C1, Audio Technica4033sm or sure ksm44?

[alanhyatt]

Harvey,

Its not a matter of wrong or right. I did check, small thickness can handle the same SPL given all variables are correct. Fact is, it requires more pressue to move a thicker mass, that will not change, but that does not mean a thinner thickness can not be as loud. It does have more to do with amplifier load than any of the other variables.

I am only expressing my findings regarding the AT4033, which again, is a fine microphone, as well as my experiences with many innexpensive mics in the 3 and 6 micron range. I have found that "generally", those 6 micron mics have handled more SPL. Again, that could be due to amplifier variables as well.

Alan Hyatt

 

[WildFire]

All this talk about different micron sizes effecting the maximum SPL -- The thicker the diaphragm, the more pressure it takes to move it, has brought to me another question. Would the the thicker diaphragm cause it to be less sensitive to low SPL?

Don't get me wrong here, but this seems rather six and half a dozen to me.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Alan,

What you're saying now is different than your original statement, which is what I'm questioning. To go back, you said "The C1 is a 6 micron, so it handles much more SPL as a result of the thickness. "

I said the thickness of the diaphragm really doesn't have much of anything to do with the max SPL a mic can handle. That's a function of spacing, tensioning, polarizing voltage, and the airspace between the diaphragm and the back plate, but not the diaphragm thickness.

At least, not to the point where a thick diaphragm will "handles much more SPL as a result of the thickness."

Again, if I'm wrong about this, I apologize. If as you say, "a thicker diaphragm will handles much more SPL as a result of the thickness", then I've learned something new.

I'm also still not exactly sure what you're saying in your last post. Especially the line about "given all variables are correct". What does "correct" mean in this context?

Also you said, "I have found that "generally", those 6 micron mics have handled more SPL. Again, that could be due to amplifier variables as well."

As well as what? As well as the major contribution of the 6 micron thickness? That's what I think you're saying, and that's what I'm having a problem with.

I'm really not trying to be stubborn or put you down, but your original statement and your last post just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying a heavier car can hit a higher top speed than a lighter car, because of its weight.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

All this talk about different micron sizes effecting the maximum SPL -- The thicker the diaphragm, the more pressure it takes to move it, has brought to me another question. Would the the thicker diaphragm cause it to be less sensitive to low SPL?

That might be slightly more valid, but (as far as I know)the sensitivity of a condenser mic has more to do with it's capsule design and electronics than it does on the diaphragm thickness. As far as what I've learned, the thickness really affects only two basic areas, the capsule's resonance, and its high frequency response.

But if Alan's statement is correct and I'm wrong, then it would seem that thicker diaphragms would be less sensitive to low SPLs.

 

[ausrock]

Harvey and Alan,

Can I butt in here and show my ignornace.

Wouldn't a thicker diaphragm, by it's very nature be stronger and therefore capable of handle greater pressure............this assumption is based soley on the physics of the thing BEFORE any other factors come into play.

 

[ausrock]

Damn, and I can't even spell ignorance correctly.......lol.

 

[WildFire]

Maybe a better question isn't how thick the diaphragm is, but how well does it protect against pregnancy

 

[alanhyatt]

Harvey,


It's like saying a heavier car can hit a higher top speed than a lighter car, because of its weight.

Well, a heavier car can definitely do more damage than a lighter car despite the speed

The thickness of the Mylar may not be the major factor to SPL, or any factor for that matter... and I agree, the variables are. I said distance of the gap, tensioning, back plate, and the air pocket behind the diaphragm do have the major factor. Yes, I said the 6 um get much more SPL, and I find that to be true with the microphones I have tested, and use in sessions. Maybe you're findings are different from mine. I know what I am saying may sound nuts, but I believe that thicker materials take more pressure before they ripple. If one can agree that this is true, then perhaps a thicker material "can" add to this factor. Many may say no, and have the proof, but again this is just my thinking.

As for the correct variables, what I mean is that they, (the variables) must be correct, like the tensioning. If a diaphragm is designed to meet a spec, and one of the variables is off, like the agile tensioning, the spec goes out the window Harvey. As it would if the back plate holes or spacing were not correctly done. So given all things are done correct, a sub micron Mylar can be as loud as a 12 um for that matter like the old Neumann's.

I understand your issue, and perhaps I should have said it differently, but I have to be very careful of what I say here as a result of a statement I make being taken as Spam, or promoting my mics. So, I walk very gently here when I reply these days.

It’s a good debate, not an argument, and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you either. A heavier car can do more damage, it can't do more speed as a result of its weight unless it has a bigger engine. So, can a thicker diaphragm that can take more pressure than a thin one be a part of the pie that equals higher SPL... Perhaps, and then again maybe no, but I find the C1 and C3 to handle more SPL than the 4033. So is this a result of the design of my capsules vs the AT's...who knows anymore.

Am I spamming yet

 

[alanhyatt]

Harvey and Alan,

Wouldn't a thicker diaphragm, by it's very nature be stronger and therefore capable of handle greater pressure............this assumption is based soley on the physics of the thing BEFORE any other factors come into play.

This is the debate...technically all things done correct..sorry Harvey theres that correct thing again No, it should not make a difference, but then again a 3um mylar ripples under under less pressure than a 6um...sooooo

 

[Vurt]

How should the 4033 be used on amps?

