Specs on specifications...

[billisa]

While this might not be the best forum, I think it would be helpful for someone knowledgable in the subject to give a brief summary on typical specifications used in portraying the qualities of a given microphone/preamp. (Freq. response; self noise; etc.)

I think that a few pointers as to how these numbers should be interpreted, particularly with reference to tolerances used (or not stated) along with A-weighting and references like IEC651...

For instance, is a signal to noise spec more revealing when it's A-weighted or unweighted? What are the various IEC standards about? While I don't think specs are the "be and end all" of making a choice, they are intended to convey a picture with some accuracy. Without understanding some of the reference points given, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

While I don't think specs are the "be and end all" of making a choice, they are intended to convey a picture with some accuracy.

Not necessarily - most published specs are written by the marketing department, NOT the R&D or development group.

The best specs are your ears!

 

[DJL]

Re: Re: Specs on specifications...

If a mic company publishes false or incorrect specs... is that considered false advertisement and fraud?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

It's not that they might post false specs, but you can spin specs any way you like since there's no real standard frame of reference....

 

[Track Rat]

It's not that they might post false specs, but you can spin specs any way you like since there's no real standard frame of reference....

Exactly.

 

[billisa]

It's not that they might post false specs, but you can spin specs any way you like since there's no real standard frame of reference....

That's kind of my point. It'd be helpful, I think, to understand what the different references, weighting and tolerances are about to have a better picture of how specs can be manipulated. Statistics can also be manipulated, but they can also be somewhat useful, if the parameters are better understood.

For me, the self-noise spec has been helpful because I need a fairly quiet mic to do what I want. What I currently have sounds like what the specs say it should, but it was very helpful to see the numbers relative to other models before I purchased.

Because some manufacturers give tolerances and standards indications, it seems at least some are trying to present a fairly accurate picture of the product...

Things like IEC651 or 286 or A-weighting imply there is some normative standard that some companies use. I'd like to know what these parameters are all about.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

....Because some manufacturers give tolerances and standards indications, it seems at some are trying to present a fairly accurate picture of the product...

That may be, but accurate or not, specs tell you NOTHING about how the product will actually sound or perform in a given situation.

 

[billisa]

Re: Re: Re: Specs on specifications...

If a mic company publishes false or incorrect specs... is that considered false advertisement and fraud?

To me, if a company states a specific spec, uses a specific frame of reference for that spec (for instance ISO or "@1khz"), and the product doesn't, within reason, match that spec, then it has to be treated by the company as a manufacturing defect entitling the buyer to free repair or replacement.

In the photo industry, if film manufacturers could not be relied upon to state accurately what their film speeds were it'd cause a pretty big problem. Fuji-Chrome Velvia has to perform as a 50ISO film or once in a lifetime shots would be ruined...

 

[billisa]

That may be, but accurate or not, specs tell you NOTHING about how the product will actually sound or perform in a given situation.

The self-noise spec for a Samson CO1 (unfortunately not generally available from Samson, nor published in the owners manual) is 23db. The same spec for an SPB1 (accessible everywhere) is 12db-A (IEC651). The self-noise spec on these mikes actually tells you everything about how they will sound, in the noise department, in almost every situation where a recording is mainly comprised of acoustic/vocal performance. I don't imagine all specs have as direct a correlation to what the listener will perceive... I'd still like to know what they mean in practical terms.

 

[bleyrad]

just as a side note - without joining the relevant discussion here - if you're looking for the quietest cheap condenser mic out there, look at the Rode NT1A. it sounds similar to many of the other mics in the price range (lots of 6Khz hype) but dang is it quiet.

 

[billisa]

just as a side note - without joining the relevant discussion here - if you're looking for the quietest cheap condenser mic out there, look at the Rode NT1A. it sounds similar to many of the other mics in the price range (lots of 6Khz hype) but dang is it quiet.

Actually, I've noticed the Rode, specifically because of that. Naturally, the overall sound is what matters, but still, 5db is very quiet, eh? Do you own one? If so, how do you like it on vocals?

 

[bleyrad]

i have the original NT1, which I still like quite a lot. it was really popular here for a while then all of a sudden everyone hated it for a reason that also occours in the mic everyone here now loves: the 6Khz hype. (i'm referring to the C1 as the loved mic round here)



they sound very similar, the C1 and the NT1.

people are weird.

 

[billisa]

i have the original NT1, which I still like quite a lot. it was really popular here for a while then all of a sudden everyone hated it for a reason that also occours in the mic everyone here now loves: the 6Khz hype. (i'm referring to the C1 as the loved mic round here)they sound very similar, the C1 and the NT1.

people are weird.

I had heard that at some point in its run, Rode changed some things on the original NT1, thus turning a few original supporters away...