Hahaha! You're so funny!
----- Original Message ----- From: "Neal Ewers" <neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:57 AM
Subject: [bct] Re: Observations on the Church Audio microphones
Dan, you said, "A real test would be for her to go outside at night and record crickets." The only problem with that is that she would then have to some how entice the same crickets to come into her house so we could compare inside and outside. Anyone have a cricket caller? Chirp. Chirp. Or is that Crick, Crick?
-----Original Message----- From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The Scarlet Wombat Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:50 AM To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bct] Re: Observations on the Church Audio microphones
The things, Neal, if a high end sound is hearable with the ears, I would
think that the mike, plus or minus its own high end response characteristics, would hear them, especially if it were omni.
Interestingly, I did not hear excessive liveness in DB's office, so am wondering if the enclosed space can account for the high end difference.
A real test would be for her to go outside at night and record crickets,
they have a lot of high end in their cricking and perhaps that would tell. I heard a good deal of highs in your mike review when you did the
mid-side example outside at night, I think it was. Of course, we can't really compare mikes of such disparate price ranges, but I really do
wonder about the seeming difference between in and out.
But, since it obviously happened, perhaps you are right and I need more Wheaties with Scotch, breakfast of champions.