I would think that one thing about PZMs is that since their polar pattern is a nice, even hemisphere, you can't get the 'natural panning' that's so easy with cardioid pattern mics - I'm speaking of easily getting a nice, natural-sounding stereo field.
You know -- the cardioid pattern has that smooth sensitivity rolloff as a source continues off-axis, so that if you use two coincident cardioids that are angled 60-or-so degrees to each other, it 'automatically pans' left and right things into a natural-sounding 'spot' in the stereo field. There's technically one optimal angle for any matched coincident cardioid pair - at a given frequency - where if you mix to mono, the added-up sensitivity for a source in the center of the pair is equal to what it would add-up to on-axis to either... did I say that right?. I think it's pretty cool the way that works out. Going with coincident lessens the chance of phase problems if the song is played back in monaural.
When it comes to creating a believeable stereo field with PZMs, I think you're mostly working with arrival time differences between the two mics; not as much volume differences like a pan-knob or coincident cardioids (of course with NOT-coincident cardioids, you can use BOTH psycoacoustic locational cues).
I can see why one would want to use PZMs on a drum screen - if he were forced to use a drum screen for a recording - because a PZM essentially 'illiminates' the surface it's attached to when it comes to reflections off that surface. I'd think that a hard screen like that would cause problems for other mics because of the short-path reflections that would cause that comb-filter interference in the high frequencies (cymbols especially). I don't know - I wonder if you almost have to use PZMs instead of conventional overheads to avoid the swishy, phasing sound, if the screen goes up very high. I'd think the phasor-swish would be worst-case with cymbols because of how they can physically swing-around after being struck!
I think I remember hearing somewhere that - for a while at least - Phil Collins was in to using two PZMs for his whole set, and he's been known for a pretty powerful sort of drum sound (not real powerful SONGS, compared to Genisis, if you ask me...).
Like Passinwind said though: for more distant-miking, I'm sure you have to have a good-sounding room to start with - especially with PZMs. Due to that non-directional hemispheric pickup response, you're getting the whooooole room in there with them. That's a freaky thing with PZMs - you put one on one wall of a rectangular room, and there is no sound source in the room that's outside of the mic's 'optimal' sensitivity (of course, that's true with a regular omni too).
I've said for years though: For anyone on a super-tight budget, the best mic for the money is a Radio-Schlock PZM that's been hot-rodded by putting in a stack (2) of those batteries that gooses the condenser voltage up to.. what is it? - 18V or something like that (compared to the called-out AA's 1.5V). Back years ago at least, it mentioned that option - and the exact battery - right on the instruction sheet that came with them. It might not be the worst idea to buy a pair of the 'Schlocks just to experiment with. They might not be very well matched though.
Joe
