SOUND ON SOUND

[Sam Spoons]

Apparently it's a supercardioid so it picks up from 360º

https://www.facebook.com/samsysmicrophone/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARAmFtePHHgGOlWCOGiq2MfAonBykaltaNSlg-t3vRssL4zpeJdKhvB3Qu7zFVFjDgApIgvWuRDqXvrONRGriKfSwIuxYPGDVhIVQcE&hc_ref=ARQjcx4rgHyf3GKbh3M0KvxTDteegqfzZZCMwbCTrhn98CCacPyF8coCIW2Q_0AMZMk&fref=nf

[Wonks]

Strictly speaking it's true. The nulls on a hyper-cardioid aren't full zero nulls, but are just very much less sensitive. But they will still pick up a little bit.

Not overly cheap, so hopefully it gives a good sound. £117.75 for a 12" at Gear4music - though they currently have a sale on the 10" version for £49.

It should also act a bit like a beam blocker.

[Sam Spoons]

Yup, it should, except, though I have one, I don't think beam blockers work. WRT the mic it's far too close to be useful for recording and even for live use will seriously compromise the sound, (I would alter their "always in the right place" comment to "never in....."

The biggest laugh though was the aforementioned omnidirectional super-cardioid polar pattern.......

[Wonks]

I have a Weber beam blocker on one 1x12" amp and it certainly does something. It's definitely better with than without it, though I can't say exactly how effective it is at stopping all directional 'beaming'

Even with the angled mic placement, I was thinking that it would be too close to the cone to capture anything more than the sound from the edge of the dust cap, rather than be able to see the at least some of the cone itself.

I'd also imagine that despite the capsule being a hyper-cardioid design, having what I assume is a solid back to the capsule enclosure, will modify that polar pattern; somewhat akin to cupping your hand to the back of an SM58 and creating basically a near-omni mic pattern as a result. The 'pepper pot' holes may mitigate this to some extent. Paul White didn't comment on the actual polar pattern at all in his review.https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/samsystems-integral

[Sam Spoons]

Ah, will read review later :thumbup:

Live I accept the compromises and stick a mic on the grill cloth but for recording the difference moving the mic 3-4" away from the speaker is dramatic.

I have the Weber beam blocker, and yes it does something (possibly even something useful) but I believe the HF 'beam' is caused but the focusing effect of the sound energy emanating from edges of the cone. Long ago I was going to experiment with a sort of 'inverse' beam blocker, the theory being that a disk of something that reduced the HF (acoustic foam in this case) but with a small hole in the centre would cause the HF to diffract passing through the hole and reduce the beam.

[Wonks]

Yes, I believe the acoustic foam 'doughnut' is supposed to be more effective. I was buying a Weber solid-state 'valve' rectifier from the US, so decided to try a beam blocker while I was at it.

Mic position changes of even 1cm can make a big difference to the sound. I winced at one of the Integral miking comparison videos where they compared it against an SM57 (which was pointing at a point 1/2 way from the centre of the cone) and an AKG414 (which was about pointed about 2/3 the way out). :headbang:

[blinddrew]

Long ago I was going to experiment with a sort of 'inverse' beam blocker, the theory being that a disk of something that reduced the HF (acoustic foam in this case) but with a small hole in the centre would cause the HF to diffract passing through the hole and reduce the beam.

I didn't think HF diffracted much anyway? I seem to recall that from my recent bedroom reading.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Tiz all to do with the size of the wavelength relative to the size of the objects, innit?

[Sam Spoons]

Given that 2" wavelength radio waves and 2" dia. scaff poles don't mix (as I found to my cost a few years ago) I'd say that's about right :headbang: