size doesn't matter?

[drossfile]

i recently got busted in the drum forum promulgating the popular myth that larger diaphragms reproduce low frequencies better than SDs because of the physical size of low freq waves.

while i have repented for these high crimes and misdemeanors, and after re-reading a lot of the "mic design" sticky, it occurred to me that i had read all of this before, but it didn't stick. why didn't it stick in my mind? because things have to make sense to me before i remember them.

(the following statement is gonna sound sarcastic, but i swear it's not)

so here's my challenge, and i think it's a fair one, although i'm confident that there's a perfectly rational, scientific explanation for why those in the know declare with authority that "size doesn't matter":

if diaphragm size has absolutely nothing to do with a mic's ability to capture low frequencies, then why is it that every single kick mic on the market is a large diaphragm dynamic???

furthermore, what about subkicks? why would you need such a large "speaker" mass to capture ultra-lows so effectively if there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in low-freq capabilities between SDs and LDs?

i'm not at all being sarcastic or pretending to know more than the experts. i'm genuinely puzzled by this and it's driving me nuts.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

(the following statement is gonna sound sarcastic, but i swear it's not)

so here's my challenge, and i think it's a fair one, although i'm confident that there's a perfectly rational, scientific explanation for why those in the know declare with authority that "size doesn't matter":

if diaphragm size has absolutely nothing to do with a mic's ability to capture low frequencies, then why is it that every single kick mic on the market is a large diaphragm dynamic???

furthermore, what about subkicks? why would you need such a large "speaker" mass to capture ultra-lows so effectively if there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in low-freq capabilities between SDs and LDs?

i'm not at all being sarcastic or pretending to know more than the experts. i'm genuinely puzzled by this and it's driving me nuts.

You're mixing apples and oranges. It's gonna take me a while to explain this, so give me a day or so. If anybody else wants to jump in here feel free. But the bottom line is that all the above statements are not contradictory.

 

[darrin_h2000]

I think I posted a "Queen" concert video where they had an SM58 on thier bass drum...so not every sound engineer goes the popular route...and he got good results too.

 

[drossfile]

You're mixing apples and oranges. It's gonna take me a while to explain this, so give me a day or so. If anybody else wants to jump in here feel free. But the bottom line is that all the above statements are not contradictory.

first response from harvey!!! WOOHOO! i feel like i've hit the jackpot, and you even have to think about it!!!! man, i'm stoked for this. thanks for dropping in, friend.

 

[mshilarious]

Answer #1: They aren't all large diaphragm dynamics. See the Shure SM91, for example.

Answer #2: Because they have sllloooow transient response, which rejects some of the sounds--a lot of the highs--you don't want. A mic with no highs will seem bassy . . .

Answer #3: While I haven't tested a SubKick, a generic speaker mic will have an important and potentially useful characteristic/flaw/feature: its resonance. When excited by a kick hit, it will not only pick up the frequency of the kick drum, it will add its own resonant frequency. In any other application, that would be considered a horrible distortion. In a speaker design, that would be compensated by one means or another. But for a drum mic, that could add a useful oomph that isn't actually there in the original acoustic signal.

 

[drossfile]

Answer #1: They aren't all large diaphragm dynamics. See the Shure SM91, for example.

Answer #2: Because they have sllloooow transient response, which rejects some of the sounds--a lot of the highs--you don't want. A mic with no highs will seem bassy . . .

Answer #3: While I haven't tested a SubKick, a generic speaker mic will have an important and potentially useful characteristic/flaw/feature: its resonance. When excited by a kick hit, it will not only pick up the frequency of the kick drum, it will add its own resonant frequency. In any other application, that would be considered a horrible distortion. In a speaker design, that would be compensated by one means or another. But for a drum mic, that could add a useful oomph that isn't actually there in the original acoustic signal.

response #1: ok, you have me on a technicality, but the VAST MAJORITY...

resopnse #2: fair enough. even with a D6, i boost @ 1.5k for more click. but your answer goes right to the heart of what i'm asking--by rejecting more highs, isn't the LDD more effectively capturing the lows?

response #3: that "oomph" is all low-end, no? if that resonance is produced by the LARGE SURFACE AREA of the woofer, doesn't that reinforce the myth that a larger area will better reproduce a low-frequency? i'm still...

