The Mic Test Thread!

Rhythmschism

New member
It seems that the most common reason people come to this forum to is to find information relating to what mic is best, what would best fit their situation, what preamp would sound best with what mic, what mic sounds good for vocals and acoustic guitar, and how a mic sounds compared to another mic, the list goes on. The most common response is several individual's own opinion and personal experience with a particular mic/preamp/whatever. But ultimately, what matters most, is the actual sound that is produced. In this regard, I've personally found actual sound samples and audio applications to give me the best idea of how a mic behaves and sounds on various sources. I realize there are a gazillion variables that contribute to the sound of a particular recording other than the mic/preamp used, but nonethless I find it valuable to have some idea how a mic or preamps functions and the sound it is capable of producing.

So, what I am proposing, is that either in this thread or another thread, that everyone submit any and all audio clips where any microphones/preamps/relating gear is being used. A B comparisons, competing mic shootouts, preamp comparisons, nylon string acoustic vs steel string acoustic with the same mic, Behringer vs everything it copies, etc etc etc. Submit links to either one's own recordings, or other samples one has come across. The idea is to have as much audio reference material as possible in one thread.

Give as much information as possible. All gear used, signal chain, source, the room it was recorded in, and anything else you think is important. Even if you have the same mic that’s been posted 5 different times, post your recording/comparison anyway! Also, be sure to give credit for other's recordings.


What I have come across so far:

"The Listening Sessions"
http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/sessions.htm
Produced by Dan Richards and Rob Gainer
Engineered by Rob Gainer, Bruce Bailey, Dan Richards

Recorded and Edited at Sea Note Recording Studios
Sponsored by Digital Pro Sound


Mics used
ADK A-51
ADK S
ADK A-51sLE
ADK SC-T
ADK SL
ADK TL
ADK TC
ADK TT
AEA R84
AKG C414B TLII
AKG C414EB
AKG C414B-ULS
AKG C451E
AKG C451B
AKG C12VR
AKG SolidTube
AKG C 1000
AKG C-2000
AKG C 3000
AKG D 12
AKG D 112
Audio-Technica AT3031
Audio-Technica AT3032
Audio-Technica AT4041
Audio-Technica AT4047
Audio-Technica AT4050
Audio-Technica AT4040
Audio-Technica Pro25
Audix SCX-One
Avenson Audio STO-2 ( Stapes )
Avenson Audio Tube Cardioid
Behringer ECM8000
Behringer B1
Beyer M-160
Blue Baby Bottle
Blue Blueberry
Blue Dragonfly
Blue Mouse
Bridge Microphones BM1050 cardioid
Bridge Microphones BM1003 omni
Brauner Phantom C
Brauner Valet
CAD E-100
CAD M179
Crown 6-LPB PZM
Crown CM700
DPA 4011 (3511 Stereo Kit)
DPA 4061
DPA 3530A - 2 X 4006
DPA 3521 w/ 4021's
DPA 3552 w/ 4052's
Earthworks QTC1
Earthworks SR77
Earthworks SRO
EV RE-27
Groove Tubes GT 33
Groove Tubes GT 44
Josephson C-42MP
MBHO MBP 680
Mojave Audio MA100
MXL 990
MXL 603S
MXL V69 Mogami Edition
MXL V67
MXL 2001
MXL 2003
MXL 1006
Microtech Gefell M300
Microtech Gefell M295
Neumann TLM103
Neumann KM184
Oktava MC012
Oktava MK-319
Pearl CC22
Pearl CO22
RCA R77
Red5 Audio RV15
Red5 Audio RV10
Red5 Audio RV8
Red5 Audio RV4
Red5 Audio RVK7
Red5 Audio RVD1
Royer R-121
Røde NTK
Røde NT1000
Røde NT4
Røde NT5
Røde NT1-A
Røde NT3
Schoeps CMC64 MK4 ST
Schoeps CMC62S MK2 S
SE Electronics Z5600
SE Electronics Z3300
SE Electronics SE3600
SE Electronics SE1
Sennheiser MD-421 II
Sennheiser MD-504
Shure SM57
Shure SM58
Shure KSM141/SL ST
Shure KSM137/SL ST
Shure SM81
Shure KSM32
Soundelux U195
Sound Performance Lab 2275 Nugget
Stephen Paul mic
Studio Projects C1
Studio Projects C3
Studio Projects T3
Studio Projects B1
Studio Projects B3
Studio Projects TB-1
Studio Projects C4
Studio Projects LSD-2
Superlux CM-H8K/U/H/O
Superlux ECM-999
T.H.E. KA-04
T.H.E. TT-3M
Wagner U47

