This guy's videos on "where does the tone come from" regarding guitars, cabs etc have been highly entertaining and informative. Now i just saw a link to this (haven't had a chance to watch it through yet), but it sounds promising..(?)
"Where does the tone come from in a microphone?"
- Thread starter Khron
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
metalockpick
Well-known member
The tone from a microphone comes from the talent or spectacle in front of it.
k brown
Well-known member
'Tone' is such a vague term, it would have to be very precisely defined by the user before any useful discussion could follow.
And thank goodness, I don't own any 'culturally flat' microphones (only truly dumb idea in the vid).
His test of the same mic with tube vs solid state circuit certainly tracks with my own experience; I couldn't hear any difference. If there is a big difference, one of the two circuits isn't designed or constructed well (or, as seems to be the case a lot lately, the tube circuit is deliberately designed to produce a lot of 'color').
And thank goodness, I don't own any 'culturally flat' microphones (only truly dumb idea in the vid).
His test of the same mic with tube vs solid state circuit certainly tracks with my own experience; I couldn't hear any difference. If there is a big difference, one of the two circuits isn't designed or constructed well (or, as seems to be the case a lot lately, the tube circuit is deliberately designed to produce a lot of 'color').
Last edited:
Thanks for the link, haven't watched the video yet. I'm excited to see if he did the thing where most fail. Test the mics at the extremes where they start to show ugly sides. Stock BM800 is perfectly useable mic until you put it in front of high spl - craps out, or low SPL - high noise. Bleed control, off axis sound...
He asks a lot of interesting questions, but his testing methodology doesn’t make much sense to me. By cutting between 1 second clips of an already-recorded distorted guitar that’s being reproduced by a close-miked speaker, you’re only going to notice changes that affect the frequency balance of the signal in a major way. A lot of the important details that “make the mic” (distortion profile, transient response, off-axis response) get lost. Also, these things matter more when the sound is being recorded for the first time, vs making a recording of a recording. If I didn’t know better, I would’ve come away from the video thinking many of the parameters he tested don’t make a noticeable difference, which I have not found to be the case.
I really like his videos, but reducing mics to their frequency response, without mentioning transient responce. etc. is not very clever. He doesn't even think about proximity effect, that's why he classifies his omnis as "thin".
He is also stating, that nobody ever got the idea, to do a test like that. Like no professional mic manufacturer ever testet their stuff, before going into pruduction.
He is also stating, that nobody ever got the idea, to do a test like that. Like no professional mic manufacturer ever testet their stuff, before going into pruduction.
k brown
Well-known member
Someting not mentioned at all in this, let alone compensated for, is the huge variations in proximity effect in all these different mics, which has a huge effect on 'tone' at the distances he's doing the tests at.
Last edited:
The tone of a mic comes from several things, the diaphragm, and the material that it is made from, which effects where it resonates, how it's damped, the type of mic, if it's a charged plate (condenser) or dynamic (like a speaker with a voice coil), the amplifier if it has one (condensers have at least a FET, maybe more, or a tube or two) the output transformer, if it has one, and what the core is made from, steel, nickel or a blend, the number of windings, etc, then of course how it marries with the input stage of the mic pre.
So the answer is "how long is a piece of string?"
So the answer is "how long is a piece of string?"
For a YouTube video, and a guy who did this for the first time, not really being aware of all the intricacies this is really impressive, and informative in number of ways.
There is of course quite a number of things done wrong, but what to expect from this format and 30min video.
No, for the 100th time, the MP capsule is not like the one found in 251, but in the end you can see he is satisfied with how "similar" they sound. But it also shows how different CK12 and other capsules sound between each other depending on age, production tolerances...
Yes, of course this has been done before, under much stricter conditions, among others by Audio Test Kitchen. Many DIYers have also done this.
Anyways I applaud him for the effort. I also have the impression he has been visiting this forum for the research.
To an uninformed reader somewhere in the future reading this, take the video with a grain of salt, there are many things done wrong, and many omitted aspects that have huge contribution to the sound.
There is of course quite a number of things done wrong, but what to expect from this format and 30min video.
No, for the 100th time, the MP capsule is not like the one found in 251, but in the end you can see he is satisfied with how "similar" they sound. But it also shows how different CK12 and other capsules sound between each other depending on age, production tolerances...
Yes, of course this has been done before, under much stricter conditions, among others by Audio Test Kitchen. Many DIYers have also done this.
Anyways I applaud him for the effort. I also have the impression he has been visiting this forum for the research.
To an uninformed reader somewhere in the future reading this, take the video with a grain of salt, there are many things done wrong, and many omitted aspects that have huge contribution to the sound.
