To expand on post #5, if the phase of the original mixed signal is "wide" as it will be with differing mic phase, the combination will result in a less pronounced interference pattern.
You could eliminate the kick interference pattern entirely by panning the two (different) kick mics hard R/L if your subs are not mono.
Cheers,
Art1)Won't the interference pattern only change and not disappear with panning? The sound waves of sub L would still "meet" the waves of sub R albeit with a frequency dependant delay.
2) The relative phase introduced would be like moving the speaker closer or farther to every boundary. For example 40 degrees of phase shift at about 40hz would be like moving the sub a meter closer/farther to every boundary. It will still interfere with the other sub and it's waves. The resulting pattern will be different than in the first situation but definitely not uniform.
3)This is only considering the phase difference introduced by the relative mic distances and type. You also get a different frequency response and the mics differing dynamic ability changing the relative output at any point in time which also influences your interference pattern.
1) Non-correlated sound signals reproduced through two speakers don't produce an interference pattern- use two different pink noise signals, no more comb filtering! "Eliminate" was probably too excessive a term, since both mics would be reproducing a similar signal, though with differing phase per frequency. "Sort of" non-correlated..
In the screen shot below, the phase of a dynamic Shure Beta 58A and a condenser Audio Technica AT 37 can be seen to go from 90 degrees difference in the low end to 0 degrees difference in the midrange- engaging a polarity reverse on one mic would make little or no difference in the LF level if they were combined- but the combined response will sound more "fat".
2) OK, now my head Hertz ;^).
3) And add in phase shift caused by different EQ, HP, etc.
Ever nearer to non-correlated signals...