Preamps used
A Designs MP-1
AMS Neve 1073
AMS Neve 1081
Aphex Tube Essence
API 512C
API 212L
API 3124
API 528C
Aurora Audio GTQ2
Avalon VT-737-SP
Behringer UltraGain Pro Mic2200
Behringer Tube Ultragain T1953
Benchmark Media 420
Brent Averill 1272
Buzz Audio MA-2.2
Buzz Audio SA-1.1
DACS Clarity MicAmp
Dan Alexander Dual Class A
D.W. Fearn VT-1
Demeter HXM-1
Drawmer 1969
Drawmer MX60
Drawmer Tube Station
Earthworks 1022
ELBERG MP8
Focusrite ISA 428
Focusrite Voicemaster Pro
FMR Audio RNP 8380
Grace 101
Grace Lunatec V3
Great River MP-1NV
Great River MP-2
Groove Tubes Vipre
Groove Tubes Ditto
HHB Radius 40
Joe Meek MQ3
Joe Meek VC1QCS
Joe Meek VC6Q British Channel
Joe Meek VCTwinQcs
Joe Meek JM828
John Hardy M-1
Mackie VLZ
Manley SLAM!
Martech MSS-10
M-Audio Audio Buddy
M-Audio DMP3
M-Audio Tampa
MCI 500
MCI 600
Millennia HV-3D
Millennia M-2B
Neve 33122 - Brent Averill version
Neve 1272 - Brent Averill version
Oram MWS
Phoenix Audio (UK) DRS-2
Presonus Eureka
Rane MS 1b
Requisite Audio PAL Plus
Requisite Audio Y7 MkIV
Sebatron vmp-2000e
Sound Performance Lab 9844 GoldMike
Speck MicPre 5.0
Studio Projects VTB-1
Studio Projects VTB-2
Summit Audio 2BA-221
Summit Audio TD-100
Sytek MXP-4Aii
TC Electronic Gold Channel
TL Audio 5051 Ivory 2
TL Audio C1
TL Audio PA-1
Tube Tech MP-1A
Vintech Dual 72
Ward-Beck Pod4

Sources used
Acoustic Guitar
Female Vocals
Fender Deluxe Amp/'52 Goldtop Les Paul
Lakeland Bass
Male Vocals

-

"Red5 Audio - RVK7 Drum kit mic set samples"
http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/hardware/ITEM.CFM?threadid=2640&lang=0
Dancetech.com

Mics used
Red5 Audio - RVK7 Drum kit mic set
AKG Drum mic set

See link for other info

-

"Russian Microphone Sampler"
http://www.microphones.ru/downloads.htm
Michael Vladimirsky, www.microphones.ru

Mics used
LOMO 19A18
LOMO 19A19
MKL-101
MKL-202
Oktava MC-102
Oktava ML-11M
Oktava MK-13M
Oktava MC-16

Sources used (that I could determine)
Chorus
Classical Guitar
Folk Ensemble
Harpsichord
Jazz Group
Orchestra
Piano
String Ensemble

-

"small budget microphone shootout"
http://www.stack.nl/~erwint/MicShootout.html
Erwin Timmerman

Mics used
AKG C3000
Behringer XM2000S
LOMO M1 head
Oktava 012 cardioid
Sennheiser MD421N
Sennheiser MD421U4

Mics compared
Oktava 012 cardioid vs AKG C3000
Oktava 012 cardioid vs LOMO M1 head
Oktava 012 cardioid vs Sennheiser MD421N
Sennheiser MD421N vs Sennheiser MD421U4
Sennheiser MD421N vs Behringer XM2000S

