Mics blind test

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.
RuudNL said:
I'm still waiting for someone who uses terms that are reminiscent of wine connoisseurs! :)
When I still worked for a major record company, there were also people who had the most strange terms to describe sound nuances: the bass sounds a bit 'square'. The high end sounds a bit 'abrasive'... 😅
Click to expand...
OK, here you are:
A is pleasant, well balanced, fully developped bouquet. Goes down smoothly and doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.
B has a bit muddy taste, not very well developped bouguet, a bit heavy on the tongue.
C seems sparkly and young, not well seasoned, highs tingling like prosecco bubbles.

My best shot, me not being a wine conoisseur
 
pmfalcman said:
OK, here you are:
A is pleasant, well balanced, fully developped bouquet. Goes down smoothly and doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.
B has a bit muddy taste, not very well developped bouguet, a bit heavy on the tongue.
C seems sparkly and young, not well seasoned, highs tingling like prosecco bubbles.

My best shot, me not being a wine conoisseur
Click to expand...
Thank you @pmfalcman (y) (and great wine-lover-like comments😅)
 
Recording closer will also induce the fact that every millimeter of deviation in the placement will lead to more differences than the microphones themselves :( , maybe the reason why LDC are barely used in close miking amps (i never do such things !) , if you plan using acoustic instruments as test, it is also crucial to record the same performance with all capsules at the same spot, and this thing alone can be very ... challenging ! A good piano test can be done with a Yamaha disklavier, all other situations lead to purely subjective results (even if they can be indicative at least of a global behaviour).
Ps : as i liked wine, i'll say that A is reminiscent of the body and bouquet of a Pessac Leognan 1999, B is closer to a Nuits Saint Georges 2003 (not the best year) and the last one tries to mimic a Romanée Conti without beeing even close to Beaujolais !
 
Last edited:
Guys, I do not claim to carry out a serious laboratory test ! (I never would) but just offer 3 different microphones in the same (imperfect I must admit) configuration.
So let's not be too demanding... even if I understand that the way it's done may not satisfy at all some of you.

The idea is that, whatever the faults of the takes (but trying to contain them as much as I can) one can make its choice subjectively. A kind of "little game" without serious consequences.
The goal is to (maybe) "overturn preconceived ideas" (and it will occur when revealing the type of mics used in this test) and get others opinion to confirm or not what I think.

About trying to contain the faults as much as I can I've already said several times that I will soon redo the recordings with mics closer to speakers AND add an acoustic guitar + male voiceover. I don't see what I can do more considering my setup... (room and sources to record)

Thank you :)
 
Last edited:
garp said:
The room , the speakers, there are far too much issues in this test to be significant IMHO.
Click to expand...

Guy's, its a DIY Test.

@Emmathom is doing what he can. In his Micropone build thread he was asked for sound samples, so he did his best to make some. I suggested to post them blind - just to make everything more interesting. So blame me.

It is not big science. It's DIY. All props to @Emmathom for trying his best.

So have a listen to what's on the table. What @Emmathom did here so far is more than most can be bothered with.

Thor
 
Sorry if i was a bit rough, @Emmathom your intentions are pure and i don't blame you ! If i should have a metaphoric picture, i'll say that you are proposing to test wines but right out of the fridge ! Sorry if i prefer to have them chambered before giving any opinion ;)
 
MicMan said:
I think all of the sound is - sorry - awful. Partly because it's mono, but mainly because it sounds - to me, anyway - dull and dead. Sorry, again.
Click to expand...
Golly, gee, Mr. MicMan. Sheesh! What a party pooper! :)

Emmathom asks us to rate three microphones recording the same piece under the same conditions. Unfortunately, you opt out, giving all the reasons the test is invalid. Now, I am NOT arguing or disagreeing with any of your observationsl - I am sure they are all true. Nevertheless, you completey evade answering the question.

