Dynamic or Condenser - Experts, Idiots or Liars?

[FetMe?FetU!]

We've all heard the saying, "Opinions are like a##holes. Everybody has one." When I go on YouTube, forums, sub-Stack, Discord, or whatever your choice of information consumption is, I expect you will find differing opinions on this question. I also understand that a lot of this is personal preference. What sounds best with my voice may not sound good with your voice.

I find it interesting that when you start to hone in on a more specific aspect of this question, "What works better in an untreated space, a dynamic or condenser microphone?" the answers from experts are still far apart. Before you begin type-sniping at me with comments like, "There are already threads that talk about Dynamic vs. Condenser on this forum, so why are you creating a new post?" "Don't you know how to search the forum?" etc. Understand I'm not asking for opinions on which is better in an untreated space. I want to know why YOU think so many "experts" who should know the answer to this question publically disagree.

I just watched videos from two different microphone companies, Heil and Lewitt, and surprise, Heil says, "Dynamics don't pick up as much ambient noise (in an untreated room), and Lewitt says, "Background noise (in both untreated and treated spaces) is not a deal breaker for any of the microphones we tested." That would be an SM7B, LCT440, and an MTP550. These are just two examples of a ridiculous number of articles and videos where people who should know the answer say the exact opposite of each other.

I've seen videos demonstrating that it is all about gain and proximity and that with some easily adjusted settings and getting closer to the microphone, a dynamic and condenser microphone can perform similarly in the same untreated space.

I've seen other "experts" say, "No, it's not about gain and proximity." "It's about adjusting frequency response." then demonstrate that with a little bit of EQ matching, a condenser will perform in a very similar fashion to a dynamic microphone.

To be clear, I'm not asking anyone in the forum to give me their opinion on what is better in an untreated space, a dynamic or condenser microphone. I know the answer, and it's not complicated. 42.

I want to know why so many "experts" don't know the answer. Are they experts, idiots, or liars? What do you think?

Spoiler... I think the answer is all of the above.

 

[emrr]

Simple. A lot of “experts” are trying to sell something.

 

[rock soderstrom]

Simple. A lot of “experts” are trying to sell something.

+1
To be honest, I don't understand why "expert" opinions are so important to the TO. Try it out, use the corresponding microphones and see what comes out. Then you'll see what's right and relevant for you. Simple thing - no reason for high blood pressure.

 

[k brown]

When I first heard this idea, I thought 'why on earth would either type pick up more room than the other; all that matters is pattern - if two mics have the exact same pattern, and one's a condenser and the other a dynamic, they'll pick up the same amount of the room?.'

But there in lies the answer I think. Most such comaparisons are made in the context of studio recording where the two dominant mic types are dynamics (which are pretty much all 'small diaphragm') and LDC condensers. So there you are comparing apples and oranges because a typical cardioid dynamic has quite consistent patern vs frequency, but the majority of LDCs when in cardioid have increasingly wiider patterns with decreasing frequency, so will sound 'roomier' when compared to a dynamic.

It's not really a dynamic vs condenser comparison because few, if any, dynamics have the kind of frequency-dependent polar pattern like the most commonly-used studio condensers do. You'd probably get similar results comparing an SDC card with an LDC card (especially a vari-pattern one in cardioid mode).

 

[Paul W]

Don't pretty much all directional mics in the usual omni-subcardioid-cardiod-supercardiod-hypercardiod-figure8 spectrum have more directionality at high frequencies, and approach omni at low frequencies? (I'm not talking about mics with fancier interference tubes, like shotguns or mics like E-V's "variable D" models with reduced proximity effect.)

In that spectrum of mics, isn't the extent of proximity effect strongly correlated with how directional the mic is, with omnis having none and f8s having the most?

Do either of those things change depending on the operating principle of the mic (condenser vs. dynamic vs. ribbon)

Does the diaphragm diameter change either of those things, if we're talking about condensers or dynamics with circular diaphragms?

Does the aspect ratio of the diaphragm/ribbon change those things?

 

[k brown]

Proximity effect and polar pattern are not related in the sense that proximity affects polar pattern; rather polar pattern determines how much prox effect a mic has (with the notable exception of the EV 'Variable-D' mics), omni, none, up to fig-8 having a great deal.

Small-diaphragm cards, whether dynamic or condenser, stay pretty tight even at low frequencies. It's the most commonly used LDCs that have dual diaphragms to achieve multiple polar patterns that become increasingly less directional at low frequencies.

The issue of mics becoming more directional at high frequencies is purely a function of the size of the diaphragm; at frequencies related to the diameter of the capsules, they become more directional. Same for all types of mics.

This is why comparing 'roominess' between dynamics and condensers is a mug's game. While the most commonly-used dynamics are 'small' diaphragm, and have fairly consistent patterns, the typical vari-pattern LDC becomes much more directional than these dynamics (and start becoming so at a lower frequency), because of their larger diaphragms, they do the opposite at low frequencies becoming less directional. So they pick up less room at high frequencies, but more room at low fequencies than typical dynamics. That's why it's an apples and oranges comparison. You may think one or the other is more 'roomy', depending on what you're listening for (HF 'splash', or LF 'tubbiness').

 

[OneRoomStudio]

Proximity effect and polar pattern are not related

That is a strange statement. I have yet to hear an omni mic with a proximity effect, or a figure-8 mic without one.

My understanding is that all true figure-8’s are pressure-gradients (and all true pressure-gradient mics are figure-8), and by definition, have proximity effect, whereas true pressure mics are omni and have no proximity effect. All other first order patterns are a mix of these two and therefore have proximity effect of various degrees. In other words, the opposite of what you said.