 

[Harvey Gerst]

first response from harvey!!! WOOHOO! i feel like i've hit the jackpot, and you even have to think about it!!!! man, i'm stoked for this. thanks for dropping in, friend.

It's not so much "thinking about it", but how to explain it in simple to understand terms, so that everybody can understand it.

 

[PhilGood]

YES!!!!! Yet another opportunity to learn! To gain information! To suckle at the teat of wisdom and drink in the milk of knowledge from Harvey's uh....whoa!!!!!...uh...


...Guess I should have stopped at that line that's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back there, huh?

I shall now shut up and listen to the master as he speaks.


Ssshhhhhhh!!!

 

[Ansius]

a thought:

Larger diagram microphones often have higher max SPL than small diagram ones. Drums can produce loud sounds and you can easily overdrive, tough the difference is more in condenser mic world than dynamic.

LD mics are more pressure effective, so the noise is lower, this makes them favorable in studio work.

can't agree that diaphragm size doesn't change frequency range. Larger diaphragm, lower the bass roll off. This can be compensated with other means (this starts an other story about microphone types, constructions etc.). this is hand in hand connected with resonance frequency below which any system starts to be less effective. You can shift the systems frequency with construction techniques, but the basis of this still is resonance frequency of diaphragm.

 

[mshilarious]

response #1: ok, you have me on a technicality, but the VAST MAJORITY...

'Tis just marketing. Another possible factor is proximity effect; you can take a typical cardioid dynamic, large diaphragm or not, and back it away from the source. How well does it pick up lows now? But if you cram it inside a kick drum, different story.

resopnse #2: fair enough. even with a D6, i boost @ 1.5k for more click. but your answer goes right to the heart of what i'm asking--by rejecting more highs, isn't the LDD more effectively capturing the lows?

If I take a flat-response small-diaphragm capsule and I put a capacitor across its output which makes a first-order lowpass filter say with a corner frequency at 4kHz, does that make the capsule more effective at "capturing the lows"? No, it captures the same lows it did without the capacitor. Now, if I do the same thing mechanically, how is that different?

response #3: that "oomph" is all low-end, no? if that resonance is produced by the LARGE SURFACE AREA of the woofer, doesn't that reinforce the myth that a larger area will better reproduce a low-frequency? i'm still...

The "oomph" is the resonant frequency of the driver. Thus, there is a limit to how big you'd want to go. If you choose a 12" woofer, that resonance might be too low to be useful (which alternatively might be the design goal).

Again, normally in microphone or speaker design you want to damp that resonance. It's not a desirable response in normal circumstances. It doesn't make the driver more effective at "picking up the lows", it makes it really good at vibrating at a particular low frequency. And since a kick drum is somewhat of a broadband event, it's not so easy to say I'll just select a driver with resonance below the kick drum fundamental--it's gonna get excited, especially if subjected to the air blast from the hole (corollary technique: just tap on the driver along with your kick drum hits).

And once again, I don't know how the SubKick enclosure is designed (just looks like a drumhead though), and thus I don't know if the SubKick has such a response. A lot of the DIY speaker mics I've seen will have that response though.

Lots of the early discussion on Harvey's big thread is about diaphragm resonance and microphone design . . . but the bottom line is there are lots of small-diaphragm mics with flat bass response. Indeed, they are almost always selected for recording pipe organ; a big pipe organ has fundamentals waaaaay lower than kick drum.

 

[PhilGood]

Another thing to remember about most modern "kick drum" mics is that even though they tout a large diaphragm, what really makes them "kick drum" mics is the tailored frequency response, which probably has more to do with the design of the capsule than the size of the diaphragm. The mids are scooped out and the lows are boosted, then the attack is added around 4-6khz.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

i recently got busted in the drum forum promulgating the popular myth that larger diaphragms reproduce low frequencies better than SDs because of the physical size of low freq waves.

if diaphragm size has absolutely nothing to do with a mic's ability to capture low frequencies, then why is it that every single kick mic on the market is a large diaphragm dynamic???

furthermore, what about subkicks? why would you need such a large "speaker" mass to capture ultra-lows so effectively if there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in low-freq capabilities between SDs and LDs?

i'm not at all being sarcastic or pretending to know more than the experts. i'm genuinely puzzled by this and it's driving me nuts.