Signal Chain
Takamine EN20 acoustic guitar -> Mics -> Behringer MX802A -> Pulsar card

-

“D.M. Gremlin Productions”
http://forums.dm-gremlin.com/viewforum.php?f=4
D.M. Gremlin

Mics Used
AKG D112
Audix D6
Audix Micro-D
Blue K.I.W.I.
MXL 2001
MXL 603S
MXL 990
MXL V67G
MXL V69
Neumann KM84
Neumann M149
Neumann U87
Shure SM57

Mic Comparisons
AKG D112 vs Audix D6
MXL 2001 vs Neumann U87 (Acoustic Guitar, Female Vocals)
MXL 603S vs Neumann KM84 (Acoustic Guitar)
MXL 990 vs Blue K.I.W.I. (Male Vocals)
MXL V69 vs Neumann M149 (Acoustic Guitar)
Shure SM57 vs Audix Micro-D

Preamp Comparison
Audio Buddy (MXL V67G)
Mackie XDR (MXL V67G)
TubePRE (MXL V67G)

-

“Microphone Preamps”
http://www.polyblendstudios.com/micpre.php
Polyblend Studios

Signal Chain
Gibson ES-335 -> MXR DynaComp pedal -> Fender VibroKing -> Royer R-121-> mic preamp -> Apogee PSX-100 sampling at 24bit / 96 kHz-> Masterlink.

Preamps used
API 3124+: gain set @12:30 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Avalon AD2022: gain set @ 42, impedance set to 'MIC' 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Avalon AD2022: gain set @ 46, impedance set to '600' 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Avalon 737sp: gain set at 35 + high gain switch enabled 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
PreSonus MP20: gain set @ 3:30, IDSS off 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
TAC Matchless console mic pre: mic gain @ 52 dB, fader @ +2.5 dB 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Universal Audio 2108: gain 50, impedance 1K, output gain 7.2 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Universal Audio 2108: gain 45, impedance 1K, output gain 8.8 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Universal Audio 2108: gain 45, impedance 4K, output gain 10 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Universal Audio 2-610: gain +10, impedance 500, output gain 6.5 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Universal Audio 2-610: gain 0, impedance 500, output gain 8.8 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3
Universal Audio 2-610: gain 0, impedance 2K, output gain 10 24/96 AIF 320 kbps MP3

-

“Testing Mics Again”
http://www.jeffoestreichmusic.com/mictest.htm
Jeff Oestreich


Signal Chain
microphone->Grace 101 preamp -> Akai DPS16 24-bit recording THEN inserted -> RNC Compressor -> TC Electronics M-One XL Reverb Processor -> digital back in to Akai

Mics used
Studio Projects C1
MXL V69

-

“Acoustic Mic Tests”
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=113466
taylorguitarman

Signal Chain
Lowden O25 Acoustic Guitar -> M-Audio DMP3 -> Yamaha AW16G

Mics used
AT3035
SM57
Studio Projects B1
Oktava MK012
MXL 603S
MXL V67G

-

[Piano Comparisons]
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1656&alid=-1
Michael Jones

Mics used
SM57
SM81
MXL 603S

Preamps used
API 312 (Jensen Transformers)
Audix 35102

Source used
Piano

-

“Okay then, listen to the B1 on jazz guitar”

Han

Mic used
Studio Projects B1

Source used
Swing Band

-

“Recording better vocals”
http://gearslutz.com/board/attachment.php3?postid=145570
PersonalJesus

Mic used
AKG C-414 B-ULS

Preamp Used
M-audio Firewire 410

Source used
Male vocals

Room
8x10x12 bedroom with carpet floors

-

“Mic shootout”
http://www.nowhereradio.com/bergen/singles
Bergen

Mic used
BLUE KIWI
MXL 990
Studio Projects C1

Source used
Male vocals

-

“A Simple Mic Comparison”
http://www.fxguidry.com/mictest1/
Lynn & Fran

Mic used
AKG 535
Behringer ECM8000
Countryman EM-101
Oktava MC012 Cardioid
Oktava MC012 Hypercardioid
Oktava MC012 Omni
Neumann KM-184
Neumann TLM103
Shure SM81
Shure KSM44 Carioid
Shure KSM44 Omni
Shure SM58
Shure SM57

Preamps used
M-Audio DMP-3
OMNI I/O

Source used
Martin OM-18V Acoustic Guitar
 
Super post!

