B1 or C1 - Difference in cost = better quality/sound?
- Thread starter WERNER 1
- Start date
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
Just flat? Beats me. I don't think any of them are flat at all. They are all mics with character. If objective measurement were applied, something I assure you I have not done, my guess would be V67. The Oktava has a definite low end boost, and the B-1 a smaller high mid boost. The V67 seems to just provide even color across the spectrum. This is, however, only when compared to each other. None of them is an ECM8000 or a DPA, that's for sure.-Richie
Thanks Richard... I kept it to the MC-319, V67, and B1 because... 1) those 3 mics were already mentioned in this thread. 2) those 3 mics all have different tone (i.e. dark to bright, color, etc. 3) all three are LDC mics. 4) all those mics are under $100 so more hr.com memebers might have them.
I wish we had a universal reference point for neutral with mics like we have the ruler to measure an inch with. Anyway, thanks again Richard.
I wish we had a universal reference point for neutral with mics like we have the ruler to measure an inch with. Anyway, thanks again Richard.
crazydoc
Master Baiter
Well, I found it myself.crazydoc said:
It's in this thread, which bears re-reading:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=108464
According to the graph, the C1 is very bright and colored, whereas the B1 is bright but not colored (which I would read as bright but neutral.) I must say I don't understand the difference between "transparent" and "neutral."
It's also found at:
http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/images/mic-graph1.jpg
I've taken the liberty of reposting the graph here for any further discussion. Thanks for this, Dan. Any further updates?
Attachments
My take on "neutral" would be mid way between transparent and colored if you are talking neutral transparency. I beleive neutral would most often be used to describe the state of the mic's transparency.
If you were talking brightness neutral would be in the vertical middle .
If neutral is to be described as not too much in either direction, then
that would put the most neutral mics of both variables in the very middle of the chart.
A B1 is quite neutral in it's transparency, but on the bright side.
A CAD M179 or Sennheiser 421 or Shure SM7 is more neutral in both respects.
A mic like an Earthworks or DPA would not be called neutral, it would be called transparent.
If you were talking brightness neutral would be in the vertical middle .
If neutral is to be described as not too much in either direction, then
that would put the most neutral mics of both variables in the very middle of the chart.
A B1 is quite neutral in it's transparency, but on the bright side.
A CAD M179 or Sennheiser 421 or Shure SM7 is more neutral in both respects.
A mic like an Earthworks or DPA would not be called neutral, it would be called transparent.
crazydoc said:
Referring to this chart, the following mics are the MOST neutral:
Scheops, ADK TC,CAD M179, SHure SM7 B and the MD421. As a mic moves away from the center (neutral = center) they become brighter/darker (EQ, rolloff freq) and transparent/colored (sounds like source/doesn't sound like source. The"bumps" and emphasis that the mic has)).
OneRoomStudios
New member
Hey Dot - while we're on the topic, I just wanted to thank you for making that graph in the first place. I have been looking at it for a while now, and it has helped me a lot in understanding the way different mics sound in comparision to each other. In some ways, that graph is somewhat of the "ruler" that DJL was talking about. Is there any chance of an update? It would be immensly helpful to have things like an SM57, MXL 603, some Audix mics, and any other newer mics that aren't included on there. I know it's probably time consuming and I imagine you're pretty busy, but if you ever had some free time, I (and probably many others) would greatly appreciate an update.
-Peter
-Peter
crazydoc
Master Baiter
Well, I can see where neutral would be at the 0 point on the Y axis (between bright and dark), but on the X axis (transparent versus colored), to me the more transparent the sound means the less it is distorted (or colored), or the more it sounds like the source signal. Neutral also means the same thing to me - that the signal has been unaffected by the processing.
So I would think there should be no negative values to the X axis, and there should be only two quadrants to the graph.
bright
l
l
l
l
l____________ more colored
l
l
l
l
l
dark
So I would think there should be no negative values to the X axis, and there should be only two quadrants to the graph.
bright
l
l
l
l
l____________ more colored
l
l
l
l
l
dark
OneRoomStudios
New member
crazydoc said:
Unless you think of the origin as having a "normal" about of coloration. That way it's easier understand the fact that some mics (DPA, Earthworks...etc) are extremely transparent, while others, (M-179, SM7, etc) are just "non-intrusively" colored (neutral).
crazydoc
Master Baiter
My problem with that is "what is a normal amount of coloration?" That is really just a subjective determination, and I don't think it really deserves an axis.OneRoomStudios said:
I think most people could agree on an origin that is defined by a flat frequency response (neither bright nor dark), and zero distortion of the sound (uncolored.) These are at least quantifiable terms to give a reference starting point, that can be measured (or at least imagined.) The Earthworks measurement type mics would probably then be closest to the origin. Other mics could then be subjectively placed on the graph, depending on their perceived frequency handling and coloration.
Probably just shifting the Y axis all the way to the left on Dot's graph would take care of this.
Again, it's just that I have difficulty distinguishing between the terms transparent and neutral where it affects the quality of sound - to me they both mean the same thing - that the sound is unaffected.
I am always guided by the KISS priciple, aka Occam's razor.