Please try again, as I value your take. Imagine you are an expert witness in court and the Judge directs you to answer the question as put, by simplay rating them in the order you prefer, and not argue or debate counsel posing the question ... pretty please. :)

(All proffered in good humor and with deep respect. Really!) James
 
Emmathom said:
Thank you @pmfalcman (y) (and great wine-lover-like comments😅)
Click to expand...
I concur with those preferring A B C in that order - for the reasons advanced by Mr. RLRuud and Mr. Pmfalcman. A is more interest. B is more clinical. C is just too bright and lacks "ballast." (yep, ballast, as I don't want to be accused of being just a follower...") :) / James
 
MicMaven said:
Golly, gee, Mr. MicMan. Sheesh! What a party pooper! :)

Emmathom asks us to rate three microphones recording the same piece under the same conditions. Unfortunately, you opt out, giving all the reasons the test is invalid. Now, I am NOT arguing or disagreeing with any of your observationsl - I am sure they are all true. Nevertheless, you completey evade answering the question.

Please try again, as I value your take. Imagine you are an expert witness in court and the Judge directs you to answer the question as put, by simplay rating them in the order you prefer, and not argue or debate counsel posing the question ... pretty please. :)

(All proffered in good humor and with deep respect. Really!) James
Click to expand...
Holly Thanx @MicMaven !!! I couldn't have said it better... Exactly what I think and wanted to post but I did not want, being the instigator of this test, to come across as a grump or a lecturer (y) ;)
 
MicMaven ..as I said:

"Mic A sounds 'dead' to me because it has no 'sparkle' ..it's pedestrian, plodding, and may perhaps be reproducing sound 'accurately', but leaves me completely un-interested in what I'm hearing. It has a touch more bass than Mic B.

Mic B ..no comment. I wouldn't want to use that mic. It's like Mic A, but with less bass.

The third mic has a bit more ..that's to say more pleasant.. sibilance than the other two, especially than Mic B , in which the 'S' sounds of Spanish Harlem are pretty much missing (like the missing sibilants in Linda Ronstadt's 'You're No Good' (not included here, but missing on all issued recordings)."

Surely that's 'rating' the mics, and also giving reasons why I do or don't like whichever ones of them - but I apologise for not having used a wine-tasting analogy; I'm not much into wine ..but I can tell the - really vast, for me - differences between Coke & Pepsi, and Virgin Cola, Sainsbury's cola, and all the rest of those fizzy, sugary drinks.

What I was (trying to) explain was that the 'test' of these mics wasn't really a useful test - as far as I was concerned - or couldn't provide much of a comparison, just playing processed audio through a pair of speakers 2.3 meters, or whatever it was, away, because much of the detail which the individual mics might have been able to capture and which might have differentiated them from one another, had been wiped out by the 'normalisation' of the recordings, and by playing them out of speakers in a "fairly dull living room". I explained - which I don't think others did - HOW I was listening to the recordings, because the way I played them (through Titum headphones) would also have influenced what I was hearing ..as distinct from, say, listening with Sony 7506s, or Senals or Grados, or whatever, or sitting 15 feet from a pair of KEF Concerto speakers, for instance.

So - trying to be helpful - I suggested to Emmathom that a better test, which might really reveal more differences between the mics, could be to "..set up the three mics in front of (a) a person speaking, (b) a person - or persons - singing, (c) a few musicians". That way, the three mics could pick up unprocessed sound, and would give a clearer idea of any differences between the mics.

I'm not "..an expert witness in court and the Judge directs you to answer the question as put, by simplay rating them in the order you prefer". I'm sitting at home with a laptop, reading a request to assess three mics, and describing what I hear - and how I'm hearing what I hear - and suggesting a better test. And Emmathom has decided to do another test "..and add a recording of my folk (steel strings) guitar by an acoustic take. (I must warn that I'm far from a good guitarist). About a voice sample, well I've had a throat disease some years ago and my voice is no more "normale" (it lacks bass). But I'll boost myself to record a (short) voiceover."

So that seems more likely to be a test of the mics themselves, rather than what these mics pick up from 2.3 meters away from a certain set of speakers playing some processed audio which originated from who knows where and how?

