MS mics placement

[molke]

And that's the big IF. I claim that in order to linearize the frequency response, designers have to apply acoustico-mechanical "tricks", that result in partial integration. because it's clear that the LF response of dynamic mics is restricted. Of course these "tricks" have to be different for condenser and dynamic mics.

Just to illustrate the point (again). With a more complete model (which certainly doesn’t cover everything encountered with real microphones), lower damping and for different resonance frequencies, the phase difference (black) between dynamic (blue) and condenser (red) is obviously 90°.

With a higher damping (factor 40), the phase difference is still 90°, but the amplitude response of the dynamic omni seems much more usable.

If I arbitrarily pick the two textbook solutions (dynamic/mid-tuned/higher damping and condenser/high-tuned/lower damping), I’ll get the following.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

With a higher damping (factor 40), the phase difference is still 90°, but the amplitude response of the dynamic omni seems much more usable.
If I arbitrarily pick the two textbook solutions (dynamic/mid-tuned/higher damping and condenser/high-tuned/lower damping), I’ll get the following.

View attachment 114380

Thanks for this molke. It perfectly illustrates the fact that the phase difference happens only at VLF (an area unsignificant for spatialization) and the top octave of the audio spectrum, where it may matter, but other factors are probably equally important (diffraction boost, secondary resonances, headbasket reflections...), all producing phase rotations that are detrimental to maintaining coherence between mics.