Dynamic, condenser or even ribbon: can you tell ?

grimtraveller

If only for a moment.....
When listening to music, be it home recordings or otherwise, can you tell whether a dynamic, condenser or ribbon mic was used on any particular sound source ?
What are the essential differences between the different kinds of mic ? Is there anything intrinsic to each one that makes them better suited to some sound sources ?
 
I can.
I can even tell what year the mic capsule was made and what the countrys origin that made the mic by only hearing 10 micro seconds of sound.
In a dense mix it might take me some more drugs to tell.

seriously: no I cant tell
 
Not going to pretend you can always hear the difference and that's that but there are examples where I think it's pretty clear.

The common perception is that condenser = bright, dynamic = dull, ribbon = dull + super smooth/full.
Of course that doesn't always fit but it's a decent generalisation.


The main differences are condensers have the highest output of the lot and are the most sensitive.
It can take very little to overload a condenser - Super lightweight diaphragm susceptible to wind, handling noise, etc.
Obviously they require power.
Favoured for detail and clarity but not usually where reliability and durability are concerns. (presidential 57s, live stage mics, etc)

Dynamics are basically a speaker wired backwards. Heavy diaphragm, moving coil in a magnetic field...It takes a lot to move them.
That makes them able to handle much louder sources but, then, harder to agitate with higher frequencies. Quite often you'll find them specced up to 16k or thereabouts.
Favoured in applications where reliability and durability are important and also in bad/noisy environments where they can be placed very close to the source,
effectively increasing signal to (background) noise ratio.
The same is true in the studio where bleed is concerned. Dynamics can generally be placed closer to a loud source than condensers without issue.


Ribbons are technically dynamic microphones but with a different mechanical set up - Moving part is a fine metal ribbon in a magnetic field.
Often associated with a very full smooth sound but quite delicate and easy to damage, compared with the others.
I'd guess they're usually chosen for their sound rather than any practical reason. Think all the old crooners.


A good example of choosing a dynamic for vocals where there would have been limitless other options is Anthony Keidis (chilis).
They used an SM7B because he has that half-lisp thing going on and the dynamic softened that a little bit.

I guess they could have used some eq or de-esser but they chose to address it at the mic.
 
How you are listening makes a huge difference, too. Headphones, speakers/monitors in an acoustically treated room, earbuds...
 
Based on just straight mic-pre recording to a track with nothing else done...yes, you can hear the differences on some sources...but, I don't really see the relevance of that.

IOW...it's not about being able to hear what mic was used...it's about what and how a particular mic does for a given source.
As an example...you can try to capture a particular guitar cab sound with a LDC mic...and you might be able to mess with the sound using EQ and what not to eventually shape the sound into what you want...or, you can just stick ribbon mic or a 57 dynamic (or both), depending on what you want...and the sound is just there, without further work.

Who cares if you can tell which mic was used...the important thing is which mic TO use to get the sound you want easy, and often quickly.

It would be like asking can you tell if I hammered in a nail with a hammer or a rock...which isn't really important so much after the fact...but during the work, a hammer would certainly do a better, faster job in most cases. :)
 
It would be like asking can you tell if I hammered in a nail with a hammer or a rock...which isn't really important so much after the fact...but during the work, a hammer would certainly do a better, faster job in most cases.
That and the fact that no one in their right mind would recommend a rock to hammer in a nail.
Hammers are generally cheaper. :D

I don't really see the relevance of that.
The relevance is that I'm curious as to whether or not various people can tell the difference. No mystery.
 
On my recordings, I can tell when I have used a dynamic vs a condenser. Don't have a ribbon so I can't say.

For other people's recordings, probably not. There's so much processing that can be done, plus not being familiar with the original source sound would make it difficult to make a judgement from a singular track.
 
When listening to music, be it home recordings or otherwise, can you tell whether a dynamic, condenser or ribbon mic was used on any particular sound source ?
What are the essential differences between the different kinds of mic ? Is there anything intrinsic to each one that makes them better suited to some sound sources ?

