Mic Hype (on the top end)

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ricardo knows his stuff...  8)

By the way, Ricardo - have you seen the Hypex process yet?

As you said: -Dem 21st century digits really cool.

(by the way, I almost bought an EARLY Soundfield recently... would've been my fourth!)
 
SSLtech said:
By the way, Ricardo - have you seen the Hypex process yet?
Click to expand...
Keith, remember I'm a beach bum on the Great Barrier Reef, Oz.  I've read about the Class D stuff.

(by the way, I almost bought an EARLY Soundfield recently... would've been my fourth!)
Click to expand...
When you look at the prices that old Neumanns & AKG C12s fetch, second hand prices for old Soundfields look like a bargain.  Unfortunately, not many people know anything about Soundfields while loadsa people pretend to know about AKGs & Neumanns.  Hence getting parts etc is difficult.

I did toy with the idea of buying one and modifying it to use 21st century digits.  I did design the digital filters for the CoreSound TetraMic which IM very H but totally biased O, is the best mike of the 21st century while the Mk4 Soundfield was the best for the 20th.

I own the prototype Mk4 but its on the other side of the world being used.  Not much call for a supa dupa mike on the Great Barrier Reef.
 
SSLtech said:
www.harpex.net

Have a look at the demonstration video.
Click to expand...
Harpex is a good Ambisonic decoder.  In 1st order mode it works well and sounds good. 

The fancier features; simulating higher order mikes like shotguns, are more program dependent.  As the input signal is only 1st order, any higher order stuff is a guess.  My collaborators and other Ambi gurus report it works well with single sources but sometimes mucks up ambient material (which is of course the Soundfield Mike's greatest strength.)

For those not in the know, a soundfield mike captures the complete "Soundfield" (including height) at a point onto 4 channels.  This allows you to simulate any type of microphone in post production and point it around.  It even allows an effect similar to moving the mike though this is an illusion.

Harpex is certainly worth getting if you have the money.  The Player is free.  VVMic is a good free player and processor; the basis of TetraMic processing http://vvaudio.com/products/vvmic

IMH but totally biased O, the best soundfield mikes are the Calrec Mk4 Soundfield from 1980s and the CoreSound TetraMic http://core-sound.com/default.php this century.

Download some files from http://ambisonia.com/ and have a play with VVMic or Harpex.  I particularly recommend Beethoven 4th ajh (very early Mk4), Orfeo Trio soundmanjohn (TetraMic) and Hampi Bazaar pxd (home made soundfield mike) ...  but there is a real treasure trove of good stuff by many people.
 
Without reading through the entire thread*

SR1200, mulletchuck said good things about you when I sold him my peter purpose LA3's

I have heard that cheaper mics tend to over boost the top end and miss out on what you need in the bottom of the mix. Response and coloration have a lot to do with it, its not all the frequency curve. A mentor of mine once told me "perfect specs dont make perfect gear." I think I saw someone else state that you should choose by trying things. Go to B&H in the west side on 34th street and 9th avenue. They have a pretty intense mic room where you can hear lots of high end mics in person, companies pay for spots to put their gear in there. They have that new telefunken u47 ripoff in there if i remember right.

 
abbey road d enfer said:
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.
Click to expand...

And it's also the trademark of great monitor wedges and front-of-house speakers.

And the common 31-band graphic EQ is possibly the worst tool to use to "EQ" a monitor wedge. It's a three-dimensional problem, and made doubly difficult by the off-axis response of whatever microphone happens to be on the stand five feet from the wedge.

-a
 
Andy Peters said:
abbey road d enfer said:
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.
Click to expand...
And it's also the trademark of great monitor wedges and front-of-house speakers.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more!
And the common 31-band graphic EQ is possibly the worst tool to use to "EQ" a monitor wedge. It's a three-dimensional problem, and made doubly difficult by the off-axis response of whatever microphone happens to be on the stand five feet from the wedge.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's the worst tool. Sometimes, it's the only tool you have. Proper usage of graphic EQ is not to try to linearize the on-axis response; it's equalizing the global energy. As such, it is a better tool than no tool at all.
 
I see hyped highs in microphones as a design choice (which I don't care for) rather than a manufacturing/price point/origin attribute. In a side by side test many people will pick the brighter mic. In my own experience, for a long time I liked really bright stuff. Then I started hearing things differently and ended up at the opposite end of the spectrum. Not claiming this is objectively superior, but I know what I like and at this point am comfortable with that as my goal. I want the highs to be natural and sweet sounding and I usually don't need a lot of information up there.

The c414 TLII and the U87 are too bright for my tastes (never mind the MXL).
 
teleharmonium said:
I see hyped highs in microphones as a design choice (which I don't care for) rather than a manufacturing/price point/origin attribute.
Click to expand...
HF resonance in condenser mics is just a fact of life. Dealing with it is a design choice governed by different aspects, including both cost issues and attractivity. Objectively, on an LDC, the best way is to let the diaphragm resonate with a constrained Q and deal with it electronically; unfortunately, it is almost never done properly (not even in the U87) - probably because it would involve a dose of final tuning that is not compatible with modern production techniques and maintenance issues.
In a side by side test many people will pick the brighter mic.
Click to expand...
A very important factor that no manufacturer can ignore.
I want the highs to be natural and sweet sounding and I usually don't need a lot of information up there.
Click to expand...
Natural and sweet for you may be someone elses's dark and muddy, just as bright and lively for the common people is your shrill and acid. That's the essence of subjectivity.
The c414 TLII and the U87 are too bright for my tastes (never mind the MXL).
Click to expand...
You're putting three different animals in the same bag. One is a mic that has its capsule deliberately tuned with mild HF resonance, the other has a slightly resonant diaphragm with not-so-adequate electronic compensation, and the last one has a pronounced resonance with no hint of trying to compensate it.