Last edited:
Icantthinkofaname
Well-known member
I'm not sure I agree, but it also depends on what you're using it for I guess, and of course a lot of those mics' quality depends on who made it. I think the ones with the decent bigger capsules aren't too bad, but then you get the ones with like a 6 or 8mm capsule in a 16-20mm wide plastic ring that are no good, my experiences have always been with the latter ones. I definitely feel like you can cut some great tracks some cheap mics, as long as you don't mind the character of them. My NW-700 had one of the tiny capsules and a super resonant body, it sounded pretty tinny to me, but when I got it that's all I could afford. I tried a couple similar mics at other points too, all of which were bad enough I sent them back to Amazon.
Of course I'm quite partial to my Oktavas and my CAD M179s and AT4050 even though plenty of people would say those aren't good enough to be "professional" despite the amount of completed projects using the AT and Oktava mics, so I'm not really one to talk.
Last edited:
I made kind of a extreme example to point out how a less obvious parameters get omitted in typical shootout. But even a bm800 can sound quite nice on a right source with some eq.
Icantthinkofaname
Well-known member
This always seems to be the case when comparing them. Somebody compares them in close proximity in cardioid and they do sound fairly similar, but it's still a K67 and it's going to have similar rejection and similar changes in frequency response as any other one because where the wires are placed means nothing. I wish AKG made capsules for the DIY crowd, I'd absolutely rather have a TLII capsule over an RK-12 (of course I'd prefer an older CK12 style capsule tuned the way I want, but that's a lot more specialized).
Yeah I've heard some really good processed recordings from them. I actually recommend them for content creation if you can get a good one. No sense in wasting $1000 on a TLM103 if you're just doing a small podcast. Same way I'd recommend a good cheap hypercardioid and cardioid if you're on camera and need a cheap mic you can boom. No point in springing for a Schoeps or DPA if an MK-012 or AKG Blueline will work for you and you're just doing YouTube or something. And they can definitely sound good on some music if you're an independent artist or making demos. Hell, I'd probably prefer one of the good BM-800s on a cabinet over an SM57, but I reaaaally hate the 57.
GeorgeToledo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2015
- Messages
- 379
Yeah, his naive development of testing methods has resulted in a pretty misleading video.
There are too many issues in the video to address.
Icantthinkofaname
Well-known member
That's one of the reasons I don't find Audio Test Kitchen particularly reliable. I'm pretty sure they do this same kind of testing.
GeorgeToledo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2015
- Messages
- 379
This is what I was thinking. It is an interactive system, with each parameter and set of parameters having influence on other subsets of the system.
With the preamp itself also having an influence via the reflected load. If it supplies the needed voltage, current.
Everything matters.
Maybe there is some analogy that could be made to the cardio-vascular system.
It would also be easy to contrive demos where some parameter seems to have a huge influence on sonic result, while in another context it might seem to have little effect at all.
The video made me think of having to do punch ins with different gear, and getting some great match. For that gear combination to sound almost nothing like what it was setup to imitate, given almost any other context.
Last edited:
Thanks for letting us know.
I have watched 4 of his videos and I like the way his naive questioning results in pinpointing fundamentals.
Indeed, sometimes his observations result in wrong interpretations (closed vs. open-back cabinets), but as he keeps repeating "I'm not a scientist".
What I like is he debunks several myths (transformers, fixed vs. cath-bias...) while incidentally unveiling major points (diaphragm thickness).
Of course, a number of parameters are neglected, but he manages to form his own opinion about what matters predominantly, which is IMO a commendable attitude compared to a majority that accepts myths, marketing and misinformation without questioning.
For what it's worth, he has indeed revisited topics, or done "part 2" videos, so if there's room for improvement, odds are he may at least try.
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
I’m still considering what to do with the one capsule from Tim I still haven’t done anything with yet. I know I want to put it in a solid-state. One simple thing I’m considering is grabbing a used 414 XLII and putting it in there. Of course I’m already regularly using stock XLIIs in omni on a regular-basis with great success. I’ve surprisingly yet to hear anyone switch-out an XLII or TLII capsule to hear if it was a worthwhile effort yet.
In case you hadn't noticed: AKG only exists as a brand name. They've been closed down by their current owner, Harman. No factory, no lab, no nothing in Austria remains.
And selling DIY capsules would probably lessen the hype, so I don't think it's on the menu.
FWIW, I would like it too, but I don't see it happening.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Calculating capacitors after bridge rectifier and before regulator.- Latest: ruffrecords
-