OK, I got kicked in the balls by a mic expert on my explanation of dynamic mics; here's what he wrote:

Dynamic mics are like little moving coil loudspeakers, yes, but... like moving coil loudspeakers, they have one primary resonance - not in the middle of their operating range, but at the bottom (typically 50 to 150Hz for a modern dynamic microphone). Above that bottom resonance, up to 5 to 10 KHz, they are remarkable linear devices that are NOT relying on resonances to work. Yes, at the very highest frequencies, there are peaks and dips on the curve, some due to housing diffraction (which is also present in large diameter condenser mics) and diaphragm breakup modes (which make more dips than peaks.

I know this is counter to common wisdom, but it's true - dynamic mics, though not perfect, do not rely on multiple resonances stacked on each other carefully (like a house of cards) to work. They're actually a little simpler (and hence more robust) than "common wisdom" implies.

The resonant peak is indeed damped by things around it, but to a knowledgeable manufacturer (yes, I work for one), there's no real voodoo involved - it's mostly acoustical resistances that can be measured, modeled, etc. Extending the low frequency end isn't really ever done beyond the engineering of the diaphragm's mass and compliance - the low frequency limit is set by the main resonant frequency (the pistonic one of the coil and diaphragm mass on the spring of the diaphragm surround), and below that, it's a 12 dB per octave dropoff. At the high frequency end, managing diffraction is a large part of the job, and doing some extension with a resonator is a well established part of the art.

So there's a second intentional resonance (beyond the low frequency one) in a typical design - for a net of one at each end of the pass band. In most designs, any other resonances are things that are engineered out of the design, not intentionally put in, and for a reputable manufacturer, that means you won't see (or hear) them much, if at all.

Where some of the "chambers" actually come in is more in the area of polar pattern management - making the mic act as a cardioid over a wide range of frequencies. A typical cardioid mic will have front and rear entries that, left to their own devices, will tend to want to make the mic a bi-directional at some frequencies. A chamber behind the diaphragm is often used to bring in some "omni" component, and steer things towards a consistent cardioid pattern.

I wasn't trying to undermine the usefulness of your thread - just one sticking point that got to me. You are in remarkably good company, though - the guys at Neumann (who know a heck of a lot about condenser mics, are really smart, and nice guys to boot) even share some misconceptions about the workings of dynamics (as witnessed in the referenced material). So you don't have to feel too bad.

So there's your answer to the first question; dynamic mics go down to around 50 to around 150Hz, and roll off 12 dB per octave below that point. Plus, large diaphragm dynamic mics can handle huge sound pressure without distorting; an important point for a mic sitting inside a kick drum.

Now your second question is in two parts and mshilarious pretty well covered it. "Sub-kicks" are just resonant speakers that act like a mic and their large diaphragm and low resonance gives you a healthy low end signal (that would sound terrible on anything else. It's a "one trick pony".

The last part of your question is about SD vs. LD, and here, we're talking about the characteristics of condenser mics. Very different beasts from dynamic mics. LD condenser mics don't do really low bottom end very well (for all the reasons covered in the big thread).

So, LD dynamic mics are good for bass drums cuz they handle high SPLs, but don't go down super low. Sub kicks are "one trick ponies" that screw up the response, but add resonances that some people like. And finally, when talking about condenser mics, small condensers will ace out the big condensers as far as capturing real deep bottom end.

 

[drossfile]

'Tis just marketing. Another possible factor is proximity effect; you can take a typical cardioid dynamic, large diaphragm or not, and back it away from the source. How well does it pick up lows now? But if you cram it inside a kick drum, different story.

someone else had mentioned marketing in another thread, and it seems to me that there must be some practical purpose for it. LDDs have been used for kick mics (afaik) long before the average ignorant joe (like me) would even consider buying a microphone. as for proximity, i don't see how that particular point relates at all to the small vs large debate. like you said, proximity effect is gonna occur on any cardioid dynamic, but i sure as hell like my d6 better than a 57 on kick!

If I take a flat-response small-diaphragm capsule and I put a capacitor across its output which makes a first-order lowpass filter say with a corner frequency at 4kHz, does that make the capsule more effective at "capturing the lows"? No, it captures the same lows it did without the capacitor. Now, if I do the same thing mechanically, how is that different?

ok, i think i'm mostly following you here. so the frequency response may not have so much to do with the capsule as it does with the electronics. i get that, but 1)what do you mean by "mechanically," and 2)how does that relate to small vs large?

The "oomph" is the resonant frequency of the driver. Thus, there is a limit to how big you'd want to go. If you choose a 12" woofer, that resonance might be too low to be useful (which alternatively might be the design goal).

Again, normally in microphone or speaker design you want to damp that resonance. It's not a desirable response in normal circumstances. It doesn't make the driver more effective at "picking up the lows", it makes it really good at vibrating at a particular low frequency.

ok, here's where you really lose me. i'd like to ask a follow-up question to this, but no--i'm simply lost. help!

 

[drossfile]

OK, I got kicked in the balls by a mic expert on my explanation of dynamic mics; here's what he wrote:

Dynamic mics are like little moving coil loudspeakers, yes, but... like moving coil loudspeakers, they have one primary resonance - not in the middle of their operating range, but at the bottom (typically 50 to 150Hz for a modern dynamic microphone). Above that bottom resonance, up to 5 to 10 KHz, they are remarkable linear devices that are NOT relying on resonances to work. Yes, at the very highest frequencies, there are peaks and dips on the curve, some due to housing diffraction (which is also present in large diameter condenser mics) and diaphragm breakup modes (which make more dips than peaks.

I know this is counter to common wisdom, but it's true - dynamic mics, though not perfect, do not rely on multiple resonances stacked on each other carefully (like a house of cards) to work. They're actually a little simpler (and hence more robust) than "common wisdom" implies.

The resonant peak is indeed damped by things around it, but to a knowledgeable manufacturer (yes, I work for one), there's no real voodoo involved - it's mostly acoustical resistances that can be measured, modeled, etc. Extending the low frequency end isn't really ever done beyond the engineering of the diaphragm's mass and compliance - the low frequency limit is set by the main resonant frequency (the pistonic one of the coil and diaphragm mass on the spring of the diaphragm surround), and below that, it's a 12 dB per octave dropoff. At the high frequency end, managing diffraction is a large part of the job, and doing some extension with a resonator is a well established part of the art.

So there's a second intentional resonance (beyond the low frequency one) in a typical design - for a net of one at each end of the pass band. In most designs, any other resonances are things that are engineered out of the design, not intentionally put in, and for a reputable manufacturer, that means you won't see (or hear) them much, if at all.

Where some of the "chambers" actually come in is more in the area of polar pattern management - making the mic act as a cardioid over a wide range of frequencies. A typical cardioid mic will have front and rear entries that, left to their own devices, will tend to want to make the mic a bi-directional at some frequencies. A chamber behind the diaphragm is often used to bring in some "omni" component, and steer things towards a consistent cardioid pattern.

I wasn't trying to undermine the usefulness of your thread - just one sticking point that got to me. You are in remarkably good company, though - the guys at Neumann (who know a heck of a lot about condenser mics, are really smart, and nice guys to boot) even share some misconceptions about the workings of dynamics (as witnessed in the referenced material). So you don't have to feel too bad.

So there's your answer to the first question; dynamic mics go down to around 50 to around 150Hz, and roll off 12 dB per octave below that point. Plus, large diaphragm dynamic mics can handle huge sound pressure without distorting; an important point for a mic sitting inside a kick drum.

Now your second question is in two parts and mshilarious pretty well covered it. "Sub-kicks" are just resonant speakers that act like a mic and their large diaphragm and low resonance gives you a healthy low end signal (that would sound terrible on anything else. It's a "one trick pony".

The last part of your question is about SD vs. LD, and here, we're talking about the characteristics of condenser mics. Very different beasts from dynamic mics. LD condenser mics don't do really low bottom end very well (for all the reasons covered in the big thread).

So, LD dynamic mics are good for bass drums cuz they handle high SPLs, but don't go down super low. Sub kicks are "one trick ponies" that screw up the response, but add resonances that some people like. And finally, when talking about condenser mics, small condensers will ace out the big condensers as far as capturing real deep bottom end.

thank you so much man. i've read this a few times now and i'm gonna keep going over it until it really solidifies in my mind. plus, your post clarifies ms' post that confused me so much.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Sometimes you just have to not fog your mind with engineering mumbo jumbo and Just go with it...If I couldnt get advice here...Id certainly decide whos doing what to get the sound I want...then use what they use to get it.