I've only ever used my 4033 on vox and room mic'ing, choosing not to ever put it near the grill of an amp for fear of damaging it. Until this thread, I've never even heard of anyone using a LD on an amp. So tell me, where exactly are you guys placing them? I've never been happy with using 57's and would love to try this.

I asked my cousin about this some time ago when I wanted to use the 4033 directly in front of the kick, and he said that as long as I couldn't feel any "wind" hitting this mic, the capsule should be okay. Is this is a practical measure to go by?

 

[Gidge]

Am I spamming yet

are you serious....

 

[Gidge]

my v67 can beat up your C1.....

 

[alanhyatt]

my v67 can beat up your C1.....

Hmmmm, no pad, no high pass filter, no shock mount, no case, no Tina Turner....you lose

 

[alanhyatt]

Re: How should the 4033 be used on amps?

as long as I couldn't feel any "wind" hitting this mic, the capsule should be okay. Is this is a practical measure to go by?

Well, use a pop filter. I use a pop filter on the C1 and C3 and put it right in front of the kick, as well as under the snare, and the mic hums right along, not to mention the sound...wow. LD's are great for tone on drums, you just have to use them the right way. As for amp stacks, same thing, pop filter or pantyhose, 12 to 18" back. I cant say what your 4033 will do, but the spec say 142db, so I would stick it right in the kick. I am sure it will do the job.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Harvey,

It's like saying a heavier car can hit a higher top speed than a lighter car, because of its weight.

Well, a heavier car can definitely do more damage than a lighter car despite the speed

You're like one of those greased pigs at the state fair, Alan. I was talking about max speed, not damage with the car example. Let's stay focused on the main issue here: Does increased diaphragm thickness provide greater SPL handling?

The thickness of the Mylar may not be the major factor to SPL, or any factor for that matter.

Finally!! That's all I was saying, or asking about.

I said distance of the gap, tensioning, back plate, and the air pocket behind the diaphragm do have the major factor.

We certainly agree on that.

Yes, I said the 6 um get much more SPL, and I find that to be true with the microphones I have tested, and use in sessions. Maybe you're findings are different from mine. I know what I am saying may sound nuts, but I believe that thicker materials take more pressure before they ripple.

Aaaarrrrgggghhhh !!!! I give up!!

If one can agree that this is true, then perhaps a thicker material "can" add to this factor. Many may say no, and have the proof, but again this is just my thinking.

Again, we agree that this is only your viewpoint, and those who disagree do have proof.

As for the correct variables, what I mean is that they, (the variables) must be correct, like the tensioning. If a diaphragm is designed to meet a spec, and one of the variables is off, like the agile tensioning, the spec goes out the window Harvey. As it would if the back plate holes or spacing were not correctly done. So given all things are done correct, a sub micron Mylar can be as loud as a 12 um for that matter like the old Neumann's.

I'm not talking about how loud the mic is, or other variables, just the point about diaphragm thickness improving the max SPL.

I understand your issue, and perhaps I should have said it differently, but I have to be very careful of what I say here as a result of a statement I make being taken as Spam, or promoting my mics. So, I walk very gently here when I reply these days.

Well, as a manufacturer, you hafta be careful that you get the facts right, and I'm here to tweak your nose if I think you're heading down the wrong road (and you know I love you, Alan).

It’s a good debate, not an argument, and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you either. A heavier car can do more damage, it can't do more speed as a result of its weight unless it has a bigger engine.

Bingo!!

So, can a thicker diaphragm that can take more pressure than a thin one be a part of the pie that equals higher SPL... Perhaps, and then again maybe no, but I find the C1 and C3 to handle more SPL than the 4033. So is this a result of the design of my capsules vs the AT's...who knows anymore.

It's a combination of many other things, but it ain't the thickness of the diaphragm. And I'd take a C1 or C3 over a 4033 any day.

Am I spamming yet

In this case, no.

 

[chessparov]

I hereby make a motion for Alan to create the special "Harvey Gerst"
C1 edition made to his specs. After let's do a shoot-out between it
and the "stock" C1. Winner gets all the glory!

 

[Mark H.]

To get back to the question, if all three mics are currently within your reach, then I'd defnitely suggest going with the KSM44 for its openness and versatility on vocals in particular.

At the price of the KSM44, however, a more fair and challenging comparison would be with the Studio Projects T-3 multi-pattern tube microphone and the AT4050 or even an AT4060 (Sweetwater sold one recently on ebay for $700, making it equal in price to the Shure and the Studio Projects T-3). THEN you'd have some difficult decisions to make!

Best wishes,

Mark H.

 

[jet-rocker]

Hey Vurt.

You can put the 4033, pretty damn close to the amp. It's got a pretty high SPL rating.

Usually I put mine two to three feet back though. To avoid the proximity effect buildup of the cardiod pattern. I've seen 4050s in omni right up to the grill, so I figure there would be no problem using the 4033 like this.

-Jett

 

[Vurt]

Well I'm definitely going to try it out this weekend - thanks for the advice!

 

[alanhyatt]

You're like one of those greased pigs at the state fair, Alan. I was talking about max speed, not damage with the car example. Let's stay focused on the main issue here: Does increased diaphragm thickness provide greater SPL handling?
[/B]

Harvey, you don't need to be calling me names, and yes, I saw the I love you thing, but that was a bit uncalled for.

You want to tweak my nose...tweak it. We all add our beliefs here, and if you wish to dispute mine, that is fine. I still think thicker material adds to the cocktail...so sue me. It is only based on my experiences in use...not design.

Alan Hyatt