joey2000
New member
Flip side to this: why not just always use balanced cables so you're sure you're fine regardless? Big price diff?
Can I damage condenser mic by phantom power supply connected over unbalanced XLR cabl
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Yes! It is not rocket science to go through all your cables and check they are standard. The audio buff WILL need specials sometimes. Out of phase, XLR gender changers and other connection variants. Cables that diss' the screen one end, 'impedance' balanced versions. Many of these can be made up as 6" 'slugs', but LABEL THE FEKKERS! investing in a tape printer and some clear heat shrink will save much profanity.
Dave.
joey2000
New member
Judas H. This is way more complicated than it should be. With all our tech we can't standardize things more??
Steenamaroo
...
I have to admit I wondered what the need for an XLR M-F with 1+3 tied could be.
Is it just to facilitate use of old microphones that used to rely on 1/4" inputs to mic preamps?
If I had a cable with 1+3 tied I'd repair it or destroy it. It's a phantom power accident waiting to happen.
As ECC says, anyone with specialist requirements probably is, or should be, making custom adapters and labelling them.
Is it just to facilitate use of old microphones that used to rely on 1/4" inputs to mic preamps?
If I had a cable with 1+3 tied I'd repair it or destroy it. It's a phantom power accident waiting to happen.
As ECC says, anyone with specialist requirements probably is, or should be, making custom adapters and labelling them.
T
Taylor729
New member
I got rid of that unbalanced cable and will take extra care to make sure all new XLR cables are three wire ones
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Ha! Kids! Go back 30 years or so and the number of audio connectors was at least ten times the present figure. EVERY bloody maic maker had HIS on idea what was required! Reslo had theirs, Grampian another Audax, Philips, the list goes on.
Impedances were all over the shop. 30 Ohms, 600Ohms I still have a wee lav' mic at FIFTEEN Ohms fcs!
Then of course, everything was valves. If you wanted any signal above 10kHz down the end of 20ft or so of wire it HAD to be transformer coupled,each fekkin' end!
There were also 7 mains connectors to chose from, plus the lethal BAYONET socket!
Don't know you are born!
Dave.
Steenamaroo
...
Ain't that the truth. I resist the urge to say it because I'm "young" but I definitely think it.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Haha! And I did not even TOUCH on DIN variants. BTW I have a small collection of weird DIN plugs. Anyone over at the Annyloggy section need one, PM.
Dave.
Steenamaroo
...
joey2000
New member
I have no idea what that means but referring to me as a kid was oddly funny and tragic (ie its inaccuracy) at the same time.
Also moot!
And really you highlight my point: I get why things were a mess back when...not now. With all of our advances I'd think we would have one freaking cable type, one or perhaps two connector types, period. Standardization has been a hot topic in high-tech for a long time now. We may have come a long way but it aint far enough!
E
ecc83
Well-known member
I have no idea what that means but referring to me as a kid was oddly funny and tragic (ie its inaccuracy) at the same time.
Also moot!
The remark was a general one Joe! It would have applied to me at 60 ten years ago WRT computers!
We HAVE come a long way with standards. The problem was caused by manufacturers trying to force everyone to use THEIR products and we have seen this in respect of power supplies. Wall rats and line lumps. There is NO technical reason for the vast variety of voltages, current capabilities and connector types. Thank fk most are now +ve centre (except pedals!) We only really need 5V at an amp, 12 V at 2 amps for the vast ,majority of devices.
Mnfctrs have, over the years tried to 'cash in' by inventing new connection protocols..Whither mLan now? (actually seeded much of the research into Audio over Internet. Bloody good article in the current SoS about Dante et al)
There will always be variants and specials. Most of us don't need star quad cable but it should be there for them as does.
I lived through the total farce that was Quadraphonics. Competition might be a good thing in economic theory but it can also waste a fucking SHEDLOAD of money, time and resources!
Dave.
G
gianluca68
Member
A shorted cable can damage input of the preamp, if inserted with phantom on, because input capacitor sends -48V to the base of the input transistor. A simply clamp diode for each transistor avoid any damage.
