do the job well, except that I have to insert reverb
later.
> >
> >I have never liked the sound of PZM's. I can't describe it except
to say
> >that they sound "undefined". Perhaps a fuzzy high end?

> Try the Schoeps boundary mikes. They still have the rising top
octave
> response, but they are a lot cleaner than the Crown stuff.

Milab also makes a small boundary mic that sounds pretty good I
think, nice for ambience or I stick in on a piano lid sometimes. It
was an unwanted mic I picked up cheap, so every now and then I see
those wooden cased PZM's on ebay and get tempted (Akg or Sennheiser's?
I forget...)

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio/Fox News/M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:45:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"WillStG" <willstg@aol.com> wrote in news:1116261177.970561.276300
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Milab also makes a small boundary mic that sounds pretty good I
> think, nice for ambience or I stick in on a piano lid sometimes. It
> was an unwanted mic I picked up cheap, so every now and then I see
> those wooden cased PZM's on ebay and get tempted (Akg or Sennheiser's?
> I forget...)

Conversation continues about PZM's as main mics for live concert recording.
The initial comment was to use the flat side of the PZM toward the crowd to
reduce walla walla (my new RAP phrase of the week).

I'd have to use Lexan plates (because I'm not about to block the view of
the orchestra during a live concert).

I'd need to be sold on PZM's before I'd invest in a pair to replace the
likes of Schoeps and DPA. Is there a strong argument in their favor?
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 11:59:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Xns9658C90A92B7Agulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191>,
Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "WillStG" <willstg@aol.com> wrote in news:1116261177.970561.276300
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Milab also makes a small boundary mic that sounds pretty good I
> > think, nice for ambience or I stick in on a piano lid sometimes. It
> > was an unwanted mic I picked up cheap, so every now and then I see
> > those wooden cased PZM's on ebay and get tempted (Akg or Sennheiser's?
> > I forget...)
>
> Conversation continues about PZM's as main mics for live concert recording.
> The initial comment was to use the flat side of the PZM toward the crowd to
> reduce walla walla (my new RAP phrase of the week).
>
> I'd have to use Lexan plates (because I'm not about to block the view of
> the orchestra during a live concert).
>
> I'd need to be sold on PZM's before I'd invest in a pair to replace the
> likes of Schoeps and DPA. Is there a strong argument in their favor?


Try the Schoeps BLM.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:43:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:
> I wonder how well I could fake a pair of PZMs with two micro
lavaliers and
> gaffers tape? Perhaps a music stand for a base?

IIRC the Sanken "Rubber mount for COS-11's" is used to make a
boundary zone mic out of one of those puppies. Might be able to use it
with your lavaliers, if they are small enough (the COS-11's are very
small diameter.)About $10 each.
http://www.trewaudio.com/catalog/subcat122.htm

BTW even a Crown variety PZM works very very well for spot micing
French Horn, placed behind the player on a 4x8 gobo in a great hall.
Preferably with a Boulder mic pre, which made Tom Lazarus really happy
on a session I worked with him on back in the day.

Will Miho
NY Music and TV Audio Guy
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:41:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in
news:BEAEE32C.7FB2%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com:

> I -do- have the basic model of Crown's PZM stereo mic, the SASS (a
> fascinating amalgam of the concepts in ORTF/Binaural/Head/Jecklin) and
> -that- gets a lot of use including orchestral, especially in
> not-ideal-sounding spaces. Somehow they 'interpret' problem spaces in
> a way that translates well.

I wonder how well I could fake a pair of PZMs with two micro lavaliers and
gaffers tape? Perhaps a music stand for a base?
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:41:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in
>> fascinating amalgam of the concepts in ORTF/Binaural/Head/Jecklin) and
>> -that- gets a lot of use including orchestral, especially in
>> not-ideal-sounding spaces. Somehow they 'interpret' problem spaces in
>> a way that translates well.
>
>I wonder how well I could fake a pair of PZMs with two micro lavaliers and
>gaffers tape? Perhaps a music stand for a base?

You can do it pretty well if you make a non-PZM boundary mike with the
diaphragm perpendicular to the boundary. If you want to make the diaphragm
parallel to the boundary like a real PZM, it will take a little bit of machine
shop work to make a mount that will hold it at just the right position.

But I have done improvised boundary mikes by taping B&K 2615s to a big
plastic sheet before, and it works well enough.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:57:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news:D 6cnkh$sdq$1@panix2.panix.com:

> You can do it pretty well if you make a non-PZM boundary mike with the
> diaphragm perpendicular to the boundary. If you want to make the
> diaphragm parallel to the boundary like a real PZM, it will take a
> little bit of machine shop work to make a mount that will hold it at
> just the right position.

Parallel to the boundary would imply that I'd need to point the mike down
at the surface. Or could I point it up *through* the surface? I would
guess that having the body (tiny as it is) between the mic and the boundary
would screw up the boundary effects.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:57:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:

> Parallel to the boundary would imply that I'd need to point the mike down
> at the surface. Or could I point it up *through* the surface?

