GeorgeToledo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2015
- Messages
- 379
Fwiw, as far as related mics go; the largish looking Neumann dynamic mic uses the cartridge from a 431 as well.
Actually I ringed the company,as an ex-shareholder and spoke to te guy who manages the inventory.But I will also mention that just because you don’t see it on rental lists doesn’t mean that major rental companies don’t actually have it, along with plenty of other stuff that isn’t on the “for everyone” lists.
Yes, I saw that somewhere. I wonder if they put the same kind of EQ in it...?Fwiw, as far as related mics go; the largish looking Neumann dynamic mic uses the cartridge from a 431 as well.
Ah, yes. That is a useful distinction. JamesI wouldn't say they're rolled-off, rather that they are not hyped like in an SM58.
That is quite possible!Fwiw, as far as related mics go; the largish looking Neumann dynamic mic uses the cartridge from a 431 as well.
What do "computer speech recognition resellers" know about pro audio?
Coincidentally, I once programmed a speech recognition plugin which identified phonemes, and generally do a fair amount of work in audio analysis and visualization.Ha! Your professional bias is showing! Microphones have other applications outside recording studios and stage performance!
You might be surprised at their expertise. At least a few vendors, consumers, and surely the software programmers who program the recognition engines, know a little about how microphones work, and all are interested in capturing clean, accurate, articulate audio for the recognition engine to process. James
The circuit draws about 4mA, so it should be feasible.Could phantom power be used to power the HPF circuit . ie from console, audio interface or other source ?
Almost anything is possible. Since you DIY, you could try with a Lorlin switch and find out what are the most interesting positions.Canford audio do a similar power unit for condenser mics , it has 4 HPF settings and 4 positions of attenuation .
Small inductors exist in values up to 100mH. You would need 2 to 4 in series for achieving the desired value. The small ones that look like resistors have too high DCR; even the larger ones in 10mm format result in degraded roll-off. You need large inductors, on a decent core. I would go for an RM8 B65811J0000R030 | Ferrite pour transformateur, EPCOS, Matériau N30, AL = 5700nH, Dimensions 23.2 x 19.7 x 16.5mm | RSPassive really is the way I want to go if possible , inductors suitable for low audio frequencies tend to be a bit large to fit in an xlr adapter and difficult to find ,
What is wrong with them?they also tend to use pot cores ,
The problem is that a simple CR filter is very dependant on the load. If you are sure to always use your box with teh same preamp, it's ok.I did a HPF for hi-z input before , 12 position rotary , just RC ,
Yes, I should have added a smiley.Ha! Your professional bias is showing! Microphones have other applications outside recording studios and stage performance!
I agree, although they are not pursuing the same goal as most of us. We are generally looking for a pleasing result, without second thought about measurements. And it's all right. In our case, measurements are justified as a way to try to establish a lnk between perception and science; not everybody has to do it.You might be surprised at their expertise. At least a few vendors, consumers, and surely the software programmers who program the recognition engines, know a little about how microphones work, and all are interested in capturing clean, accurate, articulate audio for the recognition engine to process. James
Being privvy to some fairly advanced developments in the domain of teleconferencing, I know that microphones are not a subject anymore. I believe there is no discussion in this domain, with MEMS having taken over the market. Frequency response and directivity are DSP-coded. Focus is on echo elimination and diffuse noise reduction. These are things that, ATM, are not compatible with music recording/diffusion, but who knows? Who would have thought 20 years ago that the unwanted artefacts of Autotune would become an almost requisite in today's production?Sidebar - As I mentioned previously, I strongly disagree with vendors who claim the MD 431II is tantamount to the Holy Grail of speech microphones. Sheesh! Given the application, and its audio requirements, virtually any decent microphone at virtually any price will provide good results for the application. I quit working with vendors because I could not tolerate the shamefully deep levels of bushwah shoveled selling very expensive microphones to poorly informed consumers for an application that simply does not require them.
Yes, I should have added a smiley.
We are generally looking for a pleasing result, without second thought about measurements.
For people who deal with other applications, it is often quite different.
I have some professional experience with the automobile industry ... evaluate the quality of the sound of doors closing with headphones. I think it disconnects from a large part of the sensation produced by the impact of sound on the chest and pupils. They thought I was just trying to sell them speakers!
"nearly absent of riders and rental mic lockers"
It is probably the best dynamic live microphone for vocal tasks.
A fantastic microphone, everyone should try it.
The switch on it seems to be a significant deterrent.
I don't know about the current MK II version, but with the old version you could simply take off the switch. There's no hole under the switch and no cabeling. The "switch" is just a slider with a magnet that activates the reed relais inside.At least they could do 2 versions, with and without the switch like Shure does.
Maybe it's my teutonic soul, but I really like the MD 431. I own an old one that I bought on a fleamarket, and until now I didn't even know it has a passive filter inside.The main reasons for passive EQ are:
The Sennheiser MD431 looks to me like something that could only come from teutonic engineers,
- presenting a flat-ish frequency response, which however is not a guarantee of a good sounding mic
- making the mic "sounding good", but one's good sound is another's cacophony
- correctly a blatant defect, which should be adressed by redesigning the mic
Thx. I did have all these fr-curves in mind. But I would say compared to the PR20 the fr-curve is not so far off, but the sound was still drastically off.... And one of the two of the mics were even more!I wouldn't say they're rolled-off, rather that they are not hyped like in an SM58.
Which are all known to hype the presence range, so what you perceive as a lack of HF is probably a lack of presence.
View attachment 112945View attachment 112948View attachment 112949View attachment 112950
In comparison, teh MD431 may seem to lackappeal.
View attachment 112951
Having a known good 431 microphone to compare that one with would reveal if there's really high end loss or not and what amount of loss
Enter your email address to join: