Difference between LDC and SDC mics

[Han]

Kudos?..Kudos??

You make me feel an inch tall and I'm suppose to give you Kudos for doing it???

Chill bro, it's not my intention to offend you or make you feel small. If I did I'm really sorry.

If you can spare the time you should read the Harvmaster's big mic thread, he has explained it all in there. I've learned a lot there.

Peace?

 

[PhilGood]

Peace. I'll get over it. I'm not going to post anything else until I educate myself better, and when I feel better. Sorry everyone!!

 

[Han]

Peace. I'll get over it. I'm not going to post anything else until I educate myself better, and when I feel better. Sorry everyone!!

Well, it takes quite some courage to post that man! Please post as much as you like here Phil. No need to say sorry.

Peace, Han

 

[crazydoc]

Peace. I'll get over it. I'm not going to post anything else until I educate myself better, and when I feel better. Sorry everyone!!

Hey, we all fuck up from time to time. The best way to learn is to post something as a fact - if it ain't, you'll know it soon. That's the great thing about these forums - instant correction (and embarrassment), which makes for a richer learning experience.

 

[crazydoc]

No doubt the grill is of a big influence here. However, different style of mount hardware and use of brass ring in 990 are no less important. Even the plastic tapered center contact housing in 603 makes significant difference.

Hey Marik, how's it goin'?

Maybe you could elucidate a little, in a general way, on how those factors influence the sound?

 

[XLR]

Peace. I'll get over it. I'm not going to post anything else until I educate myself better, and when I feel better. Sorry everyone!!

You had the conviction to say what you thought and the humility to take away from the discussion a desire to know more. Can't fault you for that.

Tim

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Absolutely, what everybody else said. Please don't stop posting, and I apologize if I came off harsh, but a lot of people on the net stick to their guns, even when they're dead wrong.

I got in a big fight with somebody a while back over this same "large diaphragm=better lows" thing (actually, I got into a lotta fights over this point). He was in college and that's what his audio teacher said. So he must be right, and I must be wrong.

Nope, he wound up correcting his teacher. There are a lot of things in audio that sound like they're logical (at first glance), but it just ain't so.

If you read the "big thread", a lot of this will be cleared up for you. A few people have even said they started making far better recordings after reading the big thread. I think it helps to understand how all this stuff really works, even in a non-technical way.

 

[Marik]

I got in a big fight with somebody a while back over this same "large diaphragm=better lows" thing (actually, I got into a lotta fights over this point).

Ha! I remember a fight over the topic even on Klaus' forum. They did not get to any conclusion, IIRC.

Maybe you could elucidate a little, in a general way, on how those factors influence the sound?

Huh Doc! it is kinda hard to get it in a general way, without going into details... The cardioid pattern in a capsule is done by means of allowing sound into back of diaphragm, with some phase shift network (that's why there are vents on the back of the Sony 38 backplate--close them and you get a pressure (omni) instead of pressure gradient mic). The distance sound travels from the front of the diaphragm to its back is one of the factors of this network. In case of 990 vs. 603 the brass ring might introduce even the same distance, but since diameter of the capsule has increased considerably, the wave lenght has changed as well, and so did the microphone directivity.
Any obstacle for the sound somehow changes something. To understand the influence of white tapered jobie in 603, take any cardioid (or ribbon) mic, talk to it, and then place your palm behind the capsule. The effect you will hear is caused by diffractions, air turbulences, standing waves, and alike bitches. Carefully designed tapered shape (spheric, in some other mics) redirects air flow, helping to avoid much of these. It maintains polar pattern and even response, and is a part of the phase network. Take it away and you get completely different sound.

 

[PhilGood]

OK, I have one last post as I've started reading the 'big thread' and have one last question. Please don't take this as an accusition or a "WTF" attitude. I'm simply wondering. I don't want the can opener anywhere near the worms. (hell no!)

On 05-12-2001 on this page of the thread:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=27030&page=29&pp=25

You stated the following in a recap of topics covered from the beginning to this point:

Condenser mics can be made in small (1/2" or smaller), medium (5/8" to 7/8"), and large diaphragm (!" and larger) sizes.

So how did I err other than miscommunicating that pencils aren't always electret, and the low end thing, and the transience thing? (Which, of course, we covered.) Sizes? Types? I measured my MXL 603s (19mm) and it's a little larger than 5/8". Was this ever an issue of contention?