When i am recording then, yes. I use different mics, amps and guitars and they all sound unique. I have three Oktave 219s and all three sound different on the same amp in the same place. I know because i tested them and have the sound files along with each one labeled so that i know which is which.

I personally love the sound of a ribbon on a small practice amp running near dimed. I like condensers for room or special addition mics(putting one in the hall or pointing at a wall opposite the amp can make a guitar huge.

I have found that after recording many guitar tracks that nowadays i feel like on some commercial tracks i can "hear" the difference between them "some times" . Usually not, but sometimes it just seems obvious.
 
This I suspect is the question people hope never gets asked. Each mic sounds slightly different, but as everybody has EQ at their command, it's extremely rare to find any microphone that is unusable. The most appropriate mic for each sound source might not need EQ, but with it, it's very rare for any to fail on 'quality'.
 
I can't tell the difference between microphones when listening to somebody else's finished product, but when I'm recording I can definitely tell a different in the raw audio tracks recorded with one mic versus being recorded with another one. I have a condenser and a ribbon and the ribbon picks up a lot more mid-range detail when I'm recording guitars. Bass guitars sound a lot better with a ribbon at relatively low recording volumes too, because it gives a "punch" that I don't get with my condenser, but I've read that too much bass volume going into a ribbon cable can make the ribbon move around too much and start making popping and crackling noises, or even damage it. But if you're recording at a relatively low volume then I think a ribbon sounds great on an electric bass.

After the raw audio gets mixed I doubt you could tell what the hell it was recorded on, because the whole thing about different mic sounds is that they're leaving different frequency responses in the EQ.
 
...but as everybody has EQ at their command, it's extremely rare to find any microphone that is unusable.

Well..."unusable" is a pretty extreme quality rating. There's a long way between the "perfect" mic for a given situation and one that is "unusable".
You can make a lot of mics "useable"...or you simply accept what they have to offer, and you make that your "perfect" choice (because you have nothing better)...but it's not the same as using a mic that fits the situation perfectly, even if it is not the perfect mic for everything.

I also don't think it's just a matter of "EQ" that lets you make any mic suitable. Lots of folks have spent hours trying to "EQ" something into an acceptable sound, and it simply didn't work out well, or they were forced to accept it to be "as good as it gets".

With the right mic for a given situation...EQ becomes some icing on the cake, not a fix. So I wouldn't use say...a ribbon...and then try to EQ it so that I'm getting something that sounds like it was recorded with the LDC...or vice-versa.

Like I said earlier...I don't think it's really important that you or anyone can tell what mics were used on some recordings...there's no value in that information from a listener's perspective...but from an engineering perspective, you want to select the best mic for whatever sound you are after or that works best with the source.
Many of the old-school recordings (and a lot of new stuff too that follows that mindset) just have that cohesive sound quality, and there was little signal manipulation done after the fact to achieve it...again, more like just adding some icing to a cake...because it had a lot to do with mic selection and positioning, and balancing things during tracking. I know modern Pop doesn't use that approach, and you can still get stuff that sounds pretty good...but often, IMO...it's a more "fabricated" sound...and mostly done ITB without much tracking, so mic selection was minimal...probably mostly to do with the lead vocal, and then even that got manipulated heavily.