Within certain limits, we have to deal with HF resonance; the proper tool for it is EQ.
I have no qualms about using EQ to fine-tune the sound of a microphone that has otherwise desirable qualities; this comes after proper positioning, room acoustics, preformance...
 
teleharmonium said:
I see hyped highs in microphones as a design choice (which I don't care for)
Click to expand...
It saves you inserting an aural exciter into your vox chain, like it was done some decades ago (I remember that)

if it bothers you, mount a sock on your mic, solder some caps across the mic cable leads - if you are on the cheap, or design some more elaborate solution.
 
abbey road d enfer said:
You're putting three different animals in the same bag. One is a mic that has its capsule deliberately tuned with mild HF resonance, the other has a slightly resonant diaphragm with not-so-adequate electronic compensation, and the last one has a pronounced resonance with no hint of trying to compensate it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but to me as the end user on a practical level, those distinctions are largely irrelevant. They're all too bright for me, and I just don't buy mics like that. I'm somewhat interested in the "why" out of curiosity and because those lines of inquiry can sometimes lead me to learn about design choices that help me find what I'm looking for. But in the case of LDCs I'm happy with what I have, in terms of quality, variety, and number of mics.

abbey road d enfer said:
Natural and sweet for you may be someone elses's dark and muddy, just as bright and lively for the common people is your shrill and acid. That's the essence of subjectivity.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I make my choices based on how I hear things.  My music is never going to be popular or widely heard, which gives me all the freedom I can handle.  I am specifically going for results that have much less extreme highs and lows than modern recordings.

abbey road d enfer said:
Within certain limits, we have to deal with HF resonance; the proper tool for it is EQ.
I have no qualms about using EQ to fine-tune the sound of a microphone that has otherwise desirable qualities; this comes after proper positioning, room acoustics, preformance...
Click to expand...

I guess I have no qualms with it in theory, either, but I also currently own no outboard EQs and I'm trying to keep my # of hours tweaking sounds in the computer to an absolute minimum. A fast workflow, committing to sounds early (on the way in, where possible) is my preference. I do have a lot of mics and I rely on dynamic mics more than most folks, so I can usually get pretty close to the desired EQ curve without actually using EQ. As far as LDCs, almost all of mine are darker, and one of my two pairs of multi pattern LDCs are PML DC-63 which have the rectangular capsules with somewhat less resonance problems than other LDCs (as well as dark/natural voicing).
 
tv said:
if it bothers you, mount a sock on your mic, solder some caps across the mic cable leads - if you are on the cheap, or design some more elaborate solution.
Click to expand...

no need for that sort of thing - I just don't have any of those mics, except for Blue B6 and B8 capsules, and I never use the B8s, they just came with the mic bodies. B6 I occasionally use. I would call them bright, but not offensively so, when they are well matched to the source.
 
teleharmonium said:
....  But in the case of LDCs I'm happy with what I have, in terms of quality, variety, and number of mics.

... As far as LDCs, almost all of mine are darker, and one of my two pairs of multi pattern LDCs are PML DC-63 which have the rectangular capsules with somewhat less resonance problems than other LDCs (as well as dark/natural voicing).
Click to expand...
Can you tell us which LDCs you think are unhyped and you like?  AKG make hyped (TLII) and unhyped (?) versions of the 414 this century.
 
ricardo said:
teleharmonium said:
....  But in the case of LDCs I'm happy with what I have, in terms of quality, variety, and number of mics.

... As far as LDCs, almost all of mine are darker, and one of my two pairs of multi pattern LDCs are PML DC-63 which have the rectangular capsules with somewhat less resonance problems than other LDCs (as well as dark/natural voicing).
Click to expand...
Can you tell us which LDCs you think are unhyped and you like?  AKG make hyped (TLII) and unhyped (?) versions of the 414 this century.
Click to expand...

I haven't personally tried huge numbers of condenser mics, but what I have and like are the PMLs, a pair of AKG c414 COMB (a recent acquisition, but I like them so far), and blue B7 and B4 capsules and Neumann/Gefell M7 and M8 capsules on the Blue bottle rocket bodies (tube and ss). And a Baby Bottle which is good for some things. I also have a KEL HM-2D which I use sometimes and an AT 4047 which I have used in the past on bass drum or as the whole front of the drum kit mic. Not sure if I will use that one again though since others have come in to the picture.

I've used a u47 in a local pro studio a few times, and a u47fet on bass drum.  I think that about covers all of the LDCs I have really liked. Of course I've used others as well, from the crappy to mid level pro/utilitarian, including other A-T mics and newer C414 ULS and TL. Some of those are on recordings I've worked on with other people's gear.

I'm as likely to use an MD441 or D224 or m88 or re-38 or even an omni dynamic (m101,d160,md211) as I am to use a condenser on vocals. I'll use those same mics on overheads or acoustic guitar too.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top