Yes, the boundry (surface) itself is the "pressure zone",
the place where the incident and reflected wave velocities
cancel and the pressure is doubled. A capsule that is flush
with the surface is more effective than the strange
cantilever design that holds it facing down with a gap
between it and the surface. All that does is offer
multi-paths to the sound entry point of the capsule and an
object, the cantilever, to diffract sound. These combine to
mess up wavelengths comparable to the cantilever's
dimensions and have no benefit despite all the hoopla to the
contrary.

If something other than a wall is used, like a disk, the
boundry thing only occurs for wavelengths quite a bit
smaller than the diameter of the disk. For wavelengths
comparable, it just creates multiple paths around the thing
that cause picket fence interference.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:59:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in
news:jay-11F255.07590517052005@news.stanford.edu:

>> I'd need to be sold on PZM's before I'd invest in a pair to replace
>> the likes of Schoeps and DPA. Is there a strong argument in their
>> favor?
>
> Try the Schoeps BLM.

That's just mean! Now I have to spend Schoeps prices as well as experiment
with the mike (TFIC).
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:41:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 00:57:37 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Or could I point it up *through* the surface?

Yes! The only penalty is that you can't sit the whole shebang
flat on the floor. So the "surface" part has to itself be big
enough at your wavelengths of interest, because the floor can't
be relied upon as an extension.

OTOH, a construction shallow enough as to be "flat" at its
lowest wavelengths, yet tall enough to include a mic, would
solve both issues. Maybe a very shallow wedge.

As always, you raise a very interesting question. And ya know,
the SASS isn't even all that big.... so maybe a floor mount,
with its relatively unrestricted size...

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:24:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in
news:1c6l81p96iv23v9meksaq1khdebp39k93m@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 18 May 2005 00:57:37 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Or could I point it up *through* the surface?
>
> Yes! The only penalty is that you can't sit the whole shebang
> flat on the floor. So the "surface" part has to itself be big
> enough at your wavelengths of interest, because the floor can't
> be relied upon as an extension.

Which is why I started with a "mini lavalier". There are some tiny ones.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:25:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:D 6eelb0epf@enews4.newsguy.com:

> If something other than a wall is used, like a disk, the
> boundry thing only occurs for wavelengths quite a bit
> smaller than the diameter of the disk. For wavelengths
> comparable, it just creates multiple paths around the thing
> that cause picket fence interference.

So the PZM's I see on flat panels a foot or two across are just baffled
omni microphones below 1 kHz or so?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:28:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:
>
> So the PZM's I see on flat panels a foot or two across are just baffled
> omni microphones below 1 kHz or so?

Yes, but more like below 4 or 5 kHz.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:24:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
>news:D 6eelb0epf@enews4.newsguy.com:
>
>> If something other than a wall is used, like a disk, the
>> boundry thing only occurs for wavelengths quite a bit
>> smaller than the diameter of the disk. For wavelengths
>> comparable, it just creates multiple paths around the thing
>> that cause picket fence interference.
>
>So the PZM's I see on flat panels a foot or two across are just baffled
>omni microphones below 1 kHz or so?

They are just omnis below 1 KHz or so. The lower the frequency, the
larger the baffle needs to be before you get any directionality.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:42:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:D 6g505014tv@enews1.newsguy.com:

> Carey Carlan wrote:
>>
>> So the PZM's I see on flat panels a foot or two across are just baffled
>> omni microphones below 1 kHz or so?
>
> Yes, but more like below 4 or 5 kHz.

So the question restarts. What good are PZM's anyway?

They have to be on the wall or floor to achieve the boundary effect. If I
don't have a wall or floor in the best location I'm relegated to second
best mic position. Only when I was recording in a school cafeteria with a
12 foot ceiling did I ever have a "boundary" anywhere near where a mic
should go.

I haven't spec'ed the Schoeps yet, but I know the Crown/Radio Shack units
don't employ the best capsules, so I'm recording through a second best mic.
That's THE most important criterion in my recording gear--the only
transducer in the chain.

Is the pressure zone effect worth these compromises?
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:42:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
>> Carey Carlan wrote:
>>>
>>> So the PZM's I see on flat panels a foot or two across are just baffled
>>> omni microphones below 1 kHz or so?
>>
>> Yes, but more like below 4 or 5 kHz.
>
>So the question restarts. What good are PZM's anyway?

They are good for eliminating slap echos from big surfaces.

>They have to be on the wall or floor to achieve the boundary effect. If I
>don't have a wall or floor in the best location I'm relegated to second
>best mic position. Only when I was recording in a school cafeteria with a
>12 foot ceiling did I ever have a "boundary" anywhere near where a mic
>should go.
>
>I haven't spec'ed the Schoeps yet, but I know the Crown/Radio Shack units
>don't employ the best capsules, so I'm recording through a second best mic.
>That's THE most important criterion in my recording gear--the only
>transducer in the chain.
>
>Is the pressure zone effect worth these compromises?

