Quick question about diaphragm sizes...

[ihs]

Hi everyone,

I'm planning on picking up a pair of SD mics in the next month or so, but I'm having a hard time finding info on some of them. What I'd like to know is the diaphragm size (in centimeters, millimeters, inches, whatever) of the following mics:

Oktava MC012
Neumann KM184
Audio-Technica AT3031
Shure SM81

I found the product manuals for the mics listed above on the web, but couldn't find specific measurements-usually they just say "small-diaphragm." I know I could just call the companies up, but I figured if the fine folks of the forum could help me out it'd save me some phone calls.

From what I've found, there seems to be a good bit of difference between different "small-diaphragm" condensers. The MXL603s is 20mm (about .78"), while the Rode NT5 is .50"-meaning the Marshall's over 50% bigger. I would think that would make it act a bit more like a LD, which I do not need another of (already have a TLM103 and NT1000).

Thanks for any help you guys (and gals) can provide.

 

[octoruss]

ihs,
I'm curious why you need the diaphragm size....is it simply that you don't want anything appoaching what the industry calls a "large diaphragm" condensor since you already have one?

If so, then I might respectfully suggest you use another feature as a basis for comparison. Large diaphragm mics have their own sonic qualities and purposes which differ significantly from small diaphragms, which have drastically different sonic qualities and purposes. But you knew that. The point is, a certain diaphragm size won't really tell you if a mic is "better" or has a particular sonic quality that resembles a large diaphragm, since there are so many other elements that go into making a mic's sound.

I'd instead look at the frequency graphs that accompany all mics, and can usually be found online. If you compare the frequency (or visual image) of the TLM103 for example, you could then choose a SD condensor that has a different frequency image from the Neumann.

Regardless, nothing beats going into Mars Music and A-B ing a couple until you find one you like--that will tell you much more than any graph or spec.

 

[octoruss]

One last thing...I'd also suggest you add the Elation KM201 mics to your consideration. I've got a pair and love 'em.

Good luck!

 

[Harvey Gerst]

The MXL603s is 20mm (about .78"), while the Rode NT5 is .50"-meaning the Marshall's over 50% bigger. I would think that would make it act a bit more like a LD, which I do not need another of (already have a TLM103 and NT1000).

Gee, if that spec is right, does that mean the other MXL603 specs are right? Let's see:

That would make the 603's dimensions (48mm wide by 195mm long) what? I'm not too good at converting millimeters to inches but isn't that about 2" across by 8" long? I think mine got left out in the rain or something cuz they sure ain't that big.

The MXL 603S has about a .5" diaphragm, I believe.

 

[ihs]

Re: Re: Quick question about diaphragm sizes...

Gee, if that spec is right, does that mean the other MXL603 specs are right? Let's see:

That would make the 603's dimensions (48mm wide by 195mm long) what? I'm not too good at converting millimeters to inches but isn't that about 2" across by 8" long? I think mine got left out in the rain or something cuz they sure ain't that big.

The MXL 603S has about a .5" diaphragm, I believe.

Thanks for the response, Harvey.

Well, I just got my numbers from the MXL website, http://www.mxlmics.com/mxl603s.html . They say it has a "20mm, 6 micron, gold diaphragm." I do know that 20 mm converts to 0.78740 inches, hence my math is right, but I have no idea if the 20mm is right in the first place.

Harvey, since you're here, maybe you wouldn't mind answering my quick question. I'll be using these mics strictly for acoustic guitar, specifically solo recordings. Am I correct in thinking that a smaller diaphragm would be more accurate, and more what I'm looking for? I read through "the thread" about mics you've been posting on, and this was my take on it, but I could certainly be wrong. Goodness knows it happens enough.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Re: Re: Re: Quick question about diaphragm sizes...

Thanks for the response, Harvey.

Well, I just got my numbers from the MXL website, http://www.mxlmics.com/mxl603s.html . They say it has a "20mm, 6 micron, gold diaphragm." I do know that 20 mm converts to 0.78740 inches, hence my math is right, but I have no idea if the 20mm is right in the first place.

And that's the same site that gave me the 48mm x 195mm size of the mic.