This should remain on the top of this forum. I've already been listening to samples of mics I'm curious about on certain sites and already I've 'heard' what some people have mentioned in certain mics. The SP C1 for example in the sample clips I listened to it and it does sound a bit bright. I've listened to some of the major brands (Audio Technica AT4040) and once again heard why they are leaders in the mic biz.

Thanks a million Rhythmschism.
 
Yes, I was listening to the same clips with the acoustic guitar. The Audio Technicas sounded very well balanced.
 
A noble thought, but pretty impractical...

Lynn Fuston's comparison CDs are semi-useful only to give you a flavour of a mic/pre combination's sound, and it only works because there was consistency in the recording environment for each sample.

Myriad clips from a variety of sources with inconsistent recording environments and signal chains will be essentially useless.

ex - a rookie records an acoustic guitar in a sonically bad room with an SM57 thru an ART Tube MP and posts a clip... someone else posts an acoustic guitar clip done with an SM57 thru a Great River in a sonically excellent room.

Comparing both clips is useless -- the rookie may not even be aware that their environment is unsound and considers the poor results a factor of using the SM57, or the Tube MP, or both!

You can see the problem...

Unless there are controls in place with respect to the acoustics of the recording environment, as well as the signal chain, comparison clips won't tell you a bloody thing!
 
yeh everyone posting clips from different sources is useless, if anything misleading.

Lynn Fuston visited MTSU last week and we had a little mic pre shoot out. It was quite interesting.
 
That's quite some mic info.

I have some sound fragments in OGG on my website, OGG sounds better than MP3.

For example: in 'Country example 1', you can hear the Sennheiser MD441 on pedal steel guitar amp.
The vocal mic is the Neumann M149.

In the 'Folk example', you can hear the AKG C3000 on acoustic guitar (nylon), the Neumann M149 on vocals, upright bass, violin and accordeon.

In the 'Gothic' example, which is from 1994 and recorded with a Tascam MSR24S, you can hear the AKG C1000 (yes!!) on vocals.
This band is a platinum record seller these days.

In 'Heavy example 1' , the guitars were recorded without any mic, just straight into the board, it was tracked to two inch though.

In the 'Jazz example 1', you can hear the MD441 on trumpet and Tbone, the M149 on woodwinds, the Beyer M260 ribbon on upright.

Jazz example 2, is an old recording, with the Tascam MSR also and I don't remember well which mics were used, but the mics were MD421's, MD441's, Beyer M69, M201, the only condensers were the AKG C451's on mallets. The recording got CD of the month and got a 10 for audio quality. The board was a small SECK 1882.

In the 'Rock example 1', you can hear the MD421 on guitar.

In the 'Rock example 2', you can hear the MD441 on distorted Marshall amps.

In the 'Singer songwriter' example you can hear the M149 on a nice female voice.

I hope you guys will get an impression about some microphones.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
A noble thought, but pretty impractical...

Lynn Fuston's comparison CDs are semi-useful only to give you a flavour of a mic/pre combination's sound, and it only works because there was consistency in the recording environment for each sample.

Myriad clips from a variety of sources with inconsistent recording environments and signal chains will be essentially useless.

ex - a rookie records an acoustic guitar in a sonically bad room with an SM57 thru an ART Tube MP and posts a clip... someone else posts an acoustic guitar clip done with an SM57 thru a Great River in a sonically excellent room.

Comparing both clips is useless -- the rookie may not even be aware that their environment is unsound and considers the poor results a factor of using the SM57, or the Tube MP, or both!

You can see the problem...

Unless there are controls in place with respect to the acoustics of the recording environment, as well as the signal chain, comparison clips won't tell you a bloody thing!

First of all, I am not trying to say I know more than you, or am more qualified to comment on this issue, because I am not. I am fairly new to recording, and realize you have quite a bit of experience in the field, but perhaps you could help me to better understand some things.

