What microphone is closest to the human ears frquency response?

[Be Loveless]

Or if we dont know this, what is the frequency response curve of the human ear?

 

[Track Rat]

Check this one
http://www.theaudio.com/bs-3d.html

 

[sile2001]

This should help you out some. The graph looks older than dirt, but it's probably still reasonably accurate.

http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/frequenc.htm

(Edit)
This may be a little more recent:

http://www2.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Equal_Loudness_Contours.html

Note that these are equal loudness curves, not your standard frequency response curves. In an equal loudness curve, the lower the sensitivity the higher the line is. Mirror the graph upside down to get a better idea of what a regular frequency response graph would look like.

 

[chessrock]

Actually, you'd have to flip those charts upside-down in order to interperet them the way you would a microphone curve.

Theoretically, such a mic would sound pretty bad if you were to actually record with one. It would basically be all upper midrange. I'd guess a real low-fi mic like a Shure Green Bullet might come the closest.

If you want a mic that will sound the most natural to our ears, allowing the listener to hear the source the way it would sound in the real world . . . then you would want a reference mic ala Earthworks ( http://www.mercinaryaudio.com/audmic.html ), THE, Audix TR-40, etc.

 

[Be Loveless]

Yeah man the earth works sonds like it might be the ticket. It's a bit out of my league but a welcome addition to my very short wish list. all of your responses are excellent thanks folks. I know that none of them are perfect but I would like to try to work with a mike that "hears" a little more like I do.

 

[crazydoc]

These are called the Fletcher-Munson curves, as noted in the posts above. Simplistically, the ear/brain perceives the relative loudness of different frequencies differently, depending on how loudly they are presented.

If you listen to two tones of equal energy at low volume, say 100Hz and 3kHz, you will perceive the 3k tone as being much louder. As you turn up the volume, they will be perceived as more equal. That's why home audio amplifiers used to have a "loudness" control, to boost particularly the bass frequencies (and some higher frequencies) at low volumes so these would sound as loud (relatively) as they did at higher volumes.

The perceived loudness across the audio spectrum is most flat at about 85dB - that's why it is generally recommended that mixing be done while listening at that level - said to be ballparked at a level where you can just hear normal conversation over the music.

So, as a response to your question - there is no mic that mimics the response of the ear, as that response changes depending on the loudness of the sound. And if there were one, it would accentuate the defects in our hearing. I suppose we'd want one that had an opposite response to our ears, so a mic that had a frequency response following the 85 dB equal loudness curve would most closely compensate for our ears' defects and give us the perception of flatness across the audio spectrum. But since we don't hear natural sounds that way, it would probably sound like shit.

You could approximate what it sounded like by using eq. Give it a try.

 

[crazydoc]

If you want a mic that will sound the most natural to our ears, allowing the listener to hear the source the way it would sound in the real world . . . then you would want a reference mic ala Earthworks ( http://www.mercinaryaudio.com/audmic.html ), THE, Audix TR-40, etc.

Or you could get one of these for about$45.
http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG

 

[chessrock]

Or you could get one of these for about$45.
http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Or you could get either one of these for a little more and actually have a real microphone:

http://store.yahoo.com/eawsia/audtrmic.html

http://www.stapesaudio.com/

 

[crazydoc]

Or you could get either one of these for a little more and actually have a real microphone:

http://store.yahoo.com/eawsia/audtrmic.html

http://www.stapesaudio.com/

The criticism of the ECM800 is that it's noisy - but they're all inherently noisy due to the small capsule size. Even the Earthworks is rated at 22dB SPL, and is their "low self noise" model. The Audix is 26dB, and the Stapes "... self-noise is relatively high, but not noticeably so." Behringer of course doesn't quote a value, but is "manufactured under the Behringer quality control."

The Audix is $180, the Earthworks $1000, and Stapes doesn't quote a price. I still think the ECM8000 is a no-brainer to just see if this relatively specialized type of mic has a place in one's mic locker. And it is a useful mic in many situations where self noise is not an issue.

 

[chessrock]

Noise is naturally going to be higher, just for this type of microphone design.

The point is that the Behringer is unnaturally high in the self-noise department, even for a small-capsule omni . . . and it will vary depending on your luck, the time of day or season, what you had for breakfast, etc.

And don't even get me started on their poor SPL handling.

If you got an extra 40 bucks lying around, and you don't mind taking your chances on possibly picking up what might amount to be an interesting toy to have around . . . then go for it. If you actually want a real mic, you can get either the Stapes or the Audix for around 200 bucks, which is still a pretty good deal for a professional tool.

 

[JMarcomb]

still a bit confused on why they'd use a mushroom smurf house on the threshold of pain spl

 

[noisedude]

But yes, the Behringers would undoubtedly be a fun little buy to try them out. Chessrock's psychoacoustics theory lesson was spot on, it was printed out from my computer quicker than you can say 'basilar membrane'.

 

[sile2001]

Actually, you'd have to flip those charts upside-down in order to interperet them the way you would a microphone curve.

Yeah, actually I said that in my post

Note that these are equal loudness curves, not your standard frequency response curves. In an equal loudness curve, the lower the sensitivity the higher the line is. Mirror the graph upside down to get a better idea of what a regular frequency response graph would look like.

 

[Be Loveless]

Nady also makes a mic called the cm100 which seems to be thier equivalent ( or maybe even the same) mic as the Behringer. Musicians fiend (intentional sp) has them fo 39 bucks. My budget right now is scant and spending 40 bucks to get a general idea of what that kind of mic does and then later spending 200 on the audix or the stapes seems like a good idea to me.

 

[OneArmedScissor]

So does a person's perception of frequencies, as shown in those charts, explain why (atleast when you are listening to something loud) more mids will often sound bad, less than normal will sound good, some more highs will sound better, and lots of bass will sound really good?

 

[chessrock]

So does a person's perception of frequencies, as shown in those charts, explain why (atleast when you are listening to something loud) more mids will often sound bad, less than normal will sound good, some more highs will sound better, and lots of bass will sound really good?

Not sure if I'm following that one or not.

In a nutshell, it simply explains why we hear the extreme highs and lows better when something is louder. Crank it up, and you hear more highs and lows . . . turn it way down and you hear mostly mids.