 

[gordone]

Except in the case of knives, where bigger is better...
See Crocodile Dundee -
"That's not a knife, this is a knife!"

Mandatory Microphone content - I've gotten great results using my KM184 (along with a pop screen!) to record vocals. Think outside the box!

It's like the scene in the movie Men in Black where one guy gets the huge powerful looking space gun out of the arsenal and the other guy is given the tiny little 2 inch long gun. When he fires the tiny thing though it knocks him over and blows up a truck.

 

[mshilarious]

I measured my MXL 603s (19mm) and it's a little larger than 5/8". Was this ever an issue of contention?

No, except maybe the metric conversions. 1" = 25.4mm, so 19mm should be 3/4". You originally said that medium went to "about 25mm". Technically that is true, but most people are going to read "about 25mm" as "up to and including 25mm", and they're going to convert 25mm to 1", which is large.

 

[PhilGood]

No, except maybe the metric conversions. 1" = 25.4mm, so 19mm should be 3/4". You originally said that medium went to "about 25mm". Technically that is true, but most people are going to read "about 25mm" as "up to and including 25mm", and they're going to convert 25mm to 1", which is large.

Ah, up to. gotcha! I think I meant 25mm and higher was LDC.

3/4 inch is "a little larger" than 5/8inch, right? To clarify earlier statement. I didn't do any metric conversions, just pulled out a ruler and said "it's bigger than 5/8."

 

[mshilarious]

Ah, up to. gotcha! I think I meant 25mm and higher was LDC.

3/4 inch is "a little larger" than 5/8inch, right? To clarify earlier statement. I didn't do any metric conversions, just pulled out a ruler and said "it's bigger than 5/8."

Well if you're working with an 1/8" tolerance, don't go into electronics manufacturing

 

[crazydoc]

Sizes? Types? I measured my MXL 603s (19mm) and it's a little larger than 5/8". Was this ever an issue of contention?

I think these diaphragm sizes are a little subjective, and this is not really an important issue (but then, what do I know?) Small - less than about 1/2" (12.5mm); large - about 1" (25.4mm) or larger. Somewhere in between is medium. I'd still call a 24mm diaphragm "large."

I've told my wife that 6" is large.

 

[PhilGood]

Noooooo plans to go into manufacturing.

I told my wife 6" is large too. Still can't understand the giggling late at night...

 

[Harvey Gerst]

I think these diaphragm sizes are a little subjective, and this is not really an important issue (but then, what do I know?) Small - less than about 1/2" (12.5mm); large - about 1" (25.4mm) or larger. Somewhere in between is medium. I'd still call a 24mm diaphragm "large."

Actually, in the old days, there weren't those fine distinctions; there were two classes of condenser mics: small and large. Large was anything around an inch or so. Small was anything around a half inch or so. Nobody really made 3/8", 5/8", 3/4", or 7/8" diameter capsules; they were 1/2" or 1" - period.

It wasn't till the late 70's, when they introduced the 1/4" electret capsule that "small" became a confusing term.

 

[acorec]

AAAARRRGGGHHHHH !!!!!!!![/QUOTE

Sounds right to me. Of course, I only read this much so there may possibly be some minor errors somewhere down the line.

Originally Posted by PhilGood "....DJL really nailed it here, but I'd like to clarify a couple of things.LDCs are mics...."

 

[Marik]

Well if you're working with an 1/8" tolerance, don't go into electronics manufacturing

Well, diameter of working area in 603 is actually 17mm, which is 5.35/8 . 19m is a diameter of the mounting ring. Calling it a SD or MD really does not make that much difference. As I wrote earlier, the same capsule, as used in 990, due to the brass ring should exhibit directivity of the LD.
Ha! On the other hand how we call B&K 4138, which is a 1/8" capsule and is flat from 6.7Hz to almost 200 KHz!!!--let's talk about size matters

 

[crazydoc]

Huh Doc! it is kinda hard to get it in a general way, without going into details...

Thanks Marik. I guess that anything in proximity to the capsule influences the sound, like the surfaces around and inside a compound lens or telescope housing cause varying amounts of reflection and refraction that degrade the image.

I guess some of these parameters are by design, and some by trial and error?