At3035

[The Axis]

How about the new AT3035 ? Anyone with experience yet ? they have excellent sensitivity and noise specs and very flat freq. response. Looks interesting.

http://www.audio-technica.com/prodpro/profiles/AT3035.html

 

[blinddogblues]

This caught my eye also as I saw it advertised in the new issue of recording magazine. It looks cool anyway, do you know how much it costs?

 

[The Axis]

$199 at 8th Street Music

I know it is not a good idea to buy on specs alone, but these specs are *quite* good, AT is a very reputable manufacturer, and I suspect that they want to steal back market share from the cheap imports while not diluting the price or image of the "40" series. I think I might take a chance.

I can't imagine they would be "bad", even if not as incredible as the specs suggest.

Rick

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Read the specs CAREFULLY

With a minimum Phantom Power Voltage requirement of only 11 volts, it would appear to be an electret mic, not the "usual" condenser mic that requires 48 volts for the capsule. Sony made a 1" electret version of the C37 (called the ECM-377), and the charge has now just about completely dissappated.

While that doesn't bother me so much, the high end has some serious spiking which makes me a little concerned about the diaphragm tensioning and just how many corners they cut.

Only one frequency for the polar pattern chart? Hmmm, that starts to confirm my thinking they might have some possible high end response problems, especially slightly off axis. A 12 dB self noise figure is not particularly "very low" - it's kinda average. Low is generally 7 to 10 dB.

 

[The Axis]

I agree that the single pattern plot is a little suspicious, but the noise spec IS VERY good. Just compare some data sheets:

MXL V67G: 20 dB !!!
The venerable AKG C414 BULS: 14 dB
Rode NTK: 12 dB ±2 dB
Rode NT1000: 6 dB ±1 dB (reputed to ge the lowest self-noise production large condenser) So 7 dB is EXTREMELY low.

Many of the Chinese and Russian large capsules are 18 to 22 dB

(All when stated as EIN, A Weighted)

Also, the freq response doesn't appear to be "seriously spiking", but instead "remarkably flat". Again, compare to any other popular large condenser.

PS: The self noise and sensitivity always tend to interact and balance or compensate. The S/N RATIO for the AT3035 is EXCELLENT, at 82 dB. What else matches that in the 200, 400, 600, 800 $ categories ?. (The MXL V67G is only 80 dB)


PPS: The more detailed PDF data sheet shows more frequencies on the polar pattern (pretty typical variation) and confirms that the design IS a "permanently" charge condenser. What are the disadvantages of that design ?


Detailed data Sheet


Peace,
Rick

 

[Harvey Gerst]

I agree that the single pattern plot is a little suspicious, but the noise spec IS VERY good. Just compare some data sheets:

MXL V67G: 20 dB !!!
Actually, the current V67Gs are around 13dB self-noise, according to Brent Casey at Marshall.
The venerable AKG C414 BULS: 14 dB
Rode NTK: 12 dB ±2 dB
Rode NT1000: 6 dB ±1 dB (reputed to ge the lowest self-noise production large condenser) So 7 dB is EXTREMELY low.

Yes, 6 to 7 dB is indeed "very" low self-noise, but 12 dB isn't - it's more typical of most 1" condenser mics, although some mics come in at 18 to 20 dB self-noise, which is a bit on the high side to me.

Many of the Chinese and Russian large capsules are 18 to 22 dB

(All when stated as EIN, A Weighted)

Also, the freq response doesn't appear to be "seriously spiking", but instead "remarkably flat". Again, compare to any other popular large condenser.

I guess we're gonna hafta disagree on this point and let it go at that. The curve shown has been smoothed by running at a slower tracing speed. If it has that many little spikes (as opposed to a gentle smooth rise), I suspect the actual response is an order of magnitude higher.

