alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
chessparov said:
Hey Chess,
It ain't about the Glory. Like I said, technically the thickness should not be a factor, but my experiences tell me different. Its not about who is right or wrong. I know what I hear.
Alan Hyatt
Hey Chess,
It ain't about the Glory. Like I said, technically the thickness should not be a factor, but my experiences tell me different. Its not about who is right or wrong. I know what I hear.
Alan Hyatt
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Vurt. When I mic a guitar cab with a 4033 I put it about a foot out from the grill with the capsule pointing down a few degrees. Sounds very good.
darrin_h2000
Banned
I would think too that the thickness of the mylar would be propotionant to the sounds ability to blow a hole through it. that is simple physics.
Or are we talking about overdriving the mics, because if this is cleared up I'll be less confused.
Or are we talking about overdriving the mics, because if this is cleared up I'll be less confused.
D
darnold
New member
A few comments and Questions
I have never had much luck using the AT4033 on a guitar cab for Distortion guitar, but it sure does sound sweet on a clean blues. 57 all the way for the heavy distortion.
Now a few questions. When i first started buying condensor microphones i was paranoide of damaging them with too many SPLs (my trombone). But lately ive been less worried about it. First of alll, i dont understand how the SPL could physically damage a diaphragm. I understand that if you overload it, it will distort the sound and possibly blow it, but is it more of a circuit damage or is it the actual Diaphragm?
I have never had much luck using the AT4033 on a guitar cab for Distortion guitar, but it sure does sound sweet on a clean blues. 57 all the way for the heavy distortion.
Now a few questions. When i first started buying condensor microphones i was paranoide of damaging them with too many SPLs (my trombone). But lately ive been less worried about it. First of alll, i dont understand how the SPL could physically damage a diaphragm. I understand that if you overload it, it will distort the sound and possibly blow it, but is it more of a circuit damage or is it the actual Diaphragm?
C
chessparov
New member
Alan, lacking the background experience and expertise of either yourself
or Harvey, the discussion topic of "thickness" was as likely to be as
easily assimilated by me as if Einstein and Tesla were having a debate
over quantum mechanics! I think it's great you're passionate about
what you do, so please understand my "glory" comment was in fun.
Mark, thanks for bringing up the price range of the Shure mike.
If I had realized that, I would have also suggested checking out the
T3. On the Studio Projects listening CD even I can tell this microphone
must be right at the top of the heap of the world's best mikes.
I'm planning to pass the CD over to a local project studio owner shortly
to help spread the word.
or Harvey, the discussion topic of "thickness" was as likely to be as
easily assimilated by me as if Einstein and Tesla were having a debate
over quantum mechanics! I think it's great you're passionate about
what you do, so please understand my "glory" comment was in fun.
Mark, thanks for bringing up the price range of the Shure mike.
If I had realized that, I would have also suggested checking out the
T3. On the Studio Projects listening CD even I can tell this microphone
must be right at the top of the heap of the world's best mikes.
I'm planning to pass the CD over to a local project studio owner shortly
to help spread the word.
alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
Darnold,
All diaphragms ripple or vibrate as a result of sound pressue. They can get streched enough due to excursion to render them useless, and even tear. What I mean is its ability to function at spec. This would then be called a blown diaphragm.
Depending on the situation, a bad amplifier can cause harm to a mics electronic circuit, a blown diaphragm is just a blown diaphragm. Replace it, and away you go...
Alan Hyatt
All diaphragms ripple or vibrate as a result of sound pressue. They can get streched enough due to excursion to render them useless, and even tear. What I mean is its ability to function at spec. This would then be called a blown diaphragm.
Depending on the situation, a bad amplifier can cause harm to a mics electronic circuit, a blown diaphragm is just a blown diaphragm. Replace it, and away you go...
Alan Hyatt
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
Okay, lemme try to explain this and maybe some of you will get a better idea of why I got upset in the first place. We were talking about maximum Sound Pressure Level (SPL) that a mic can handle. That's pretty simple to test.
Hook the mic up to a distortion meter, crank a known source till the output hits a certain percentage of distortion (usually 1/2% or 1%, depending on the manufacturer). When it hits that percentage, stop and measure the actual SPL being produced by the source, and that's the "MAX SPL". Pretty simple, huh?
The question remains: exactly what is it that's distorting? The answer is: Who cares? That's the MAX SPL, unless you wanna go in there and change something.
It could be the diaphragm bottoming out, it could be the diaphragm tensioning, not enough polarizing voltage, or the air space, or even the preamp crapping out, but it doesn't make any difference - you live with the max SPL figure unless you wanna make some changes in the design. It's the sum of all the things you've done when designing the mic.
If you wanna redesign things, then yes, you can improve the max SPL, depending on what is distorting. For example, if the pre-amp is clipping and the capsule isn't, you can put in a 10dB pad which will increase the SPL rating accordingly. If the capsule is crapping out, you're gonna hafta redesign it.
But when you're getting up into 135 to 145 dB SPLs, a piece of film about 1/3rd the thickness of a human hair isn't gonna do a whole lot better than a piece of film 1/6th the thickness of a human hair in handling more SPL. It just isn't one of the big factors.
