1000 dollar mics vs 100 dollar mics

snow lizard said:
Not sure if I want to go there - lol.
Click to expand...
Me too! ;)

...I'm inclined to think that in a professional enviornment an engineer might be able to use a cheap mic and placed in a certain way on a specific source get things to sound around 70 or 80 percent "there" at mix time. After the mix, it might sound almost identical to what would result from using a more expensive mic. But the better mic might get you better than 90 percent there at mix. Sometimes the result is less time post processing...
Click to expand...
That's not even close to true much of the time. Consider for a moment that you're recording a rock band and the guitar dude wants to sound exactly like Angus Young. He's got the signature model SG and the signature model Marshall. Let's hope he's not wearing the uniform! Which will get you there quicker - an SM57 or a Neuman? Which one needs more post processing?

Or like, for my tastes, if I'm trying to record a solo acoustic singer/songwriter most of the time I can just put him in a decent sounding room, throw up my EV635a about 3 feet out and be done. Anything else will need a bunch of EQ gymnastics to get what I want.

Dollars don't always save you time. But then you said that...

To me, the first answer will be the one that captured the best performance. Beyond that, finding the mic most appropriate to the source is key. The 57 isn't likely to win over the big guns every time but it does happen.
Click to expand...
 
ashcat_it said:
That's not even close to true much of the time. Consider for a moment that you're recording a rock band and the guitar dude wants to sound exactly like Angus Young. He's got the signature model SG and the signature model Marshall. Let's hope he's not wearing the uniform! Which will get you there quicker - an SM57 or a Neuman? Which one needs more post processing?
Click to expand...

Let him wear the uniform if that's what jingles his juice. He could be wearing a Roger Daltry cape for all I care, but if his girlfriend sounds more like Angus on an Ovation acoustic there's going to be problems.

Raging guitar amp is a popular home for a 57 but I don't think it has absolute rights. There are other contenders and it's really up to whoever is tracking. Taking things one step further, which mic is more apt to handle the processing without caving in? That has a tendencey to separate mics as well.

ashcat_it said:
Or like, for my tastes, if I'm trying to record a solo acoustic singer/songwriter most of the time I can just put him in a decent sounding room, throw up my EV635a about 3 feet out and be done. Anything else will need a bunch of EQ gymnastics to get what I want.
Click to expand...

I think omnis are under rated. There certainly are examples of mics costing a grand that could be used for the same type of thing. I'm sure some of them could sound just as good as a 635a. Which on its own is a very good example of a relatively cheap mic that does just fine for what it is. Plus, even very high end moving coil mics like an RE 20 or something do not cost a grand. Sennheiser 441 comes close.

I usually think about things like crappy phase response, boomy yet flabby bass, anemic mids and that ice pick in the forehead at 7 to 10 k as problems. Similarily tight bass, strong mids, smooth high end and a tendency to take to EQ very well as good things. Polar and transient response are other factors.
 
Ethan Winer said:
Sure, but it's exactly the same as frequency response. If a microphone can capture up to 10 KHz, then its transient response time is 0.1 milliseconds.

--Ethan
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? :)
Are you saying that any mic/device that can capture/reproduce up to 10 kHz will have the exact same transient response time?

I've got a bunch of mics that can capture up to 10kHz, but they sure don't seem to have the same transient response characteristics, which is pretty audible upon comparison....so I'm curious how/why you say that frequency response is the same thing as transient response...?
 
It's always dangerous to second guess Ethan but my take on it is:

In effect, (using the 10,000 Hz example) every swing of the audio waveform is, in effect, a 0.1 ms transient. If a mic can claim a frequency response up to 10k then that is also it's transient response--or at least it will be once you make the spec "whole" by adding the "+/- 1dB" (or whatever) qualification. If a mic claims a 10k upper frequency but it's only at -6dB then that's a worse transient response.

I'm not explaining it well so hopefully Ethan will be along to clarify things.
 