PS: The self noise and sensitivity always tend to interact and balance or compensate. The S/N RATIO for the AT3035 is EXCELLENT, at 82 dB. What else matches that in the 200, 400, 600, 800 $ categories ?. (The MXL V67G is only 80 dB)


PPS: The more detailed PDF data sheet shows more frequencies on the polar pattern (pretty typical variation) and confirms that the design IS a "permanently" charge condenser. What are the disadvantages of that design ?

That also bothered me. Most polar plots are stepped in 10 dB increments - this one is in 5 dB steps. At 5 kHz, the response is damn near omni, with only about a 9 dB front to back difference, then at 8 kHz, it looks like a classic hyper-cardioid with only about a 7 dB difference front to back.

As far as disadvantages of electret mics, they start to lose their charge from day one. As the polarizing voltage goes down over time, the self noise level goes up. It's easier for small diaphragm condenser mics to hold their charge longer.


Detailed data Sheet


Peace,
Rick

 

[The Axis]

More comparisons

I guess we're gonna hafta disagree on this point and let it go at that. The curve shown has been smoothed by running at a slower tracing speed. If it has that many little spikes (as opposed to a gentle smooth rise), I suspect the actual response is an order of magnitude higher.

I work at a facility that does frequency sweeps all day every day.
The "tracing speed" has nothing to do with the response (assuming that the speed is slow enough to allow steady state conditions to be achieved---anything else would simply be an "Invalid Test" : ) ) It would actually require a FASTER tracing speed to "smooth" any slight variations in response. (skipping across potential peaks too quickly for the system to react fully)
Most of these sweeps are computerized, and it ALL happens much faster than any human or mechanical pen could possibly track.

Agreed that the back response is less than spectacular, but a quick review of many other "good" cardioid/hypercardioid mikes shows that -10 to -12 dB at 180° at certain frequencies is not unusual. I like the sound of omnis, so to me, any decrease in back response is worth consideration.

If you don't like the looks of the mike, that's OK. I just find it odd that anyone who recommends OKTAVA's and Marshalls would worry about slight weak points in the specs, or worry much about "what corners they are cutting"
I don't mean this as an insult or the beginning of a war, I am just truly surprised.

Peace,
Rick

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Re: More comparisons

I work at a facility that does frequency sweeps all day every day.
The "tracing speed" has nothing to do with the response (assuming that the speed is slow enough to allow steady state conditions to be achieved---anything else would simply be an "Invalid Test" : ) ) It would actually require a FASTER tracing speed to "smooth" any slight variations in response. (skipping across potential peaks too quickly for the system to react fully)
Most of these sweeps are computerized, and it ALL happens much faster than any human or mechanical pen could possibly track.

Agreed that the back response is less than spectacular, but a quick review of many other "good" cardioid/hypercardioid mikes shows that -10 to -12 dB at 180° at certain frequencies is not unusual. I like the sound of omnis, so to me, any decrease in back response is worth consideration.

If you don't like the looks of the mike, that's OK. I just find it odd that anyone who recommends OKTAVA's and Marshalls would worry about slight weak points in the specs, or worry much about "what corners they are cutting"
I don't mean this as an insult or the beginning of a war, I am just truly surprised.

Peace,
Rick

Whoa, I don't wanna get in a war either. I meant that if the vertical tracking speed is slowed down, those small blips may indicate much larger blips. To me, "slowing" the pen speed means the pen is "overdamped". If the mic has a simple rise over a large area at high frequencies, I find that more pleasant to listen to then a lot of peaks at multiple high frequencies.

The fact that the polar pattern goes from cardioid to omni and then to hypercardioid within the space of one octave bothers me a bit.

I'm as sceptical as anyone here about inexpensive mics. Please note that I don't recommend ALL Marshall or Oktava products. Some of them really suck, IMHO, and when they do, I point that out, in no uncertain terms. I have done and seen too many marketing curves and spec sheets to not be suspicious of them. I'd really like to actually hear one before passing judgement on it. All I was saying is that some of their specs looked a little strange to me, and that raised a few questions in my mind.