As I mentioned before, there are many many variables that go into a recording, and I agree. But then again, how are these any less useful than a verbal or written review? I notice that the majority of people who give their opinions or criticism of mics on this forum usually do not state the room used, the signal chain used, all the instruments or voices they have tried, any such inconsistencies as you have noted. Not only that, but what about their monitors? The room they monitor in? How trained are their ears? They take not only a recording they have produced that has been influenced by countless inconsistencies, but then go on to to subject more variables on the matter by giving their opinion about how that particular recording sounded to them. To me, this seems like it would have more potential to achieve a less accurate measurement of a mic or preamp.

I realize that there are those such as yourself who have the room, the experience, the ear, the gear, and everything else to make valid points regarding a mic. But then there are such recordings such as "The Listening Sessions" that have the resources and know-how to able to make consistent recordings to a similar level of accuracy. Yet, people here looking for feedback on a mic or preamp most often still like to hear the opinion of others, of which some are not professionals and could be said to not have the skills and resources to be able to form any conclusive or substantiated opinion on a piece of equipment.

But then again, this site is geared towards home recorders, and so feedback from other people using the same cheap gear in the same 10x12 bedroom recording vocals with less than perfect pitch can often be useful information to someone in a similar situation. In the same way, I would think that being able to hear recordings with much of the popular, more budget oriented equipment that is frequently recommended and disputed over here, in as many environments, combinations, and applications as possible, would be at least as beneficial as an amateur review/opinion of the same piece of equipment.

It definitely should be made clear that 2 different recordings using the same mic will in most cases not sound alike, due to all the unknowns and varied influences; this should never be overlooked. But when I hear a recording with an SM57 that sounds fantastic, I do not automatically assume that as soon as I purchase the mic I too will be able to produce equally fantastic recordings simply because I have that mic. Rather, I know that I have a mic that has the potential to sound fantastic, and as my experience, knowledge, gear, and environment grows, the mic will grow with me.

My goal with this thread is not to determine how good a mic or preamp solely by listening to recordings. I merely suggest it as a piece in the overall pie that contributes to someone’s perception of a mic/preamp. Also, some people are not able to audition gear before they buy, and all they have to go on is the word of people in forums like this or other reviews. This simply affords them a limited portrayal of what their subject of interest could sound like.

If I am also wrong in making these statements, please explain where my faults lie. Thanks.
 
Rhythmschism said:
"The Listening Sessions"
http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/sessions.htm
Produced by Dan Richards and Rob Gainer
Engineered by Rob Gainer, Bruce Bailey, Dan Richards

Recorded and Edited at Sea Note Recording Studios
Sponsored by Digital Pro Sound

Many thanks for the work you put into this.

I only wish the guys above had also recorded a standard test sweep from a calibrated speaker (calibrated by a recording done at the same spot in the same room by a reference mic.) That would have been unbelievably useful for my work. Heavy sigh.


Bob
 
Rhythmschism said:
As I mentioned before, there are many many variables that go into a recording, and I agree. But then again, how are these any less useful than a verbal or written review?
IMO, verbal or written reviews for mics and/or monitors are also useless unless you know something about the skills/capabilities/critical ears of the person offering the review!

Seriously.... all these reviews in mags by reviewers you haven't heard... what do they mean? Nothing......... except for that unique environment and signal chain, those were the specific results the reviewer got. Exactly how does that help you if your own envronment has no parallel.

I know - "well what if we use the same budget gear" -- that's no help either because budget gear is notoriously dissimilar from unit to unit. So you can't be sure if a budget mic sounds that way because of the environment, the person's skill (or lack of), or simply bad QA of the gear in question.

I'm not trying to knock your efforts, but rather I'm pointing out that people should simply put "reviews" into proper perspective and avoid putting too much stock into them unless they honestly know something about the qualifications......
 
I've found the listening sessions to be very helpful. I was completely in the dark even after reading review after review. But after listening to samples of different mics the lights went on and I started to hear and understand what the reviews were talking about.