If a microphone has an output transformer, a shorted cable can magnetize its core, because magnetic flux become unbalanced between the coils.
If a microphone has an output transformer, a shorted cable can magnetize its core, because magnetic flux become unbalanced between the coils.
T
Taylor729
New member
Hi there,
replacement mic from amazon already arrived and guess what, it works
I still can't believe it is possible, but the original one was really defective and missing a part on PCB, although apparently new.
replacement mic from amazon already arrived and guess what, it works
I still can't believe it is possible, but the original one was really defective and missing a part on PCB, although apparently new.
T
Taylor729
New member
Comparison of Chord CM05 condenser mic and Pulse PM800S dynamic mic
Let me say just a little follow up. I tried to compare this mic (Chord CM05) with another mic - Pulse PM800S.
PM800S is a dynamic mic which I found on a page listing budget but still quality mics The Noizeworks Product Guides: More Mic For Your Money. Budget Mics Product Guide. Part 1: Dynamic Vocal Mics.
I bought it on eBay for half price compared to Chord CM05.
I used an app in my phone to generate simply sinusoidal tones of various frequency (250, 440, 1000, 3000, 10000Hz) and recorded it Chord and then by Pulse. I put the phone right in front of the mic and there was no noise source in that direction. I'm using focusrite scarlett 2i2 2nd gen as recording device (at 24bit and 96kHz) and recorded a few secs each time.
I looked at spectrogram of both recordings (window size set to 16384 to get more detailed resolution at frequency axis) and found out a little bit less intensity of higher harmonics, but what surprised me more - significantly more low frequency noise. See images below:
Low frequency noise, recording 440Hz
Low freq noise, recording 1kHz
Higher harmonics, recording 1kHz
Am I somehow misinterpreting results or did I something wrong about the way I tested it?
If I'm right, it surprises me a bit. I actually expected better quality from Chord (as it is condenser mic).
As for real usage (recording voice), I perceived the sound of Chord a bit better than Pulse - more clear (but it might be just auto-suggestion because Chord was more expensive). Also Chord has a bit better suppresion of handling noise (but it does not directly relate to sound quality itself).
Let me say just a little follow up. I tried to compare this mic (Chord CM05) with another mic - Pulse PM800S.
PM800S is a dynamic mic which I found on a page listing budget but still quality mics The Noizeworks Product Guides: More Mic For Your Money. Budget Mics Product Guide. Part 1: Dynamic Vocal Mics.
I bought it on eBay for half price compared to Chord CM05.
I used an app in my phone to generate simply sinusoidal tones of various frequency (250, 440, 1000, 3000, 10000Hz) and recorded it Chord and then by Pulse. I put the phone right in front of the mic and there was no noise source in that direction. I'm using focusrite scarlett 2i2 2nd gen as recording device (at 24bit and 96kHz) and recorded a few secs each time.
I looked at spectrogram of both recordings (window size set to 16384 to get more detailed resolution at frequency axis) and found out a little bit less intensity of higher harmonics, but what surprised me more - significantly more low frequency noise. See images below:
Low frequency noise, recording 440Hz
Low freq noise, recording 1kHz
Higher harmonics, recording 1kHz
Am I somehow misinterpreting results or did I something wrong about the way I tested it?
If I'm right, it surprises me a bit. I actually expected better quality from Chord (as it is condenser mic).
As for real usage (recording voice), I perceived the sound of Chord a bit better than Pulse - more clear (but it might be just auto-suggestion because Chord was more expensive). Also Chord has a bit better suppresion of handling noise (but it does not directly relate to sound quality itself).
Last edited:
mjbphotos
Moderator
Try using a spectrum analyzer. Not sure what your graphs are. Mics under L20? You do get what you (don't) pay for!
E
ecc83
Well-known member
+1 Mike, I can't see any information value at all either! Why do people think phones are magic? The 'speaker' is going to be DIRE! Microphone calibrating kit costs arms and legs.
The op would do better to just record 'Mary had' for 20 secs on each mic and post the best MP3 he could.
Dave.