I'm no expert on mics, but I have used a few. My NT2a is pretty good, and works well through the Joe Meek One Q that I use, but I know this ain't "high end" stuff and to me this seems to make a difference. Recently, a band I'm in recorded with a guy who has great mics and front end (Neumann U87s and U47s, matched pair of 414s, vintage Neve console with 16 x 1176 modules for examples). He used a few AEA ribbons too (including the RCA copy they do that costs about 10 grand), and there was a couple of those funny-shaped Coles ribbons as well (4038s?). The dynamics were all good too, eg M88 in the kick, a 409 on guitar cab, 421s on the toms (at first until we swapped them out for condensers). Hell, even the humble 57s on snare top and bottom sounded good through the Neve. All mics were selected in reference to their source (of course), as were the signal chains (he didn't use the Neve for everything).
Anyway, my assessment (the same I have always come to over all these years and the difference between "home recording" and pro)...
A well maintained U87 through an 1176 completely shits on my vocal chain in my opinion. This is regardless of the room acoustics, although I agree with recent posts in this thread that this is just as important. But it's the chain from mic through to the recording media that is largely the thing I'm getting at. The difference is apparent when I try to mix. I have to work a lot harder on recordings I make with my gear, and to be brutally honest with myself, they still don't have a ghost of a chance compared to what we got from the sessions with the Neve. I am only doing roughs for listening during the overdub process, but getting the mix together is a cinch. I am using far less eq, and when I am eq-ing, the frequencies I dial up seem to be much more present, whether cutting or boosting.
Anyway, I have known for some time that I want (as opposed to need) to get hold of a really good vocal mic and a pre-amp that matches it. Similarly, a good set-up for guitar cabs and acoustic guitars respectively would be useful considering this is what I most often record as a guitar player. This desire is tempered with the knowledge that my home set up is mostly for demos, and it might be better for me to leave all this gear up to the professionals who can afford it, and who use it every day. This is what I am trying to say in my round-about way. It's the appropriate chain from mic through to the recording media that is the thing. I guess this is why good studios have so many bits and pieces to choose from, and a good engineer who knows what will work with what.
 
Last edited:
Transient response may be connected to frequency response, and may be dependent on the same factors, but I don't think they're the same thing. I could be wrong, but I've always though of transient response as something like slew rate. It's a question of how quickly the diaphragm can move a given distance. It might be able to accomplish very fast wiggles if they're very small, but can't get from full excursion one way to full excursion the other way anywhere near that quick. Thus, it's like "dynamic frequency response" as mentioned above, or like the 0-60 thing I was talking about earlier.

I could be completely wrong on that, I spose. Slew rate is measured in V/s, but transient response seems to be described in just time. In fact, I'm having trouble finding anything that actually tells me specifically what the hell that spec means beyond a basic glossed over sort of "overview" description.

I have definitely had situations where one mic was just more "pokey" on transients than another without any real difference to overall top end response.
 
ashcat_lt said:
Transient response may be connected to frequency response, and may be dependent on the same factors, but I don't think they're the same thing. I could be wrong, but I've always though of transient response as something like slew rate.
Click to expand...

Me too...that's why I would like Ethan to elaborate on his comment.

Why is it that 5 mics that have almost the same frequency response....can have different transient responses...if those two specs are exactly the same as Ethan says?
 
Bobbsy said:
It's always dangerous to second guess Ethan but...
Click to expand...

:D

In effect, (using the 10,000 Hz example) every swing of the audio waveform is, in effect, a 0.1 ms transient.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And you explained it perfectly well.

ashcat_lt said:
I've always though of transient response as something like slew rate. It's a question of how quickly the diaphragm can move a given distance. It might be able to accomplish very fast wiggles if they're very small, but can't get from full excursion one way to full excursion the other way anywhere near that quick.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of transient response being the physical equivalent of slew rate, but maybe some people consider them related. Either way, slew rate limiting adds distortion when the device or circuit can't keep up with the input. As far as I know, a microphone with an inadequate transient response doesn't distort, it just loses some of the clarity, which in turn means it's not capturing the higher frequencies.

miroslav said:
I've got a bunch of mics that can capture up to 10kHz, but they sure don't seem to have the same transient response characteristics, which is pretty audible upon comparison.
Click to expand...

What specifically are you hearing that makes you think the microphones have the same response at 10 KHz but have a different transient response? Just being able to capture 10 KHz at all doesn't mean the response is flat to that frequency.