 

[JohnRoberts]

To be clear, I'm not asking anyone in the forum to give me their opinion on what is better in an untreated space, a dynamic or condenser microphone. I know the answer, and it's not complicated. 42.

I want to know why so many "experts" don't know the answer. Are they experts, idiots, or liars? What do you think?

Spoiler... I think the answer is all of the above.

So why ask (stir the pot)?

What is it about microphones? (Rhetorical.... not inviting an answer).

JR

 

[OneRoomStudio]

So why ask (stir the pot)?

What is it about microphones?

JR

I know this is a common theme. I wonder if it’s because mics are a topic people feel comfortable discussing even if they can’t read a schematic or understand electronic theory. It invites “wondering”….for better or worse.

 

[k brown]

That is a strange statement. I have yet to hear an omni mic with a proximity effect, or a figure-8 mic without one.

My understanding is that all true figure-8’s are pressure-gradients (and all true pressure-gradient mics are figure-8), and by definition, have proximity effect, whereas true pressure mics are omni and have no proximity effect. All other first order patterns are a mix of these two and therefore have proximity effect of various degrees. In other words, the opposite of what you said.

I don't think you read the rest of the sentence:

"...in the sense that proximity affects polar pattern; rather polar pattern determines how much prox effect a mic has (with the notable exception of the EV 'Variable-D' mics), omni, none, up to fig-8 having a great deal."

 

[OneRoomStudio]

I don't think you read the rest of the sentence: "in the sense that proximity affects polar pattern; rather polar pattern determines how much prox effect a mic has (with the notable exception of the EV 'Variable-D' mics), omni, none, up to fig-8 having a great deal."

Huh, you must have been in the middle of editing because that wasn’t there when I posted. Makes more sense now, although I’d still say they’re very much “related.”

 

[k brown]

Huh, you must have been in the middle of editing because that wasn’t there when I posted. Makes more sense now, although I’d still say they’re very much “related.”

Pattern affects proximity, but not the other way around, in that a mic's pattern doesn't change depending on how close you are to it.

 

[FetMe?FetU!]

Don't pretty much all directional mics in the usual omni-subcardioid-cardiod-supercardiod-hypercardiod-figure8 spectrum have more directionality at high frequencies, and approach omni at low frequencies? (I'm not talking about mics with fancier interference tubes, like shotguns or mics like E-V's "variable D" models with reduced proximity effect.)

In that spectrum of mics, isn't the extent of proximity effect strongly correlated with how directional the mic is, with omnis having none and f8s having the most?

Do either of those things change depending on the operating principle of the mic (condenser vs. dynamic vs. ribbon)

Does the diaphragm diameter change either of those things, if we're talking about condensers or dynamics with circular diaphragms?

Does the aspect ratio of the diaphragm/ribbon change those things?

I recently read that a ribbon microphone is a dynamic microphone. I can't say if this is true or not cause I am but a simple caveman lawyer. Fire bad, bread good...ribbon dynamic?

 

[k brown]

I recently read that a ribbon microphone is a dynamic microphone. I can't say if this is true or not cause I am but a simple caveman lawyer. Fire bad, bread good...ribbon dynamic?

Technically, a mic is a dynamic if it produces an electrical signal directly through physical motion - whether coil or ribbon, through a magnetic field.

 

[OneRoomStudio]

Yeah, “dynamic” is another word for “velocity” microphone (responds directly to the velocity of air particles, the way a phono needle responds to grooves in a record. Doesn’t matter if the part moving is a diaphragm attached to a coil or a ribbon. Condensers are actually “amplitude” microphones, because all the capsule actually does is modulate the polarization voltage.

 

[k brown]

Yeah, “dynamic” is another word for “velocity” microphone (responds directly to the velocity of air particles, the way a phono needle responds to grooves in a record. Doesn’t matter if the part moving is a diaphragm attached to a coil or a ribbon. Condensers are actually “amplitude” microphones, because all the capsule actually does is modulate the polarization voltage.

In these terms mics fall into three basic categories: pressure (omni), pressure gradient (cardioid), and velocity (figure-8). None are truly 'velocity' microphones, but ribbons come the closest.

https://www.audiomasterclass.com/bl...re-pressure-gradient-and-velocity-microphones

 

[FetMe?FetU!]

So why ask (stir the pot)?

What is it about microphones?

JR

Well, now that's a good question. I agree with Doug that most experts, at least those representing microphone manufacturers, are trying to sell something. Heil, it turns out, is only in the dynamic microphone business. Lewitt sells multiple types, so they can't hear enough of the difference between them to claim that one does better than the other. That's the cynic in me, and the fact that I worked for a giant consumer electronics company for a couple of decades also colors my opinion. Although, I don't think I ever knowingly lied to sell one of my products.

To JohnRoberts. Sure I'm stirring the pot a little bit here. That's not my primary intent, but sparking a good conversation is not a bad thing.

I do find it interesting that this thread, which I intended to be about the knowledge or ethics of industry experts as well as pundits, seems to have quickly shifted to a conversation about polar patterns to which I have to ask,

"Do you need to bring that up in here?"
"Aren't there already existing threads talking about this?"
"Don't you know how to search the forums?"

To be clear, I'm making a joke referring to type-snipers in my original post. You guys can talk about whatever you want.

Did anyone catch the Douglas Adams reference?

I'm mainly disappointed that such a basic and important question to any new podcaster/content creator is basically not clearly answered.

 

[Екатерина]

Experts and salespeople often have only subtle differences. For me, the information picked up by the dynamic coil is not as good as that of capacitors, which is largely related to their structure. The quality of the diaphragm is much lighter than that of the dynamic coil, which can also bring more noise. In the recording studio, low environmental noise is suitable for capacitive microphones, while in normal home environments with more noise, it is more suitable for the dynamic coil