Stephen Paul is THE expert in thin films of 3 microns and below - he did it first, and he still does it best. AT could be having some problems in getting the tensioning right, but any increases in max SPL are not related to the diaphragm thickness - it's just not a big factor when it comes to increasing the max SPL handling.
If you're designing a condenser mic and you wanna increase the max SPL rating, you won't ever see a bunch of guys sitting around a table saying, "Let's make a thicker diaphragm to get a little more SPL handling.", anymore than you'd see a bunch of guys trying to design a faster car by sitting around a table saying, "Let's put in a back seat to make it go faster."
Just like a car, weight isn't a factor in deciding how to increase the top speed. Adding more weight doesn't make the car go faster. You increase the engine size, or the max RPM, or change the gear ratios, or change the tire size, or make the body more aerodynamic to increase top speed. And going to a heavier car body will not make the car go faster.
Stephen can build a 0.6 micron diaphragm that will handle just as much sound pressure as a 6 micron diaphragm - a full one magnitude difference in thickness. If he then switched to a 6 micron diaphragm, the max SPL handling would NOT go up.
MAX SPL is whatever it is - after the mic is finished. If you want a higher max SPL, you hafta go in, see what's limiting the max SPL, and change it, by redesign.
MAX SPL is a measurement of the mic's performance; it's not a fault to be fixed - it's a real world measurement of one aspect of the mic's performance.
Hook the mic up to a distortion meter, crank a known source till the output hits a certain percentage of distortion (usually 1/2% or 1%, depending on the manufacturer). When it hits that percentage, stop and measure the actual SPL being produced by the source, and that's the "MAX SPL". Pretty simple, huh?
The question remains: exactly what is it that's distorting? The answer is: Who cares? That's the MAX SPL, unless you wanna go in there and change something.
It could be the diaphragm bottoming out, it could be the diaphragm tensioning, not enough polarizing voltage, or the air space, or even the preamp crapping out, but it doesn't make any difference - you live with the max SPL figure unless you wanna make some changes in the design. It's the sum of all the things you've done when designing the mic.
If you wanna redesign things, then yes, you can improve the max SPL, depending on what is distorting. For example, if the pre-amp is clipping and the capsule isn't, you can put in a 10dB pad which will increase the SPL rating accordingly. If the capsule is crapping out, you're gonna hafta redesign it.
But when you're getting up into 135 to 145 dB SPLs, a piece of film about 1/3rd the thickness of a human hair isn't gonna do a whole lot better than a piece of film 1/6th the thickness of a human hair in handling more SPL. It just isn't one of the big factors.
Stephen Paul is THE expert in thin films of 3 microns and below - he did it first, and he still does it best. AT could be having some problems in getting the tensioning right, but any increases in max SPL are not related to the diaphragm thickness - it's just not a big factor when it comes to increasing the max SPL handling.
If you're designing a condenser mic and you wanna increase the max SPL rating, you won't ever see a bunch of guys sitting around a table saying, "Let's make a thicker diaphragm to get a little more SPL handling.", anymore than you'd see a bunch of guys trying to design a faster car by sitting around a table saying, "Let's put in a back seat to make it go faster."
Just like a car, weight isn't a factor in deciding how to increase the top speed. Adding more weight doesn't make the car go faster. You increase the engine size, or the max RPM, or change the gear ratios, or change the tire size, or make the body more aerodynamic to increase top speed. And going to a heavier car body will not make the car go faster.
Stephen can build a 0.6 micron diaphragm that will handle just as much sound pressure as a 6 micron diaphragm - a full one magnitude difference in thickness. If he then switched to a 6 micron diaphragm, the max SPL handling would NOT go up.
MAX SPL is whatever it is - after the mic is finished. If you want a higher max SPL, you hafta go in, see what's limiting the max SPL, and change it, by redesign.
MAX SPL is a measurement of the mic's performance; it's not a fault to be fixed - it's a real world measurement of one aspect of the mic's performance.
alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
chessparov said:
Chess,
I understand completely
Harvey is quite correct, and I am not disputing him, I guess the issue of my opinions threw Harvey from a strictly technical point of view. It is my opinions I can't seem to hold back.
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
Exactly. I hope everybody here realizes that I'm not attacking Alan personally, just questioning a highly suspect opinion, at least to me. I consider Alan a very good friend.alanhyatt said:
C
chessparov
New member
Everything's cool Alan, if you had "less opinions" I wouldn't have
learned as much from this thread. The "greased pig" comment cracked
me up as I married a 'lil gal from Texas who's also fond of using similar
expressions too! (usually when they throw those comments at you it
means they like you-once you crack the "southern code")
learned as much from this thread. The "greased pig" comment cracked
me up as I married a 'lil gal from Texas who's also fond of using similar
expressions too! (usually when they throw those comments at you it
means they like you-once you crack the "southern code")
alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
Chess,
Well Greased Pig is not in my New York vocab, fun or not. I did not like it. Again, my opinion, but I'll get over it
Well Greased Pig is not in my New York vocab, fun or not. I did not like it. Again, my opinion, but I'll get over it
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
Alan,
It was not meant as an insult. At State Fairs, they grease a pig and turn it loose in a room full of kids who try to hang on to it. It slips out of their hands pretty easily and it's great fun for the audience. I meant you were hard to nail down on this question - you kept slipping out of it, like a greased pig at a state fair. No insult was intended.