I can count on one hand how many pipe organs Ive seen up close in my lifetime...so a sub-kick wouldnt be something Id invest in.

 

[mshilarious]

thank you so much man. i've read this a few times now and i'm gonna keep going over it until it really solidifies in my mind. plus, your post clarifies ms' post that confused me so much.

When I started talking about resonances, I went looking for that exact post, but couldn't find it Harvey is the man! Or in this case, Harvey's friend! But nevertheless, Harvey brings it to us.

Let's be clear about the topic: all that stuff the mic dude was saying about dynamic capsules only applies directly to dynamic capsules. So when you select a dynamic microphone, you don't need to worry about resonances, because the manufacturer has taken care of them for you.

Pretty much the same story with speakers, the designer has used an enclosure that achieves their goals for damping, and maybe done some electrical damping as well.

It's the case of the DIY speaker mic where it's a concern, because a plain ol' woofer hung in front of a kick drum (or any other source) has an undamped resonance. Whether that is good or bad is an artistic choice, but be aware that it's there.

ok, i think i'm mostly following you here. so the frequency response may not have so much to do with the capsule as it does with the electronics. i get that, but 1)what do you mean by "mechanically," and 2)how does that relate to small vs large?

No, the frequency response has mainly to do with the capsule, secondarily the transformer, and tertiarily (probably not a word) with the loading by the preamp. My point is what happens to your impression of the capsule when you screw with the response using a passive filter (subtractive EQ)? If "more bass" is really only the psychoacoustic impression of less highs, then it can't be said that a capsule is necessarily really good at picking up lows.

Here, see the fake frequency response picture below--which capsule is better at picking up bass? Which one would sound better on a drum?

Mechanical vs. electrical: If you put a capacitor across the output of a capsule, that's an RC (resistor-capacitor) filter, which is a low-pass filter. That's an electrical modification of the capsule's response. Next, stick a few lead weights on a woofer cone. That's a mechanical modification of the speaker's response. OK, it's not a technique likely to be used in a microphone, but you can do things instead like change the thickness or resilience of the diaphragm material. Well, I can't, but people can.

 

[DayOfVengeance]

It's not so much "thinking about it", but how to explain it in simple to understand terms, so that everybody can understand it.

yes please

and thanks!

 

[drossfile]

When I started talking about resonances, I went looking for that exact post, but couldn't find it Harvey is the man! Or in this case, Harvey's friend! But nevertheless, Harvey brings it to us.

Let's be clear about the topic: all that stuff the mic dude was saying about dynamic capsules only applies directly to dynamic capsules. So when you select a dynamic microphone, you don't need to worry about resonances, because the manufacturer has taken care of them for you.

Pretty much the same story with speakers, the designer has used an enclosure that achieves their goals for damping, and maybe done some electrical damping as well.

It's the case of the DIY speaker mic where it's a concern, because a plain ol' woofer hung in front of a kick drum (or any other source) has an undamped resonance. Whether that is good or bad is an artistic choice, but be aware that it's there.



No, the frequency response has mainly to do with the capsule, secondarily the transformer, and tertiarily (probably not a word) with the loading by the preamp. My point is what happens to your impression of the capsule when you screw with the response using a passive filter (subtractive EQ)? If "more bass" is really only the psychoacoustic impression of less highs, then it can't be said that a capsule is necessarily really good at picking up lows.

Here, see the fake frequency response picture below--which capsule is better at picking up bass? Which one would sound better on a drum?

Mechanical vs. electrical: If you put a capacitor across the output of a capsule, that's an RC (resistor-capacitor) filter, which is a low-pass filter. That's an electrical modification of the capsule's response. Next, stick a few lead weights on a woofer cone. That's a mechanical modification of the speaker's response. OK, it's not a technique likely to be used in a microphone, but you can do things instead like change the thickness or resilience of the diaphragm material. Well, I can't, but people can.

gotcha. that makes a lot more sense.

so let me make sure i understand the full answer to my original question:

1. large diaphragm dynamics can handle massive spl.

2. large diaphragm condensers don't do well with low freqs to begin with, so to that end the large vs. small debate becomes moot.