That may be a more valid test of the mics themselves, which I thought - but maybe I'm completely wrong - Emmathom actually wanted.

I'm sorry that I've upset you by giving what I thought was an honest - and helpful - reply to Emmathom. Maybe I should just keep my big trap shut.
 
@MicMan we have already discussed about these "lacks" and other members have spoken...

A new test including bla-bla-bla (already developped) will be made tomorrow and posted asap (I need to adjust output levels by fader/no limiter nor process plug-in [it's about +1dB or -1dB since I adjust recording levels at -10dB using the pink noise sample] for the level heard by you guys does not spoil your judgement. I also need to edit the voiceover (maybe to take off speech errors) and then the guitar (same = maybe to take off play errors)

So that seems more likely to be a test of the mics themselves, rather than what these mics pick up from 2.3 meters away
You got it ! ;)

About a certain set of speakers playing some processed audio which originated from who knows where and how? the sample come from CD's or Demat'music (so at least 16-44 to 24-96) and played on a set-up I described at the begin. of my thread...

Let's have fun
 
MicMan said:
What I was (trying to) explain was that the 'test' of these mics wasn't really a useful test - as far as I was concerned - or couldn't provide much of a comparison, just playing processed audio through a pair of speakers 2.3 meters, or whatever it was, away, because much of the detail which the individual mics might have been able to capture and which might have differentiated them from one another,
Click to expand...

Yes, hence the comments on the sound ard more relevant than the simple preference.

I would however like to add a bit of science.

Based on Floyd Toole's work at JBL / Harman, the speakers @Emmathom uses have a choice of drivers and crossover frequencies that are conductive to good in room directivity and a consistent in room response, more so than many "Hai Fi" speaker and indeed many "studio monitors".

The LF alignment is more conductive to a bass response that is not overblown, the way many US origin speakers are.

Are they BBC monitors? No, but I think overall the sound is quite honest. Too much room reverb, but as pros we can listen past that.

Let's not forget, when Abbey Road remastered the Beatles, some tracks were played on B&W speakers and recorded in a relatively live room.

Normalisation - I'd ask @Emmathom to please provide the process, if any more than gain adjustment was involved.

MicMan said:
So - trying to be helpful - I suggested to Emmathom that a better test, which might really reveal more differences between the mics, could be to "..set up the three mics in front of (a) a person speaking, (b) a person - or persons - singing, (c) a few musicians". That way, the three mics could pick up unprocessed sound, and would give a clearer idea of any differences between the mics.
Click to expand...

I do not think, actually, that it will provide a clearer picture on general "tone". Nevertheless I suggested the same, simply because this test doesn't push the microphones in the least.

We hear almost exclusively frequency response deviations and differences.

MicMan said:
So that seems more likely to be a test of the mics themselves, rather than what these mics pick up from 2.3 meters away from a certain set of speakers playing some processed audio which originated from who knows where and how?
Click to expand...

They are different tests. And answer a different question.

And I encourage @Emmathom to append such a test as a second round - when time and his schedules allow.

Thor
 
@thor.zmt : Normalisation - I'd ask @Emmathom to please provide the process, if any more than gain adjustment was involved.
As said before,
1 - the levels of the files making up the sample have been adjusted song-by-song by faders only > for the level heard may not spoil or alter the judgement
2 - the gain level of each mic has been set at -10dB by playing the pink noise (+ or - 1dB since it's a dynamic sound that "evolves" unlike a pure sine wave which level is quite fixed in time no matter how long you play it) > for the level heard may not spoil or alter the judgement
3 - when exporting each A - B -C file a tiny level adjustement by faders only has been made > for the level heard may not spoil or alter the judgement
Oftenly playing level can (do) alter the perception of a sound in a "louder is better" way. I think we all agree with that...