I was just reading the article in the latest Mix issue where they have Lady Gaga on the cover...and the article is about her new album.
I'm not much of a Lady Gaga fan...I could hardly name 3 of her songs...but I like to read about the studio process even for music I don't really listen to.
So they were talking about her vocal treatment (she has an engineer who only does her vocals...someone else does the rest)...and they talked about "capturing that unique voice" (TBH, I don't think her voice is all that unique)...and then they go on to say that her vocals guy has an "extensive vocal production/mix template of 60-plus tracks"...that's just the vocal! :facepalm:

When you think about that...you could almost say it's not important what mic she used...they're going to beat the piss out of those vocal tracks with processing anyway...plus they have like differently processed vocals that are changed from verses to chorus, phrase to phrase...and maybe even word to word...which is the thing with Pop productions these days. It's all about "sound design", and less about tracking live performances.
That said...when it comes to more old-school, organic kind of vocal (and instrument) tracking and mixing...much of it is set during the initial takes, so the mics really have to deliver what you want/need...which means there has to be some deliberate selection...rather than trying to make stuff useable through manipulation afterwards.

Anyway, that's my interest these days...getting like 80% of the sound during tracking...well, at least that's what it will be when I get this studio finished. :rolleyes:
 
Anyway, that's my interest these days...getting like 80% of the sound during tracking
Same here. The overwhelming majority of most of the sounds I utilize come in the recording process. I'm not beyond using some EQ or effects for sound shaping but the staple is the recorded sound. That's partly why I'm interested in peoples' takes on the different kinds of mics. That and curiosity. I was fascinated by Gtoboy's 3 identical mics that he can hear differences in.
 
Same here. The overwhelming majority of most of the sounds I utilize come in the recording process. I'm not beyond using some EQ or effects for sound shaping but the staple is the recorded sound. That's partly why I'm interested in peoples' takes on the different kinds of mics. That and curiosity. I was fascinated by Gtoboy's 3 identical mics that he can hear differences in.

I was surprised by that comment as well. If I bought 3 of the same mics and they sound that much different from each other, I would consider them defective, or the results of poor quality control. Properly made mics should sound pretty consistent. If new mics vary that much, then buying any mic is nothing but a crapshoot!

Vintage mics may change sound simply because of the aging of the component.
 
It's possible that there were some slight changes in components from mic to mic...or in the capsule construction.
Not to suggest that they are cheap/bad mics...but with less expensive, mass-produced mics, there a good chance you might hear some differences.

I mean...if any of you have ever done basic tube rolling with an amp...it's enough to cause a difference. I've even seen on "identical" channel strips of a console, differences in the components sometimes...maybe they run out of a particular brand, or sometimes they put something with a different value, that still meets the design specs, but isn't identical...etc.
 
I understand the variables that tolerance can introduce, +/- 10% variation is pretty common for resistors and capacitors. Still, in my experience, the variations have been pretty minor between multiple samples of the same mic, even when they aren't a matched pair. My matched pairs of Rode, Lauten and Studio Projects mics are close enough that I can't distinguish between them. Even the 3 MXL 992s that I have are extremely close to each other. Two are Mogami editions, one is a normal one, and there is a difference in the circuit board between the two types.
 
I can hear the differences in my mic collection on sources tracked in my room...I can almost tell which preamp these sources might be pumped through on occasion. Its much easier when the source is solo'd........When the whole mix is applied its a guess. Sometimes , when I get projects to mix, I can hear a 57 as compared to a LD condenser but usually this "hearing" is accompanied by the name of the source itself......ie: on a guitar track I'm not generally expecting a big condenser sound unless the tracks were done in a huge pro room...........but then why would I be mixing them??!!
 
I was surprised by that comment as well. If I bought 3 of the same mics and they sound that much different from each other, I would consider them defective, or the results of poor quality control. Properly made mics should sound pretty consistent. If new mics vary that much, then buying any mic is nothing but a crapshoot!

Vintage mics may change sound simply because of the aging of the component.

I agree, the Vintage thing could be all over the place....who used the Mic? the Ramones or a String Quartet...decades of spittle and coughs and "P" pops...I was never a Relic-Vintage obsessed museum type... the antique vibe isnt for me.... Id rather have a new boutique piece, top line parts and new..etc..

QC..
I was in a product integration group that eventually used a foundry to do the mass production. The foundry gets paid on "more parts out the door".
Enough said...
 
Back
Top