Alot of these mics are not available for testing in many stores so getting samples in some shape and form is better than nothing. And some of these samples like the listening sessions seem to have been done well.

If someone wants to submit a sample they should specify their enviroment and gear it'll probably match what others are using anyway. And at least someone will be able to hear not just read what's going on. Reviews are so subjective anyway.

One thing I'd like to also mention is how you listen to samples. Use some descent headphones because that will make a big difference in what you hear.
 
Rhythmschism,

Thank you for this great effort. Although this guide can not explicitely tell about mics and pres, as there are a lot of different factors we don't know about recording--room, placement, etc., the most important--it gives idea and teaches 'how and what' to listen to. I believe it is very usefull for comparisons and probably gives an idea of tendency of one or another mic.

Here is one more link, I learnt about from Flatpicker.
Bob, here you will find some pink noise tests:

http://testing.holmerup.biz/mic_pretest/MP3index_en.html

Also, you might find this one useful, as well--lotsa information on mics:

http://www.messaggeri.it/xmicrofoni.htm
 
Han said:
In the 'Gothic' example, which is from 1994 and recorded with a Tascam MSR24S, you can hear the AKG C1000 (yes!!) on vocals.
This band is a platinum record seller these days.

Well, Evan knows who that might have been. But it is interesting to hear the C1000 in it's natural (analog) environment.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
A noble thought, but pretty impractical...

Lynn Fuston's comparison CDs are semi-useful only to give you a flavour of a mic/pre combination's sound, and it only works because there was consistency in the recording environment for each sample.

And MP3 files suck for critical listening.
 
yep blue balls is right. A noble attempt but is completely unscientific. Remember the scientific method? elimination of variables and double blinds? Rooms are different, placement is different, levels aren't matched by oscilliscope, mics perform differently on different sources, cabling is a factor, preamps, where is the source in relation to reflective boundry's?, impedence, personal aethetics (what you think is good placement and sounds good relative to another person) , the condition of the microphone (an old u87 sounds different from another), recording medium (analog or digital), etc. Magazine reviews are almost totally useless because you will notice they are almost always positive and the advertisers are buying space in the magazine that is doing the review. Really the only way to know is to listen yourself (not on headphones junior) or perhaps the opinion of someone who's work you admire WHO IS NOT AFFLIATED WITH A MANUFACTUER. Plus mp3 sucks for critical listening and by the way what mp3 encoder is being used? (another variable!)
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
IMO, verbal or written reviews for mics and/or monitors are also useless unless you know something about the skills/capabilities/critical ears of the person offering the review!

Seriously.... all these reviews in mags by reviewers you haven't heard... what do they mean? Nothing......... except for that unique environment and signal chain, those were the specific results the reviewer got. Exactly how does that help you if your own envronment has no parallel.

I know - "well what if we use the same budget gear" -- that's no help either because budget gear is notoriously dissimilar from unit to unit. So you can't be sure if a budget mic sounds that way because of the environment, the person's skill (or lack of), or simply bad QA of the gear in question.

I'm not trying to knock your efforts, but rather I'm pointing out that people should simply put "reviews" into proper perspective and avoid putting too much stock into them unless they honestly know something about the qualifications......

Thank you for replying. I do see the point you are making. Although I think this brings up a deeper issue that has been brought up before. If a review holds no validity to the reader excepting that the reader knows "something about the skills/capabilities/critical ears of the person offering the review", then any other opinion is not only useless and inaccurate-- it is misleading.

Sweetnubs brought up the issue of scientific accuracy. A recording cannot represent the integrity of a microphone due to the following factors: “Rooms are different, placement is different, levels aren't matched by oscilliscope, mics perform differently on different sources, cabling is a factor, preamps, where is the source in relation to reflective boundry's?, impedence, personal aethetics (what you think is good placement and sounds good relative to another person) , the condition of the microphone (an old u87 sounds different from another), recording medium (analog or digital), etc.” So if these are the requirements for an accurate telling of a microphone, no single recording could ever eliminate all of these variables by a standard that could be reproduced in another studio. By the same standard, neither could any written or verbal review. Any attempt to do either can then only be the opinion of the one writing the review or the unscientific portrayal of a unique recording process.

