Bright Coloration - A List of Mics

  • Thread starter Thread starter bgavin
  • Start date Start date
Disregard where the C12 might have been when you may have happened to see it. I was sliding mics around on the graph. Uploading at different versions.

And no, the C12 would not go on the darker side.

I posted earlier:
Some bright, neutral mics:
AKG 414
AKG 451 SDC
Most newer AKG condenser mics fall into this category

Dan Richards
The Listening Sessions
The Project Studio Handbook
 
I want an updated copy of the chart when it becomes available.

Puleez

:D
 
Ultimately, I don't think there will be any names in the graph. The graph will get assigned sectors - just like "Battleship" and then each mic will get assigned whatever part on the grid they happen to correspond.

If I divide each of those four big sections in to 5 X 5 sections - for a total of 25 "squares" in each sector - then I could simply describe an MXL V69ME as a "D-22" - and you'd know exactly where it fit in on the graph - and it's relationship to the other mics - and that it is a very dark and very colored mic.

Somethin' like that.

Dan Richards
The Listening Sessions
The Project Studio Handbook
 
bgavin said:
For space sake, consider using a two digit numeric marker for the graph position, and a legend that identifies the number.

OFGB and Musicians Reference
Click to expand...
I think that it works better to have the actual names in there. Having to move your eyes from the chart to the legend is time-consuming, and may cause you to lose your place. I think the way he has it up there is fine.
 
Dot -- very nice work, thanks. I'll look forward to further updates.

A picture is worth a thousand words -- and a Neumann is worth a thousand pictures of Geo. Washington ;)
 
cominginsecond, I'll make it both ways. I'll make sure there's a chart that just visual. I'll probably make separate charts for large condensers, small condensers, large dynamics, etc.

Not to worry. Different charts can be made quickly. It's putting together the info that will take some time.

Thanks for the feedback!

Dan Richards
The Listening Sessions
The Project Studio Handbook
 
Dot- That is a very cool way of looking at the character of different mics. Some mics that aren't there that I'd really like to see included:

Oktava MC012, ML-52
Soundelux U195, U99, ifet7 (w/ and w/o transformer)
Lawson L47MP MarkII, L47-251
Josephson C42
Studio Projects C-4,T-3
Rode NTK
Shure SM57, Beta 57 (as a reference point)
B.L.U.E. Kiwi, Dragonfly, Blueberry, Mouse, Baby Bottle, Cactus

Keep up the good work, Dot. I'm currently planning some mic additions, and looking at it that way is revealing holes in my cabinet.-Richie
 
I think I forgot:
Rode Classic II
AT4060.-Richie
 
AT4040 and AT4047 also.

If my AT40xx mics are at the Bright end of Neutral coloration, then I'd have to start looking at the lower/right quadrant for something different. But I don't want any MXL...
 
Dan.


If this thing is going to be a grid with dots in, might it be possible to make each dot a hyperlink that opens a new window with the name and details of the mic in question?

Or would that be too memory intensive? :confused:
 
this is excellent...

but...

recommendation to remove the word Neutral that's in the graph center.

also, the difference between Neutral and Transparent is not clear... seems to be a distinction without a difference. with this in mind, how can Transparent be all the way to the left. maybe Transparent should be called something else. by default, Neutral or Transparent is dead center.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread. I see the graph is void of Rode mics and almost void of Shures. I would like to see where you think those would lie on the graph. I own the NTK and the NT1000. My take would be

NTK> Bright, colored

NT1000> Bright, Transparent

Shure KSM32> neutral, neutral

Blessings, Terry
 
The graph keeps getting updated and more mics added.
http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/images/mic-graph1.jpg

Sonixx, this isn't a language I'm making up. These are often-used descriptions. "Transparent" is the total absence of color - that's why it's all the way to the left. "Neutral" is in the middle because there is actually some color in neutral - think gray, tan, biege. So as the graph moves from left to right, the characteristics of the mics go from transparent [ no color ] to neutral [ a bit of color ] to colored.

In mic preamp language, "neutral" is referred to as "clean". And clean preamps still have a bit of color - but obviously not as much as "colored" mic pres.

Dan Richards
The Listening Sessions
The Project Studio Handbook
 
Dot said:
Sonixx, this isn't a language I'm making up. These are often-used descriptions.
Click to expand...
They aren't really used consistently across the entire field though. I think in most people's minds "transparent" and "neutral" mean the same thing.
 
Dot said:
... Sonixx, this isn't a language I'm making up. These are often-used descriptions. "Transparent" is the total absence of color - that's why it's all the way to the left. "Neutral" is in the middle because there is actually some color in neutral - think gray, tan, biege. So as the graph moves from left to right, the characteristics of the mics go from transparent [ no color ] to neutral [ a bit of color ] to colored...
Click to expand...
That's fine... but having Transparent as an extreme is incorrect usage. You can't have a mic or pre-amp that's really Transparent and it appear at the edge. Really Transparent has to be in the middle... the same location as Neutral... which is backwards from the other three. The extremes for Bright, Color and Dark are at the edge of the graph, whereas the extreme for Transparent is in the middle of the graph.

Regardless, good info and a very usage graph. Thanks for doing it...
 
I know there's a certain subjectivity to the color vs. transparent thing, but what's unusual is that from what I hear, I would agree with most things I see on the graph, exept... My Studio Projects C-4's are a little brighter, and waaaay less colored than my Oktava MC012's, which are pleasantly colored. In fact, my C-4's are rather similar in sound to my C414! The question is, are we looking at a difference between my mics and the ones Dot tested, or a difference in ears? It's funny that we would basically agree on a mess of mics, and totally disagree on one case only. What are your thoughts, Dot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top