Beware of Plastic BM800's

[pmfalcman]

The Takstar bodies are larger diameter than the Behringers.

So they should fit nicely with a step up ring. 3D printed from soft/rubbery filament to cut down handling noises.
If possible.

 

[k brown]

Upon further testting, I discovered a serious Achilles Heel of the little Aseyers: they sound impressive directly on-axis, but off axis they are waay more scooped and bright than any other card I compared them to; for my purposes, it renders them useless.

At 90 degrees, they sound like a cheap crystal mic (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit).

Might be fine for a single, small source (i.e.: acoustic guitar) in a controlled acoustic where little sound arrives off-axis.

 

[micolas]

Upon further testting, I discovered a serious Achilles Heel of the little Aseyers: they sound impressive directly on-axis, but off axis they are waay more scooped and bright than any other card I compared them to; for my purposes, it renders them useless.

At 90 degrees, they sound like a cheap crystal mic (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit).

Might be fine for a single, small source (i.e.: acoustic guitar) in a controlled acoustic where little sound arrives off-axis.

If the little Aseyers behaves like this, then it cannot be used for acoustic guitar, which is an instrument with complex acoustics. (A setup of 3 good Cardioid microphones might be necessary for a decently realistic recording. One between the 12th fret and the body, another near the bridge and a room/distance mic, all these positions should be searched according to the sound of the instrument, the guitarist's technique, style, musical genre, etc.)

* SOS April 2010 - Mike Senior:
"...it should be obvious that the acoustic guitar is not a 'point source'. In other words, it has significant physical dimensions, especially if you are up close. Since different parts of any instrument will radiate different frequencies in different directions, it becomes very easy to get an unbalanced recorded sound...
"The choice of microphone and polar pattern is bound to play a role. Directional mics can unnaturally highlight certain regions of the guitar when used up close, and the low-level contribution from the proximity effect can also become overbearing.
The acoustic guitar sounds terrible with a cardioid mic too close to it," notes Keith Olsen, for example, who recommends trying an omnidirectional polar pattern instead."

 

[k brown]

If the little Aseyers behaves like this, then it cannot be used for acoustic guitar, which is an instrument with complex acoustics. (A setup of 3 good Cardioid microphones might be necessary for a decently realistic recording. One between the 12th fret and the body, another near the bridge and a room/distance mic, all these positions should be searched according to the sound of the instrument, the guitarist's technique, style, musical genre, etc.)

* SOS April 2010 - Mike Senior:
"...it should be obvious that the acoustic guitar is not a 'point source'. In other words, it has significant physical dimensions, especially if you are up close. Since different parts of any instrument will radiate different frequencies in different directions, it becomes very easy to get an unbalanced recorded sound...
"The choice of microphone and polar pattern is bound to play a role. Directional mics can unnaturally highlight certain regions of the guitar when used up close, and the low-level contribution from the proximity effect can also become overbearing.
The acoustic guitar sounds terrible with a cardioid mic too close to it," notes Keith Olsen, for example, who recommends trying an omnidirectional polar pattern instead."

I was thinking more along the lines of mic'ing Classical guitar - which is done at greater distances than other styles. The closer the mic, the more of the instrument arives at the mic off-axis.

 

[micolas]

I was thinking more along the lines of mic'ing Classical guitar - which is done at greater distances than other styles. The closer the mic, the more of the instrument arives at the mic off-axis.

Indeed, they are different scenarios, but in the case of classical guitar, the ambience, the vibe of the air in the hall/room, has an important role, and as you described the polar behavior of Aseyers, you don't get a rich, natural sound.
Finally, good that you noticed the problems of this model, I was really interested. But in life sometimes some things seem too good to be true.
Your research and results are very useful.
Thank you!

 

[k brown]

Indeed, they are different scenarios, but in the case of classical guitar, the ambience, the vibe of the air in the hall/room, has an important role, and as you described the polar behavior of Aseyers, you don't get a rich, natural sound.
Finally, good that you noticed the problems of this model, I was really interested. But in life sometimes some things seem too good to be true.
Your research and results are very useful.
Thank you!

I should add that my assessment was made with capsule removed from the multi-hole ring it's mounted in in the stock mics; it's off-axis sound is probably different in that ring, but I doubt much better (if at all).

 

[pmfalcman]

Upon further testting, I discovered a serious Achilles Heel of the little Aseyers: they sound impressive directly on-axis, but off axis they are waay more scooped and bright than any other card I compared them to; for my purposes, it renders them useless.

At 90 degrees, they sound like a cheap crystal mic (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit).

Might be fine for a single, small source (i.e.: acoustic guitar) in a controlled acoustic where little sound arrives off-axis.