Lets make sure we are all on the same page. “Opinion” as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary:
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

So, I ask, can anyone produce a review on a piece of recording equipment that does not fall under this category? One can measure the specifications of a piece, and report all the intricacies of its electronic and sonic characteristics and features. But how does one scientifically communicate how one mic is “warmer” than another, let alone by a standard that is not subject to any outside influence? To me, this does not seem possible.

Yet despite all of these flaws that for every reason I can think of are in fact insurmountable, reviews are still written, opinions are still valued, advice is still sought after, and mic tests are still produced by recording professionals and amateurs alike.

After considering all of this, it begs the question: why? Are all of the people involved with both giving and receiving information pertaining to the integrity and individual characteristics of microphones acting in vain? Or despite the inherent bias involved with the process, is there still something of value to be had by all of this? And if there is, would not recordings primarily designed to provide some level of reference regarding a microphone be of any use or value?

I would appreciate the thoughts of anyone who could provide more insight on this issue.

Thank you.
 
Rhythmschism said:

After considering all of this, it begs the question: why? Are all of the people involved with both giving and receiving information pertaining to the integrity and individual characteristics of microphones acting in vain? Or despite the inherent bias involved with the process, is there still something of value to be had by all of this? And if there is, would not recordings primarily designed to provide some level of reference regarding a microphone be of any use or value?

I would appreciate the thoughts of anyone who could provide more insight on this issue.

Thank you.

Of course the opinion of professionals is important if you can't test the thing yourself. Even better are characteristic recordings such as you have provided a wealth of links to. There is no reason why modern, quality MP3's can't disclose the bulk of a mic's personality either.

I would have all mic manufacturers provide anechoic, on axis impulse responses and a few characteristic angular cases for directional mics. I know I have about a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing that.

I also know that those invested in expensive mics will say that is useless information but I have experience aplenty to refute that. Give me a mic's impulse responses and I can create _very_ accurate simulations of what they will sound like on material I've recorded with a reference mic. That's much better than I will get from a few recordings of material chosen by the tester.

I've got Tascam's GigaPulse on order to evaluate the mic impulse responses it includes and for no reason at all have high hopes. If they ever get around to delivering it, that is. I'm hoping it is more accurate than those in Antares Mic Modeler. I am convinced after much study of them that Antares' are simply minimum phase IR's calculated from scanned frequency response charts. They are just too smooth and idealized to be anything like real.

Those that I have measured and processed myself do a _much_ better job of sounding like the real thing.


Bob
 
arcanemethods said:
I also know that those invested in expensive mics will say that is useless information but I have experience aplenty to refute that. Give me a mic's impulse responses and I can create _very_ accurate simulations of what they will sound like on material I've recorded with a reference mic. That's much better than I will get from a few recordings of material chosen by the tester.

I dont think I have ever heard of the impulse response you refer to, it sounds very interesting. Is there any literature/internet reading you could point me to that would go into more depth on this? Perhaps this is the kind of standard that could create a standard that minimizes subjectivity. Thanks a bunch for your reply.
 
The idea of microphone impulses is a complete joke and another reason to sell people crap they don't need. You cannot record something with a radioshack electret condenser mic, use a elam 251 impulse, then make the source sound like it was recorded with a elam 251. You have lost the information that the 251 gathers by not using the 251. The impulse does not record the orginal source, the orginal source has already been fucked by the radioshacks electret's inferfior design. You can change the sound of it but the IM distortion is still there, frequencies cannot not be added which were never recorded in the first place. Plus you would place each mic differenty based on your personal knowledge of how that mic "sounds" in relation to the source, the room, your preamps, recording medium, etc. So you'd place a mic differently based on its characterstics, the room and your signal chain. This placement only exists in the orginal recording, it cannot be stored as an impulse. Sorry dudes, you cannot "render" a different mic. 2). My point is you cannot make a scientific evaluation. Like I said this comes with years of experience or going out on a limb and trusting the opinion of a reliable professional with a proven track record who has NO AFFILIATION OR ENDORSEMENT DEAL WITH A COMPANY.
 
Back
Top