Why side address?

C

chellman

New member
This may be a totally silly question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

The short version: is a side-address mic the right choice for vocals, as opposed to a pencil mic?

The slightly longer version:

I've been thinking about buying an MCA SP1 because they're so cheap and apparently good, for a vocal mic. I play drums primarily, but I'd like to have a mic that's good to pull out for vocals every once in a while, but cheap because I don't think I'll do this overly often. However, it appears to be the same capsule as the 603s, of which I already own two. Doesn't that mean the microphone would sound largely the same? Is it smarter to have a mic in the side-address design for vocals for reasons other than sound?
 
chellman said:
This may be a totally silly question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

The short version: is a side-address mic the right choice for vocals, as opposed to a pencil mic?

The slightly longer version:

I've been thinking about buying an MCA SP1 because they're so cheap and apparently good, for a vocal mic. I play drums primarily, but I'd like to have a mic that's good to pull out for vocals every once in a while, but cheap because I don't think I'll do this overly often. However, it appears to be the same capsule as the 603s, of which I already own two. Doesn't that mean the microphone would sound largely the same? Is it smarter to have a mic in the side-address design for vocals for reasons other than sound?
Click to expand...

I don't know how big the diaphragm is in the MCA SP1, but if it is the same size as an MXL 603's, then it is NOT a large-diaphragm microphone. It would, in that case, be small-to-medium. Looks can be deceiving - if they do have the same capsule, the fact that the SP1 is a side-address shouldn't make a huge difference, if any at all.

I'm not sure why side-address was made the standard - probably for the convenience of design, since you would have a very thick-bodied front-address microphone if you tried to mount a 1"+ diaphragm capsule in it, facing the same direction as the mic body. There may also be a difference in the audio output, but I can't speak to that.

It may also be the case that LDC condenser mics were modeled after the styling of ribbon mics available at the time (if the robbon mic came before the condenser), since I believe ribbons were always side-address from the beginning... they offer front-address style ribbons now, but I don't believe that was the case, say, 75+ years ago.
 
chellman said:
I've been thinking about buying an MCA SP1 because they're so cheap and apparently good, for a vocal mic.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, the MCA SP1 is no longer being manufactured and sells on ebay for around $85-$90. I know this is still really cheap, but if you were thinking you could get one for $40-$50, you won't find one.

Juan
 
Actually, they are still being made, or at least they can still be bought new. You can get them new from ppsl.com for $40, or direct (it seems) from mcamics.com.

Thanks for the responses. I'm still wondering what difference this might make — maybe there's someone here who's tried similar mics in the two styles.
 
Oktava makes a front address LDC, and I'm sure there must be others, but side address certainly is the norm. There's a lot more to the sound of a mic than the diaphram and the electronics, and I'm guessing that for LDCs, the side address design creates a more open sounding mic. And as dementedchord pointed out, it's form follows function for dual diaphrams.
As far as SDCs for vocals, as a rule it's not the way to go, though there are always exceptions. A good pop filter becomes absolutely essential, and it's unforgiving of a vocalist that has bad dynamic control. Also, trying to get the same sound on an overdub becomes difficult because of increased sensitivity to positioning. LDCs are just easier to work with.
 
cusebassman said:
I don't know how big the diaphragm is in the MCA SP1, but if it is the same size as an MXL 603's, then it is NOT a large-diaphragm microphone. It would, in that case, be small-to-medium. Looks can be deceiving - if they do have the same capsule, the fact that the SP1 is a side-address shouldn't make a huge difference, if any at all.

I'm not sure why side-address was made the standard - probably for the convenience of design, since you would have a very thick-bodied front-address microphone if you tried to mount a 1"+ diaphragm capsule in it, facing the same direction as the mic body. There may also be a difference in the audio output, but I can't speak to that.

It may also be the case that LDC condenser mics were modeled after the styling of ribbon mics available at the time (if the robbon mic came before the condenser), since I believe ribbons were always side-address from the beginning... they offer front-address style ribbons now, but I don't believe that was the case, say, 75+ years ago.
Click to expand...

Marik pointed out a while back that even though the MCA SP1 has the same capsule as a 603, it's locked in a 1" brass ring which increases the size of the pressure gradient. That makes it behave more like an LDC.

The reason most LDC's are side address is that it allows multiple patterns to be available with a dual sided capsule. Omni, figure 8 and cardioid. The old Telefunken bottle mics and the U47 almost demanded being side address simply from the size and weight of the body that housed the electronics.
 
PhilGood said:
The reason most LDC's are side address is that it allows multiple patterns to be available with a dual sided capsule. Omni, figure 8 and cardioid. The old Telefunken bottle mics and the U47 almost demanded being side address simply from the size and weight of the body that housed the electronics.
Click to expand...

Yea, I suspected that the older mics were simply so heavy and contained so much electronics that side-address just made sense. It is, of course, a must when you have multiple diaphragms in the mic for multiple polar patterns :)

Its funny that the LDC's with two diaphragms have an omni setting, as it doesn't act the same as an omni... not entirely, anyway... not on *mine* anyway :D The Rode K2 still has a lot of bass response in omni mode, but I'm not sure if that's the case with all dual-diaphragm LDC's in omni mode... my actual omnidirectional mics have a significantly reduced bass response, which is good for my acoustics.
 
This is all very helpful. Thanks everyone! It's sounding to me like I should just buy one or two of these things. If I pull the trigger, I'll post a comparison of how they sound in a tiny room, which will be O So Informative. :)
 
If ribbons were around before condensors, i wonder if consumers' force of habit may have been a (probably small) factor, in addition to the dual capsule design requirement mentioned above.
 
cusebassman said:
Its funny that the LDC's with two diaphragms have an omni setting, as it doesn't act the same as an omni... not entirely, anyway... not on *mine* anyway :D The Rode K2 still has a lot of bass response in omni mode, but I'm not sure if that's the case with all dual-diaphragm LDC's in omni mode... my actual omnidirectional mics have a significantly reduced bass response, which is good for my acoustics.
Click to expand...

While increased bass response could be caused by proximity effect on a cardioid, it can also be caused by the way the capsule is tuned, by the FET circuit inside the mic, etc.

Ideally, an omni mic shouldn't have reduced bass response. They should have flat bass response. You can always roll off the bass response after the fact if needed.

That said, what you're probably hearing is a difference in midrange, not bass response. The K2 probably has scooped mids; many other Rode mics do, I think. The result is that bass response will appear to be boosted when, in fact, it is really the midrange that is being cut. Either that or the Rode mic doesn't have scooped mids and your omnis do and you are perceiving the excess lower midrange in the Rode as being bass response. Hard to say which.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top