Every once in a while, when dealing with really bad rooms. It is a handy
thing to have in your kit. It's certainly not the first mike to buy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:26:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
> news:D 6g505014tv@enews1.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>Carey Carlan wrote:
>>
>>>So the PZM's I see on flat panels a foot or two across are just baffled
>>>omni microphones below 1 kHz or so?
>>
>>Yes, but more like below 4 or 5 kHz.
>
>
> So the question restarts. What good are PZM's anyway?

They eliminate a large reflecting surface by becoming part
of it. The only placement of an omni mic relative to a wall
for which the mic won't pick up both the direct sound and
the sound reflected from it with different phases is at the
surface of the wall. It still gets both but since they are
perfectly in phase there the result is a doubling of the
pressure sensitivity and no comb effects due to mixing
direct and reflected sources with phase differences. In
effect, the wall disappears with respect to first reflections.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:34:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 5/19/05 8:42 AM, in article
Xns965B589336138gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191, "Carey Carlan"
<gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
> news:D 6g505014tv@enews1.newsguy.com:
>
>> Carey Carlan wrote:
>>>
>>> So the PZM's I see on flat panels a foot or two across are just baffled
>>> omni microphones below 1 kHz or so?
>>
>> Yes, but more like below 4 or 5 kHz.
>
> So the question restarts. What good are PZM's anyway?

After 20 years of playing with them, They Are Unique in sound and the way
they 'hear' things. I reach for them regularly when an Omni doesn;t work
close-in or weird visually-stealth placement is mandated. Panic guerlla
recording gigs they;re lifesavers... A pair slapped up like paddles in front
of a drum set with a kick added has caved me more than once when an open
live 'real' take on the kit is warrented.


>
> They have to be on the wall or floor to achieve the boundary effect.

AT FREQS BELOW 1k OR SO... And it's what they do above that that is usually
why I'm reaching for one or two

If I
> don't have a wall or floor in the best location I'm relegated to second
> best mic position.

Assuming you;re going for something with serious low end directionality...
They HAVE the lo end, it doesn;t CLIFF, it SHELFS below the plate-mandated
frequency. Oddly, whatever Crown did to the SASS, it -Has- lo end...



> Only when I was recording in a school cafeteria with a
> 12 foot ceiling did I ever have a "boundary" anywhere near where a mic
> should go.
>
> I haven't spec'ed the Schoeps yet, but I know the Crown/Radio Shack units
> don't employ the best capsules,

There is no such thing as a CROWN/RS PZM for the last nearly 10 years...
You can get the equivalent from CROWN now. Yes the old ones were
less-than-great caps but they cost $50!!!



> Is the pressure zone effect worth these compromises?

Absolutely, once you know when and where that specific character is wanted.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:27:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:D 6j09j0uuh@enews4.newsguy.com:

> They eliminate a large reflecting surface by becoming part
> of it. The only placement of an omni mic relative to a wall
> for which the mic won't pick up both the direct sound and
> the sound reflected from it with different phases is at the
> surface of the wall. It still gets both but since they are
> perfectly in phase there the result is a doubling of the
> pressure sensitivity and no comb effects due to mixing
> direct and reflected sources with phase differences. In
> effect, the wall disappears with respect to first reflections.

Tell me three times and I get it. OK, I'll go get one or two and start
playing with them.
May 21, 2005 4:11:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d6j09j0uuh@enews4.newsguy.com>, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

> > So the question restarts. What good are PZM's anyway?
>
> They eliminate a large reflecting surface by becoming part
> of it. The only placement of an omni mic relative to a wall
> for which the mic won't pick up both the direct sound and
> the sound reflected from it with different phases is at the
> surface of the wall. It still gets both but since they are
> perfectly in phase there the result is a doubling of the
> pressure sensitivity and no comb effects due to mixing
> direct and reflected sources with phase differences. In
> effect, the wall disappears with respect to first reflections.
>
>
> Bob


Crown PZM's themselves have hemi-spherical (half circle) pickup
patterns.

If there's anyone out there that wants to try out a PZM like sound
without buying one, if you have something nice like a small condensor
KM-84, get it *very*, very close to a wall or a piece of glass, aiming
it directly at the wall - get it as close to the wall as possible
without the mic actually touching the wall, and you will have a better
sounding PZM than the ones Crown put out. The capsules in the Crowns I
have, the 30's, do not have a nice top end.




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 4:11:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"david" wrote ...
> If there's anyone out there that wants to try out a PZM like sound
> without buying one, if you have something nice like a small condensor
> KM-84, get it *very*, very close to a wall or a piece of glass, aiming
> it directly at the wall - get it as close to the wall as possible
> without the mic actually touching the wall, and you will have a better
> sounding PZM than the ones Crown put out.

Maybe. The cylinder formed by the radius of the mic capsule and
the distance to the plate (wall, etc.) forms a resonant space. With
small mic capsules, this can be engineered to be resonant at super-
sonic frequencies. But with larger mic capsules, resonant within
the desired bandpass. Or so goes the theory.
!