I coulda said, "Geez, Alan, you're dancing around the issue", or "I can't seem to pin you down on this point" or "you're evading the issue I'm talking about", but I chose to use a pretty common humorous expression from out here. I'm sorry if it offended you - that certainly wasn't my intent in using the expression and I do apologize for my indiscretion. especially since you found it offensive.
It was not meant as an insult. At State Fairs, they grease a pig and turn it loose in a room full of kids who try to hang on to it. It slips out of their hands pretty easily and it's great fun for the audience. I meant you were hard to nail down on this question - you kept slipping out of it, like a greased pig at a state fair. No insult was intended.
I coulda said, "Geez, Alan, you're dancing around the issue", or "I can't seem to pin you down on this point" or "you're evading the issue I'm talking about", but I chose to use a pretty common humorous expression from out here. I'm sorry if it offended you - that certainly wasn't my intent in using the expression and I do apologize for my indiscretion. especially since you found it offensive.
alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
Harvey Gerst said:
Accepted
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
but you're still wrong about the thickness thing.
JFogarty
New member
Harvey Gerst said:SIZE] [/COLOR]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
ausrock
Well-known member
Alan,
Sorry, but even on this side of the world I know of and have used that expression.
Harvey,
Thanks for the detail in explaining SPL parameters, etc. When I originally queried the relative physical strengths between diaphragms, I did so already knowing that at those minute thicknesses there ain't much different..........in a totally different field I have worked with materials of these dimensions.
ChrisO
Sorry, but even on this side of the world I know of and have used that expression.
Harvey,
Thanks for the detail in explaining SPL parameters, etc. When I originally queried the relative physical strengths between diaphragms, I did so already knowing that at those minute thicknesses there ain't much different..........in a totally different field I have worked with materials of these dimensions.
ChrisO
T
Tarzanalog
New member
Substitute (not the WHO song)
I use a AT3525 instead of a 4033... with solid results. Usually close-mic with a SM57 and use the 3525 at about 3ft... adds depth to the sound.
I use a AT3525 instead of a 4033... with solid results. Usually close-mic with a SM57 and use the 3525 at about 3ft... adds depth to the sound.
S
Sir Lee
New member
Harvey,
You might wanna get a new keyboard, I think it's starting to run out of ink.
You might wanna get a new keyboard, I think it's starting to run out of ink.
A
atomictoyz
New member
If I may interject some ideas. A thicker diaphragm will by its very nature be able to handle higher pressures. It just basic physics, and mechanics of materials. The things that is more critical is the frequency response of the diaphragm, which is contolled to some extent, the shape and tension of the diaphragm. A thin and poorly tension diapragm will not give a very good hf response and very inconsistant for the most part. A thicker diaphragm properly tensioned will give your more durability but less sensitivity at higher frequencies. This all assuming the resistors and capacitors are all equal in design, quality of the components and the quality of the assembly. You may very well have C1's out there that sound exactly like a Neumann, just because the variables in manufacturing make it probable. If you were to look at actual polar patterns of the different mics you would see a more controlled and consistant response pattern from a Neumann. The reason one is 200 bucks as a copy and the real Neumann is 2800 bucks, is that one uses precision machined parts and one uses cast parts. One uses hight quality electronics all around, one uses the lowest bidders components. Porche's and Pinto's, both are cars with alot of simularities..but the quality of the parts and workmanship are two different worlds.
Peace,
Dennis
Peace,
Dennis
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
But we were only discussing how much improvement in maximum SPL handling ability would result in going from 3 microns to 6 micron thickness. We weren't talking about high frequency sensitivity, diaphragm tensioning, or any of the components involved in the construction of microphones.atomictoyz said:
Alan said "much more" SPL levels from the thicker diaphragm; I said very little. I did talk to Stephen Paul about it and he agrees with me that the thickness of the diaphragm has very little to do with the maximul SPL of the microphone. Other factors like spacing, tensioning, polarizing voltage, and amplifier design have a far greater influence on the maximum SPL a particular mic can handle.
The thickness of the diaphragm material is a very small factor in max SPL, nowhere near as big a factor as Alan would have you believe. And Alan is well withing his rights to trust ancedotal evidence as proof of his assertion, but from a strictly technical design standpoint, it just ain't so.
I'm with Stephen on this one - doubling the thickness of the diaphragm does not significantly increase the max SPL handling ability of a microphone. It may be a "tiny bit", but it sure ain't "much more", as Alan claims; at least that's my position on it.
I really regret getting involved in this whole thread, since it seems to put Alan and myself at opposite ends of the spectrum on this point. I'm not gonna say any more on this subject, since I really respect Alan as a really sharp engineer with a lot of experience in this industry, and I applaud what he's trying to do with the Studio Projects microphones.
I think we've both stated our position well enough to avoid further misunderstandings, so let's just move on. Let's give it a rest.
Similar threads