--Ethan
 
I think you could say that frequency response and transient response have a direct relationship, where one can be directly transformed into the other and vice versa....which is the whole Fourier Transform thing I believe (without trying to get too deep into it)....but I don't know if you can say that they are *exactly the same* thing, which is what you said.

The two would be directly interchangeable if the signal is a wide band/impulse source....which is what I think you are talking about....but how does that apply to percussive "ticks/steps" rather than impulses, where transient response is usually of consideration when picking microphones for, much more so than when picking mics for things like vocals and the capture of melodic instruments?
 
From what I've gathered on the subject of transient response from educational materials on manufacturer sites including Heil, Shure, Crown and Neumann, it's primarily a function of the mass of the pickup element. Also when comparing mics with a different operating principle such as condenser, ribbon or moving coil types, each type tends to have specific transient response behaviour but there are exceptions in each category.

The basic idea is that the transient portion of signals are the attack and release components. The stuff in the middle is called steady state. In a studio, a source signal said to have transient content usually means that there is little or no steady state content to sustain it. It's all attack and release. Percussive sounds like slap bass, staccato passeges on a number of instruments, the sharp attack of a piano and of course percussion instruments all have significant transient content. Distorted guitar and synth are examples that generally have a lot of sustain, very even levels and low transient content. Those spikes you see in a waveform are transients. If they aren't there, they aren't there.

If a microphone's pickup element is very low mass, it has a greater ability to start and stop responding to the sound waves it's exposed to in real time. Sharp percussive details are rendered more accurately. The down side is that this can have a tendency to make things sound thin. Moving coil mics are generally said to have slower transient response than ribbons or condensers because the diaphragm is heavier. There are a handfull of moving coil mics that have very low mass diaphragms for that type of mic, and they have pretty decent transient response. It varies between different mics in all categories. The down side to slow transient response is a reduction in detail and possibly dull sounding transients. The up side is that it can help to fatten up a thin source. Or knock the edge off of a source that's ripping your face. It isn't right or wrong, just another tool that a recordist with a selection of different mics can use to shape the sound given the right instance.
 
The difference between a $100 mic and a $1000 mic?

More R & D
Tighter tolerances, IIRC Neumann manufactures their stuff in a dust free environment or something like that (white suits and stuff)
Sometimes more features like polar pattern selection
Elimination of the chinese brightness (the only way I can describe that harsh overly bright sound that some cheap LDC mics have).
The name (sometimes)

I'm mostly referencing condenser microphones. I don't think the differences in ribbon and dynamic mics are as great.
 
miroslav said:
The two would be directly interchangeable if the signal is a wide band/impulse source.
Click to expand...

If frequency response and impulse response are properties of a device such as a microphone, why would the type of signal you happen to apply change anything? Perhaps impulse response can also include ringing, where frequency response doesn't?

--Ethan
 
Well....since you answered my question with questions....I'll toss questions back at you. :)

What happens when at some frequencies (like the high ones) the transient decay is longer than expected for those frequencies, due to the physical mechanics of the mic....does that not alter the 1:1 relationship of FR and TR that you say is the same thing?

Wouldn't that create transient response differences from mic to mic even though both ARE equally capable of capturing the same frequencies at the same level?
 
I guess we'd have to look at a waterfall plot showing ringing for both microphones. As far as I know most microphone diaphragms have a single resonant frequency, so it's not like they ring over a range of frequencies. Plus, the resonance is not at the top end, but around a few KHz for most types, and much lower for ribbons.

--Ethan
 
The thing about walters was that he never posted in anyone elses threads. Always started his own. Always from the perspective of someone wanting to learn. Usually in idiotic fashion with a disregard or even contempt for punctuation.

And very often on the subject of some of the most arcane, creative and advanced recording techniques ever seen in the industry.

I'm inclined to think he was a jedi (or sith perhaps) master of audio disguised as a mild mannered yet thought provoking troll.

HR is one of the few audio sites on the net that he wasn't banned from. Just looking at the list of thread titles he started reads like an extensive A level course in audio serendipity. He specialized in asking questions that were largely unanswerable.
 
He got some great answers in that thread.

Going through all his IP addresses, I couldn't correlate him with anyone else. So, maybe not an alias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top