Mic Hype (on the top end)

So I've been looking at various mic's freq. responses the last few days in anticipation of a couple builds i have waiting on the bench.  Just about everyone mentions the "hyped" top end on the Chinese mics.  My topic of debate here is, what's worse the actual FREQUENCY range thats being hyped or the AMOUNT of hypedness (pronounced hype ed ness lol)  Theres some pretty expensive German mics I see that have some exaggerated top ends as well... discuss.


R0de NT1A
Neumann U87
MXL 2001 (no royer mod ) +10db...yikes
AKG c414 TLII

There's a LOT more to this than looking at graphs.

-Specially graphs provided by optimistic manufacturers.

well, if i were MXL, i wouldnt be "proud" of that response diagram...  And because of tolerances the charts are never exact.  It was more of a visual example of what im talking about. 

SSLtech said:

There's a LOT more to this than looking at graphs.

-Specially graphs provided by optimistic manufacturers.

Click to expand...

+1!
I decide by my ears,not graphs.

Best regards,

Udo.

Not commenting about the value of frequency response plots, I have to say that MXL plot is scary. It's actually 14db from 100 to 9000Hz.

pasarski said:

Not commenting about the value of frequency response plots, I have to say that MXL plot is scary. It's actually 14db from 100 to 9000Hz.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what a dual-backplate capsule does, without correction circuitry - and it continues on from there!

That theoretical 'dip' after 9k is probably due to a low value shunt cap.

Ive always been of the mindset that every mic has a purpose... (you know the rest) But more to what I was initially trying to start up was a discussion on what would make a mic's response (especially in the upper register) so undesirable that it gets a reputation for being a POS.  Why do you choose the mic's you choose for the purpose you choose it for? Should i not attempt to spark dialogues in the future... kinda feeling GS'd here lol.

As a microphone designer, I can tell you that ALL large double diaphragm mikes have a big bump in the treble.

Some like the AKG C12/414 family have got better such that AKG offer both 'flat' as well as 'traditional' versions.

What I'd really like to do is to measure some vintage AKGs and Neumanns that have been certified 'magic' by some respected Golden Pinnae.  But even this is difficult as it is obvious these vintage mikes vary a lot.  The frequency response is a 1st order effect.  Much more important than capacitors and even transformers & tubes.

There is a lot of snobbery about Chinese mikes.  We assume there aren't people in China who want to make the best mikes in the world.  But we just don't know who the Akio Moritas and Soichiro Hondas are.  Hence all the posts about how to modify Chinese mikes.  A lot of wannabe Golden Pinnae out there.

This doesn't only apply to Chinese mikes.  IMHO, some of the Rode mikes are at least as good as their Neumann / AKG counterparts.

Also published microphone measurements can (?) be misleading.  eg if you see a cardioid or fig-8 response flat to 20Hz, it was measured (??) by the Marketing VP.  This applies to the big Germans and Harman too.

Best thing I can say is to use them frequency... I meant frequently... Such that you are familiar with them. Spend a lot of time recording with the same mic's. Then mixing and mixing and mixing (listening). Then build some nice mic's (ie; nice capsules) and then a/b. record more and mix, mix, mix. Edit & mix.

To me there is a filtered quality in most of the cheap mic's (ie; capsules) which is not there in the higher quality mic's (capsules).

I have come to think of a capsule sort of like a complex little room with various honeycomb resonant chambers, membrane diffusers, and acoustic pressures & delay networks. Add in the electrical properties, membrane materials, and head basket acoustics and I guess it gets real complicated. I am amazed any of them sound any good.

I don't think frequency response is an accurate description of anything. Especially +/- a db or two over 20-20k. That could be anything when you consider for instance a 24 channel mix. This, that, the other up or down a db here and there makes all the difference.

Frequency response is obviously important (if we could have a standard measurement scenario to quantify & compare) but what else is there? Transient response? Off axis nulls? THD? RT60 of the acoustic space in the capsule/basket? Waterfall? Modes?

I don't know. Mostly talking outta my backside but worth discussion methinks.