The diaphragm is set quite deep inside the casing. Plus wide edge with 90 deg corners.
If I were a sound wave I'd hate going there. All these unpleasant turbulences, cornering at high speed to reach the diaphragm... Nah, not fun. And the dreaded wall across the entry point. I know that Nascar drivers hate to reflect off the wall at high speeds. Sound waves may share the feeling.
Might removing excess material and rounding the edges help?
Vide: CM-60/63 capsules' casus.

Sliding gently over a nice, small, rounded bump is much more pleasant.

(All this math concerning wavelenghts and their fractions makes my eyes water so I draw analogies with waterflow. This is definitely bad. Turbulent flow.)

 

[MicMaven]

it's off-axis sound is probably different in that ring, but I doubt much better (if at all).

Two Points:

1) My example is still factory fresh. Can I try anything here that might help you decide, as yours has been removed/modified, etc. (He typed, trying to ignore his lack of experience in such matters ...)

2) I have recently developed second thoughts on the capsule for other reasons. I recently did a quick, down and dirty recording of several microphones and the TM-80 did not please me this time as much as it did on earlier occasions. It sounded thick and heavy with low articulation on low frequencies with a concomitant lack of high frequency turnout. It just sounded dull compared to other microphones, and not because the others have high frequency emphasis. I may try the capsule in a 22mm small diaphragm pencil style microphone I use to mess around and test capsules, and use the body for some other project. Not sure.

I cannot explain why I was so excited early on, and less so this week - although I surmise I did not do sufficient comparison before, and while I thought it sounded good earl on, it has lost its lustre and is comparatively less appealing in a larger test pool.

Gee ... now I feel sorta sorry about my previous take. James

 

[micolas]

Two Points:

1) My example is still factory fresh. Can I try anything here that might help you decide, as yours has been removed/modified, etc. (He typed, trying to ignore his lack of experience in such matters ...)

2) I have recently developed second thoughts on the capsule for other reasons. I recently did a quick, down and dirty recording of several microphones and the TM-80 did not please me this time as much as it did on earlier occasions. It sounded thick and heavy with low articulation on low frequencies with a concomitant lack of high frequency turnout. It just sounded dull compared to other microphones, and not because the others have high frequency emphasis. I may try the capsule in a 22mm small diaphragm pencil style microphone I use to mess around and test capsules, and use the body for some other project. Not sure.

I cannot explain why I was so excited early on, and less so this week - although I surmise I did not do sufficient comparison before, and while I thought it sounded good earl on, it has lost its lustre and is comparatively less appealing in a larger test pool.

Gee ... now I feel sorta sorry about my previous take. James

It happens to all of us.
We often listen to something and get excited.
When we do an individual test we are more subjective. Even our mood matters. Or the influence of other people's opinions.
Then when we do comparative tests with other competitors, or listen in the mix, we are upset, often disappointed. That is why it is always good to use a reference and to keep the working conditions constant.
In the studio, you should avoid editing, processing, the voice, an instrument, any track, in Solo mode. The perspective, the overall picture is lost.
I read somewhere that the human auditory memory is 4 seconds. Even assuming we have an ear educated by decades of working with sound, we still need to use a constant reference.

 

[MicMaven]

When we do an individual test we are more subjective. Even our mood matters. Or the influence of other people's opinions. Then when we do comparative tests with other competitors, or listen in the mix, we are upset, often disappointed. That is why it is always good to use a reference and to keep the working conditions constant.

Well said. Your observations also apply to other things including photography. Perhaps this is a corollary to the adage, "Man with two watches never knows what time it is." I suppose, "man with only one microphone likes what he hears . . . until he hears another microphone!"

I read somewhere that the human auditory memory is 4 seconds.

Perhaps that explains why my young bride cannot remember what
I tell her from day to day . . .

Seriously, you are on target and, next time, I will compare any new microphone to the whole lot, including my favorite "reference" models, before forming an opinion. Still, if it was the only one I had, it would be OK ... but there is no fun in that!! Thanks for chiming in. James

 

[k brown]

The diaphragm is set quite deep inside the casing. Plus wide edge with 90 deg corners.
If I were a sound wave I'd hate going there. All these unpleasant turbulences, cornering at high speed to reach the diaphragm... Nah, not fun. And the dreaded wall across the entry point. I know that Nascar drivers hate to reflect off the wall at high speeds. Sound waves may share the feeling.
Might removing excess material and rounding the edges help?
Vide: CM-60/63 capsules' casus.

Sliding gently over a nice, small, rounded bump is much more pleasant.

(All this math concerning wavelenghts and their fractions makes my eyes water so I draw analogies with waterflow. This is definitely bad. Turbulent flow.)

Pretty sure that's not the issue here. The material in front of the diaphragm is not deeper or wider than that of a stock CM-63, and that capsule sounds nothing like the Aseyer at 90 degrees, even though they sound quite similar on-axis.