Maybe there are other effects upon the sound that mics (and other gear) have. I don't know what they are, but you could always add a Z axis for a three dimensional graph.
OneRoomStudios
New member
crazydoc said:My problem with that is "what is a normal amount of coloration?" That is really just a subjective determination, and I don't think it really deserves an axis.
I definitely see what you're saying, but I think it is helpful to have some sort of marker or something at the point where the coloration becomes an issue. If I'm using an M-179 vs an Earthworks, then yeah, I'd probably hear it as slightly colored, but in the grand scheme of things, the M-179 is a pretty transparent mic. In otherwords, something like an M-179 doesn't neccesarily impart its own "character" on the source. Compared to a v69, which has a lot of coloration or character, the M-179 is neutral. So by setting up the graph the way Dot has it now, it is possible to see that point where the coloration enters into the equation.
On the other hand though, my one problem with representing it this way is that you can only get so transparent. The X axis would have to stop somewhere on the negative side, representing "perfect" transparency. On the positive side though, mics can become increasingly more colored ad infinum.
It comes down to the fact that this is a difficult thing to try to represent visually, so really any way of doing so is helpful.
OneRoomStudios said:
Hey, Peter. Appreciate it. This is an ongoing project and you guys are really some of the first to see any of these graphs. I'll be adding some more mics to the TLS mic graph as time permits after the first of the year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the X and Y are necessary on the graph. There are characteristics of mics that make them brighter or darker that don't affect the transparency or color. Likewise, there's characteristics of mics that make them more transparent or colored that don't have anything to do with how bright or dark they are.
We could move the X to the right. As I work more on the graph I'll develop more ways of presenting the material that'll probably be different from the way the graph is currently presented.
sdelsolray
Active member
krs said:
The Schoeps, generally, are not as "transparent" as the Earthworks or DPA, as they add some color in a very musical way. I don't know that I'd put them as far to the right of Earthworks or DPA, when compared to many of the other mics.
crazydoc said:
Look at a mic test chart (the one that comes with your mic). If you take the highest frequency/lowest frequency and look at the cut off/ cut in points, that is the "dark" vs. "bright" axis. A dark mic rolls off (reduces amplitude) at a lower frequ than a bright mic. This is due to the analog filtering that is applied to the pre-amp circuitry of the mic and to some degree the actual mic element.
The test chart will also have points in the curve that is a boost in the lows, mids, highs or any combination of these. That is the "color" or how much the mic adds EQ to the sound. So, it is entirely possible to have a bright, really colored mic and a dark, uncolored mic or any combo of the axis quadrant in Dot's chart. A ruler flat mic is totally uncolored, but can be bright or dark depending on when the freq's are rolled off. A ruler flat mic cannot be colored except for the fact that it can be bright or dark (most think this is "color", but it is not). You would have to have a perfect room to be able to measure how "colored" a mic is from the original source and that is why there are measurement mics. Measurement mics are totally flat (uncolored) and roll off at extremely high freq's (for analog sources).
It is subjective in how "colored" or "uncolored" a mic is without some expensive test equipment. Dot has done a fine job with his *comparisons* and tells it as he sees it. With serious test equipment, it is possible to exactly tell where a mic lies on Dot's chart, but a mic is a subjective thing anyway.
crazydoc
Master Baiter
Sorry, I can't agree with you at all. It certainly has something to do with the way a mic sounds, particularly if the low frequency cutoff is significantly above 20 Hz, the standard threshold of low frequency perception, or significantly below 20 kHz, the upper threshold. I don't think switching in the high pass filter significantly alters the "brightness" or "darkness" of a mic. It cuts out a boomy bass.acorec said:
I think the brightness or darkness is determined by the parameters in your line below:
I think it is the relationship of frequencies in those areas that determine "dark" or "bright", not the "color."
Color, to my mind, is the type of harmonics (multiples of the fundamental frequency) that a mic adds to the sound, and their relative amplitudes. This is a distortion, as in "harmonic distortion," and small amounts of certain harmonics are perceived as pleasing by humans.
Since the harmonics are probably mostly added by the way the mic's diaphragm and capsule are constructed, they likely are frequency dependent. So a low frequency sound would have different relative amounts of its harmonics versus a high frequency sound, further affecting how we perceive the "color" of the mic. This may also be why, in general, the smaller the diaphragm, the less "colored" a mic is - the larger the diaphragm, the more likely that spurious vibrations can be induced in its motion, and the larger their amplitude.
I have to add the disclaimer that this is just the way I understand it. I am not an engineer (audio or otherwise) or a physicist, so anyone with experience or education in these areas please chime in to tell me how I am misunderstanding this. I am happy to learn.
crazydoc
Master Baiter
So if coloration enters or "becomes an issue" only at the intersection of the Y axis, and the M179 is way across the graph on the color axis at "neutral", and at about the same value on the dark/bright axis, what is the difference in the two mics?OneRoomStudios said:
Right - that's my point. That's why the origin should be there. Again, what is the difference between transparent and neutral? It seems that, according to the graph, transparent + color = neutral. I disagree.