T
Taylor729
New member
Graphs are spectrograms (I mentioned it in my post). Horizontal axis is time, vertical is frequency and color represents level. I am completely aware that I was not buying high quality equipment. I do it just for fun and it does not generate me any profit and I have other hobbies too. Nevertheless at least (I hope you see it in the same way) I bought reasonable audio interface, at least.
Regarding the mics, I was just thinking about it rather in the way that Pulse PM800 might be pleasant surprise than the Chord is disappointment (although in fact it is, a bit - I could save money I spent on it for something better).
Regarding the mics, I was just thinking about it rather in the way that Pulse PM800 might be pleasant surprise than the Chord is disappointment (although in fact it is, a bit - I could save money I spent on it for something better).
G
gianluca68
Member
Hi, Taylor
Please consider:
1) Audio measurements are very, very critical. A phone speaker is really, really inadequate for a microphone frequency response test!
2) The "perfect microphone" cannot exist! Microphones response is tailored for a better sound in some applications; voices are very different each other and each one likes to hear his voice in a manner different from others, then you have to test microphone to find the one that makes the sound you like with your voice. A bit of mixer EQ is also added, but capabilities of an analog mixer EQ can't modify the personality of a mic, and a singer prefers start from a good sound by his mic type, instead of trying obtain it with EQ...
3) A well modeled response mic has a brighter, vivid sound than a flat response one
Please consider:
1) Audio measurements are very, very critical. A phone speaker is really, really inadequate for a microphone frequency response test!
2) The "perfect microphone" cannot exist! Microphones response is tailored for a better sound in some applications; voices are very different each other and each one likes to hear his voice in a manner different from others, then you have to test microphone to find the one that makes the sound you like with your voice. A bit of mixer EQ is also added, but capabilities of an analog mixer EQ can't modify the personality of a mic, and a singer prefers start from a good sound by his mic type, instead of trying obtain it with EQ...
3) A well modeled response mic has a brighter, vivid sound than a flat response one
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Please consider:
1) Audio measurements are very, very critical. A phone speaker is really, really inadequate for a microphone frequency response test!
^ Agreed:
2) The "perfect microphone" cannot exist! Microphones response is tailored for a better sound in some applications; voices are very different each other and each one likes to hear his voice in a manner different from others, then you have to test microphone to find the one that makes the sound you like with your voice. A bit of mixer EQ is also added, but capabilities of an analog mixer EQ can't modify the personality of a mic, and a singer prefers start from a good sound by his mic type, instead of trying obtain it with EQ...
True ^ but measurement 'B&KS' get PDClose! The Earthworks microphones are noted for their very flat, very wide response and are very popular with many engineers/producers.
3) A well modeled response mic has a brighter, vivid sound than a flat response one
^But not everyone wants that! There is a bit of a divide (more a chasm!) in the recording fraternity these days. It is approaching the silliness of the Russ Andrews 'Audiophool' brigade IMHO. Yes there IS a case for 'flattering' microphones but there is an even bigger one in my view for 'flat' ones that 'Tell it Like it is!'
Dave.
1) Audio measurements are very, very critical. A phone speaker is really, really inadequate for a microphone frequency response test!
^ Agreed:
2) The "perfect microphone" cannot exist! Microphones response is tailored for a better sound in some applications; voices are very different each other and each one likes to hear his voice in a manner different from others, then you have to test microphone to find the one that makes the sound you like with your voice. A bit of mixer EQ is also added, but capabilities of an analog mixer EQ can't modify the personality of a mic, and a singer prefers start from a good sound by his mic type, instead of trying obtain it with EQ...
True ^ but measurement 'B&KS' get PDClose! The Earthworks microphones are noted for their very flat, very wide response and are very popular with many engineers/producers.
3) A well modeled response mic has a brighter, vivid sound than a flat response one
^But not everyone wants that! There is a bit of a divide (more a chasm!) in the recording fraternity these days. It is approaching the silliness of the Russ Andrews 'Audiophool' brigade IMHO. Yes there IS a case for 'flattering' microphones but there is an even bigger one in my view for 'flat' ones that 'Tell it Like it is!'
Dave.