I don't see the problem of leveling a suite of songs as long as the original levels do not differ too much and that no plug-in like limiter nor compressor nor whatever is employed.
This sample file has been done one year ago and I often use it as a ref. comparaison between mics or gears : that's the only way I found to get the same file at the same level from tests sessions done several weeks (or months) apart.
And from my memory the level adjustement of the "songs" never exceed +1,5dB or - 1,5dB. So 3dB delta, not enough to dramaticaly alter a sound...
 
*** NEW SAMPLE ***

Hi guys
Below you will find the new mic blind test with the following modifications:
- following the sample file (payed in mono on one speaker only / the other one unplugged) have been added a recording of an acoustic* guitar and of my voice**
- the microphones are placed at the height of the midrange speaker (see pict) and 50cm from the speaker enclosure
- one mic has been replaced by another : A is still A (A-2) B is stil B (B-2) but C has been replaced by D (because many of you had already disqualified C)
- they are all three in cardio pattern and gain-adjust the more close I could (about 5dB of difference in sensitivity between the two furthest)
- please name them correctly (A-2 / B-2 / D) in your reports

*regarding the acoustic guitar sample, I am not an experienced guitarist, far from it, so I strummed a few chords in order to satisfy the request for the presence of an acoustic instrument.

**as english is not my original language and my voice tone changes depending on the language I speak (a bit strange but that's how it is) I read a short text in french from Jack London. I must warn that because of health problems a few years ago my voice has changed and became more midrange and lacks bass. I hope this won't interfere with the purpose of this test.

I hope it's gonna be much better this time...

Forget to say that the "revelation" will be on saturday (because I do a little journey from tomorrow to friday) and it seems a good delay to get enough returns

Mic-A2

Mic-B2

Mic-D
 

Attachments

  • SX911 tests.jpg
    SX911 tests.jpg
    145.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
For Music: D. 1st place. 'Airy' and vibrant, makes me want to LISTEN. Perfect (for me) sibilance and balance of frequencies. For your voice, not so good.
For Music: B2 2nd place. More 'spaciousness' but slightly muffled sibilants. Maybe it was slightly closer to the loudspeaker. For your voice, so-so.
For Music: A2 3rd place. Sounds more 'flat' or compressed - maybe it's slightly closer still to the loudspeaker. Insufficient mids or top. For your voice? - 1st place, as it sounds 'dryer' and a little more intimate, with less echo.

Hope this helps.

P.S: for steel guitar, all as good as each other.
 
Last edited:
MicMan said:
For Music: D. 1st place. 'Airy' and vibrant, makes me want to LISTEN. Perfect (for me) sibilance and balance of frequencies. For your voice, not so good.
For Music: B2 2nd place. More 'spaciousness' but slightly muffled sibilants. Maybe it was slightly closer to the loudspeaker. For your voice, so-so.
For Music: A2 3rd place. Sounds more 'flat' or compressed - maybe it's slightly closer still to the loudspeaker. Insufficient mids or top. For your voice? - 1st place, as it sounds 'dryer' and a little more intimate, with less echo.

Hope this helps.

P.S: for steel guitar, all as good as each other.
Click to expand...
Thank you @MicMan !
The 3 mics' capsules were placed exactly at the same distance from the speaker enclosure and as close together as possible.
Forget about my voice : I did this recording because I haven't got anyone else around
 
MicMan said:
For Music: D. 1st place. 'Airy' and vibrant, makes me want to LISTEN. Perfect (for me) sibilance and balance of frequencies. For your voice, not so good.
For Music: B2 2nd place. More 'spaciousness' but slightly muffled sibilants. Maybe it was slightly closer to the loudspeaker. For your voice, so-so.
For Music: A2 3rd place. Sounds more 'flat' or compressed - maybe it's slightly closer still to the loudspeaker. Insufficient mids or top. For your voice? - 1st place, as it sounds 'dryer' and a little more intimate, with less echo.

Hope this helps.

P.S: for steel guitar, all as good as each other.
Click to expand...
Very close to what I heard on the smartphone.
I'll give my review after listening on a decent system.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top