3. subkicks are entirely different beasts from dynamic mics (something i didn't at all realize until this thread), in that dynamic mics are NOT dependent on resonance, while resonance is exactly what makes a subkick do what it does.

so let me throw one more thing out there, and you can tell me if my conclusion is correct or not:

an sdc could accurately capture the lows of a kick drum, but it would be impractical and perhaps even useless because of higher self-noise, low spl rating, and unnecessary high-freq response. right?

but the one question that still nags me is, why do LDDs sound better on kick mics (both ime and per conventional wisdom) than SDDs? ie: my earlier citation of 57 vs D6. i know that harvey pointed out that the discussion in large vs small was regarding condensers, but does the same "rule" apply to dynamics or no?

 

[Harvey Gerst]

so let me make sure i understand the full answer to my original question:

3. subkicks are entirely different beasts from dynamic mics (something i didn't at all realize until this thread), in that dynamic mics are NOT dependent on resonance, while resonance is exactly what makes a subkick do what it does.

so let me throw one more thing out there, and you can tell me if my conclusion is correct or not:

an sdc could accurately capture the lows of a kick drum, but it would be impractical and perhaps even useless because of higher self-noise, low spl rating, and unnecessary high-freq response. right?

but the one question that still nags me is, why do LDDs sound better on kick mics (both ime and per conventional wisdom) than SDDs? ie: my earlier citation of 57 vs D6. i know that harvey pointed out that the discussion in large vs small was regarding condensers, but does the same "rule" apply to dynamics or no?

In #3, the principle for generating sound is the same, but resonance does play a big part in both a dynamic mic and a sub-kick. The difference is that in a microphone, that resonance is more controlled. In a sub-kick the resonance is whatever the natural resonance of the speaker happens to be and it's undamped (so it's free to bounce around for a while, even after the note that got it moving has died away).

Now, as to your new question, remember the mic guy said that the low frequency cutoff of a dynamic mic is determined by the mass and resonance of the moving diaphragm and voice coil combination?

Well, in general, smaller diaphragms and voice coils will be higher pitched than larger diaphragms with bigger voice coils, so bigger dynamic diaphragms (with their lower resonances) should pick up low frequencies better than small dynamics.

But, it's NOT an absolute rule. You can make a small diaphragm mic with a very flexible surround and it will behave like a large dynamic diaphragm - if you design it right.

All this design stuff is about compromises and trade offs. When you're designing a mic from scratch, you have control over a lot of parameters, and they all affect the sound.

 

[mshilarious]

3. subkicks are entirely different beasts from dynamic mics (something i didn't at all realize until this thread), in that dynamic mics are NOT dependent on resonance, while resonance is exactly what makes a subkick do what it does.

They have the same operating principle; you could look at a subkick as a very under-designed dynamic mic, on purpose.

an sdc could accurately capture the lows of a kick drum, but it would be impractical and perhaps even useless because of higher self-noise, low spl rating, and unnecessary high-freq response. right?

The self-noise is irrelevant when you are talking about really loud sounds.

(as an aside, while dynamic mics don't have self-noise other than a small amount of thermal noise, practically speaking their low sensitivity in combination with the preamp's noise gives them an effective self-noise rating for a particular combination, and that can sometimes be much worse than a condenser mic)

Normally, a SDC will have a higher SPL rating than a LDC. The SPL rating is primarily the point of circuit overload, not maximum diaphragm excursion. Since a small diaphragm has less output for a given SPL input, that means all things being equal, it will have a higher max SPL rating than a larger diaphragm. That rating can be further increased by adding a pad (capacitor) between the capsule and the FET.

The unnecessary high-frequency response can be easily dealt with electronically (or acoustically, especially for cardioid capsules). In fact I've done that myself. Kind of funny; I EQ a particular capsule to get a good-sounding response on drums, and I see a comment out there (not here) that somebody didn't select that mic because its frequency response only went to 10kHz *beats head on desk*

(You might ask, hey msh, how come your mics don't have super-high SPL ratings? That's because the capsules I'm using have their FETs built-in, such that I can't access the FET's gate. That means the FET is "self-biasing", which means they can only swing as negative as the FET's cutoff voltage, and thus they clip asymmetrically at relatively low voltages. If I could access that pin, I could give it a higher bias and increase SPL handling by 12dB or so)