Harvey, since you're here, maybe you wouldn't mind answering my quick question. I'll be using these mics strictly for acoustic guitar, specifically solo recordings. Am I correct in thinking that a smaller diaphragm would be more accurate, and more what I'm looking for? I read through "the thread" about mics you've been posting on, and this was my take on it, but I could certainly be wrong. Goodness knows it happens enough.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Generally, a smaller diaphragm mic will give you more accuracy, but you trade off sensitivity.

 

[ihs]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Quick question about diaphragm sizes...

Generally, a smaller diaphragm mic will give you more accuracy, but you trade off sensitivity.

Thanks for the response, Harvey. I really appreciate your responses to my questions. Thanks also for the info about the MXL603 measurements.

Just a quick question from your last post. You mentioned that I will get better accuracy, but trade off sensitivity, with a smaller diaphragm mic. Is sensitivity referring to the frequency response, or is it something else? Also, since I'm looking for a mic that will be used strictly for acoustic guitar solo recordings (seeking a recorded sound similar to Michael Hedges, for example), will a 1/2" diaphragm be "better" for my purposes than a 3/4"? Thanks a lot for any help you can give-and thanks for being patient with this old banker!

 

[octoruss]

Harvey could probably speak with more authority than I, but I have tried a lot of large diaphragm and small diapgragm mics on my acoustic guitars (both steel string and nylon) and I find I get remarkably better quality with a small dia; particularly if I record in stereo.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quick question about diaphragm sizes...

Just a quick question from your last post. You mentioned that I will get better accuracy, but trade off sensitivity, with a smaller diaphragm mic. Is sensitivity referring to the frequency response, or is it something else? Also, since I'm looking for a mic that will be used strictly for acoustic guitar solo recordings (seeking a recorded sound similar to Michael Hedges, for example), will a 1/2" diaphragm be "better" for my purposes than a 3/4"? Thanks a lot for any help you can give-and thanks for being patient with this old banker!

Sensitivity is how loud the signal from the mic will be. The larger the diaphragm, the great the output signal. Smaller mics are usually more accurate as far as frequency response, but they aren't as loud, so you boost the preamp to compensate, and you increase the noise level. The tradeoff is accuracy versus sensitiivity.

 

[ihs]

Thanks for the explanation Harvey. I really appreciate it.

Octoruss,

Thanks for your helpful posts as well. You'd mentioned above that you have the Elation KM201's. How would you describe their sound? Bright top end, or do they have a "darker" sound, more like the Oktava's? Do you happen to have any recordings of acoustic guitar with them? Sorry I'm asking a lot of questions; it's just that nobody around here carries any of these so I really have no way to try them out myself. Thanks!

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Octoruss has the Elation 201s, not me. But I did have the opportunity to try them several years ago when I tested the Oktava and Elation mics from the Sound Room. I prefered the Oktava MC012s over the Elation by a slight margin. I found the Elations to be slightly darker and less focused. They were an excellent mic, but not the first mic I would reach for.

 

[octoruss]

Of course I'm working with a smaller overall mic selection than Harvey, but I tried the Neumanns, AKG, Elations and Oktavas extensively on piano and acoustic guitar (steel string, 12 string and classical) in an A,B,C & D test. True, I found the Elations a touch "darker" than ther Oktavas, but I don't think "dark" is necessarily the right term to describe their sound.

The Oktava's definitely have a brighter overall sound than the Elations, but they didn't seem as natural to me as the Elations, which I thought produced the most natural & smooth overall tone, slightly warm with solid (but not over-emphasized) mids that seemed to match the guitars and piano very well.

I'd be happy to send you some sample work I've recorded with the elations. I do alot of acoustic work, with multiple layered acoustic guitars, so I tend to EQ them quite a bit so each stands out in the mix, a la "America" style. As such, what I have might not be a good representation of a true, flat Elation sound. But I just finished recording a solo guitarist in stereo with just the Elations, and IMHO its one of the best sounding recordings I've ever gotten. If I get the ok from him, I'll try to make an MP3 and send it to you.

Regardless, I think the Sound Room has a liberal return policy, so you might ask them.