Cheers,
jb

0dbfs said:

Frequency response is obviously important (if we could have a standard measurement scenario to quantify & compare) but what else is there? Transient response? Off axis nulls? THD? RT60 of the acoustic space in the capsule/basket? Waterfall? Modes?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Like with speakers, it's the dynamic behaviour that really matters, a static response doesn't tell you much. If it were otherwise you could just EQ your cheap capsule to sound like a high end one.

Which is essentially what things like the Antares mic modelers try to do.... match a frequency response curve, which is why it DOESNT work well.  Let me ask this, is there really such a thing as a "SLOW" mic?  I've experienced slow mic pre's (my neve clones tend to be a bit "slow" when compared to say my api clones.  I would think that the tensioning of the diaphragm of some condensers and (maybe the ribbon on ribbon mics?) and physical properties (diaphragm thickness, weight of coil etc) of a dynamic mic may have something to do with this.

sr1200 said:

I've experienced slow mic pre's (my neve clones tend to be a bit "slow" when compared to say my api clones.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "slow mic pre?"

-a

Andy Peters said:

sr1200 said:

I've experienced slow mic pre's (my neve clones tend to be a bit "slow" when compared to say my api clones.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "slow mic pre?"

-a

Click to expand...

Slew rate limiting? Transformers/capacitors modifying transients? This kind of thing can sound very good on certain sources in my experience.

Yeah exactly what living sounds said.  A perfect example is something like a close mic'd kick drum.  The transients on the neve vs the transient on the API.... you can hear the difference, and if you check the waveform, you can SEE the difference.

sr1200 said:

well, if i were MXL, i wouldnt be "proud" of that response diagram...  And because of tolerances the charts are never exact.  It was more of a visual example of what im talking about.

Click to expand...

If I did care about published graphs, I would be more concerned by the AKG414 than by the MXL, because the latter's graph is more regular than the former, meaning that the accident has a lower Q, hence can be equalized more easily than the other.
But I don't...

Listening is about the only thing that matters....it seems.

living sounds said:

Andy Peters said:

sr1200 said:

I've experienced slow mic pre's (my neve clones tend to be a bit "slow" when compared to say my api clones.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "slow mic pre?"

-a

Click to expand...

Slew rate limiting? Transformers/capacitors modifying transients? This kind of thing can sound very good on certain sources in my experience.

Click to expand...

Slew rate limiting would cause distortion, not a slower or delayed response. (the signal slew rate limits in real time effectively looking like a dirty low pass filter without the phase shift and only affecting loud signals).

Transformers bandpass signals so will exhibit both HP and LP filter responses with associated lead and lags. 

I expect a notable differences between large diaphragm and small diaphragm mics related to their mass that might be characterized as speed while most credible electronic paths are relatively fast. 

it might be instructive to see a frequency response plot of those two preamps , and or do some tone burst testing at comparable levels to musical tracks considered faster or slower.

JR

living sounds said:

.. a static response doesn't tell you much. If it were otherwise you could just EQ your cheap capsule to sound like a high end one.

Click to expand...

Actually with 21st century digits you can do exactly that especially if you are using a single mike to multi-track a vocal or a single instrument in a booth.

It doesn't work for a stereo Blumlein mike or if you are multi-miking say a drum kit cos the other 1st order factor is Directivity Pattern, which is the mike's Frequency Response in ALL directions.

In fact, as the designer of the Mk4 Soundfield Mike, I can probably have a good go at that too.  Dem 21st century digits really cool  8)

ricardo said:

Actually with 21st century digits you can do exactly that especially if you are using the mike to multi-track a vocal or a single instrument in a booth.

Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that, having spent so much time trying to EQ bad mics with very nice EQs to get a defined Neumann-like midrange out of recordings done with lesser mics, never getting near that sound.

living sounds said:

ricardo said:

Actually with 21st century digits you can do exactly that especially if you are using the mike to multi-track a vocal or a single instrument in a booth.

Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that, having spent so much time trying to EQ bad mics with very nice EQs to get a defined Neumann-like midrange out of recordings done with lesser mics, never getting near that sound.

Click to expand...

As ricardo mentioned, EQ'ing the on-axis response does not take care of the nasty off-axis. Consistency between the on-axis and off-axis response is the trademark of great microphones.