Why you should never use multi pattern mics

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

GeorgeToledo

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
113
I'm interested in this too. Pearl microphones developed TL-4 in the early 70's. It's a very early transformerless (hence the name TL) low noise fet microphone with one amplifier for each side. It had 4mm between the membranes and according to the founder and designer Rune Rosander it didn't have any noticeable phase issues below 8K.
I don't know if it was the first of its kind but Rune was very progressive. In the 50's he developed their rectangular capsules which they still use. Schoeps CMT-20 released in 1965 is often claimed as the first solid state microphone. I have an article about Pearl TC-4 from the same year. KM84 was released in1966 and U87 in 1967.

Both TC-4 and TL-4 are great microphones. Today Pearl also have the DS70, a quad microphone with two capsules mounted on top of each other at an angle of 90 degrees.
Fairchild F22 was also released 1965, often cited as the first solid state mic as well.
 

Marik

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
1,668
Location
Salt Lake City
Something I was thinking about reading this thread: "Ribbon" is just a shape, not necessarily an operating principle. You can make an electrostatic ("condenser") ribbon capsule, and you can also make a planar magnetic capsule. They're just both not tremendously useful for recording audio. Planar magnetic drivers, which have the operating mechanism of ribbon drivers but the plate construction of electrostatic drivers, are used in headphones sometimes, but I've never seen one used as a capsule. I've never seen an electrostatic ribbon used for anything, even though it's technically possible.

Classic corrugated ribbon is the only medium, which works as a mass controlled system (IOW, it is tuned into the lowest frequency), so it IS an operating principle. Any planars, electrostatics, etc. work as a totally different system, where the diaphragm is tuned into a midband, so to make them work correctly there needs applied acoustical resistance. That was done before--for example, Fostex printed ribbon is a planar.

The aforementioned Bruno Velotron was the very early example and was not implemented correctly. First, its ribbons were not corrugated--just flat strips. Since they were not exactly tensioned they were tuned in the lower mids. Technically, that was impossible to make them corrugated, as the ribbon would have too much excursion and would just get out of balance and get stuck to the charged plates. Even as it is had problems of popping, hitting the plates, and breaking insulation. Also, the response was like a mountain--large peak around 200Hz region with a predictable 6dB8 slope.

Best, M
 

Marik

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
1,668
Location
Salt Lake City
350VDC at the ribbons WOW

Because the ribbons are not tensioned the spacing between stators and diaphragm is quite a bit larger than conventional condenser mics, which required much higher bias voltage. Even then the mic was notorious for the diaphragm hitting the plates and destroying insulation. If the spacing was tighter then it would've added a good amount of air load (acoustical resistance) to the diaphragm, flattening response.

Best, M
 
Last edited:

retsoor3

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
2
For M/S recording, duplicate omni to two tracks, spread to taste L/R and use a cardioid for middle This works well in the right space.
 

k brown

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2021
Messages
266
Location
San Francisco
So funny he came out with this. In response to my e-mailing him about adapting his now-famous submini 5840 CF mic circuit for use with 6AK5 mini pentode, I built a C-37A tribute identical to the one shown below, but with an Oktava 219 capsule, polarised by grid leakage, just like the C-37A (and the Altec 'Lipstick', too).

(Incredibly generous guy - he also sent me schems of a couple of simple mic pres using the 6AK5. This was over 20 years ago, before he was quite as famous as now.)

I bought two of those Calrad DM15 crystal mics and re-jiggered them to look C-37A-like; the one in the photo has an Audio Technica 4041 capsule in it (no tube, just direct out from FET). You can't see it in the photo, but the lettering on the body reads "F O N Y". GEEK!

I've always thought the C-37A was the most quietly beautiful mic ever made. Also have a soft spot for it since it was born the same year I was!

Though the original Calrad head grille looks very similar to the Sony, it's holes are too small and too far apart, so sounds like crap! So I built a new one of mesh.

For the one with the 219 capsule, I used the 6AK5 instead of the 6AU6 because the Calrad body is a bit smaller than the Sony, and 6AK5 is only about 2/3 the length of the 6AU6.

I did use exactly the C-37A 6AU6 circuit in an Octava 319 mod (in it's original, but heavily modified body).

I eventually gave up building CF tube mics because they sound nearly identical to a properly-biased FET. Since they are doing no gain, they have no tube 'color'.
 

Attachments

  • CalradDM15030313e.jpg
    CalradDM15030313e.jpg
    269.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 4041.JPG
    4041.JPG
    85.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

ccaudle

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
391
Location
Houston
Look for the Shure article
"Unique Directional Properties of Dual-Diaphragm Microphones"

Also available as an AES preprint by Guy Torio, preprint 5179, and a paper on a similar topic, preprint 4800.

The version as a whitepaper from Shure is here:
Dual diaphram directional properties paper

Preprint 4800 is a similar discussion around single diaphragm mics, but not available directly from Shure.
 

azi

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
2
New to this thread some 6 years after the fact. Trying to grasp how the 180 degree response graph (green line) in the original post was created/measured?
 

Attachments

  • _graph.jpg
    _graph.jpg
    95.4 KB · Views: 0

azi

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
2
...by turning the capsule around...?

This thread is a month old................................
Oh and oh, mixed up my threads. Okay, but with the capsule reversed and given the same test signal from front polar axis, wouldn't there be mechanical filtering and interference from the non energized membrane and additional phase cancelation issues? It seems you could not do an apples to apples comparison unless you could reverse the membrane, not the capsule?
 

ccaudle

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
391
Location
Houston
wouldn't there be mechanical filtering and interference from the non energized membrane and additional phase cancelation issues?

That is kind of the point, you want to see what effect those items have on the frequency response. For an ideal cardioid device (not realizable in practice) there would be a large level difference, and flat with respect to frequency to sounds from the rear side. How much the real microphone varies with respect to that theoretical ideal gives you an idea of how it will sound, and what will be problematic in terms of rejection from the rear.
Although to really be sure you are seeing the frequency response of the back side you would need an anechoic environment, otherwise the front side will be picking up a lot of reflections from walls, floor, etc. I do not know what environment the original measurement in.
 

soliloqueen

Well-known member
GDIY Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
233
Oh and oh, mixed up my threads. Okay, but with the capsule reversed and given the same test signal from front polar axis, wouldn't there be mechanical filtering and interference from the non energized membrane and additional phase cancelation issues? It seems you could not do an apples to apples comparison unless you could reverse the membrane, not the capsule?
the cardioid pattern is created by that phase cancellation and mechanical filtering. if there were no through holes (and rear membrane, if the capsule is designed to account for it) the capsule would, unintuitively, be omni. air pressure is a hell of a drug. the only thing flipping the membrane would do is allow it to short out against the backplate at high excursions. i can tell just from the phrasing of your question that you've made a lot of completely understandable, totally logical and also wrong assumptions about what's being measured and why. welcome to microphone design! you're going to have a blast here. no sarcasm intended.

a capsule with no vents is omni because it's a simple barometer. all it can do is detect changes in air pressure. there's no mechanism for it to know from what direction those changes are coming because everything arrives at the diaphragm at the same time. add vents to the rear, and suddenly sound from the rear arrives at the membrane at two different times! calibrate this difference carefully, and you can cause the two waves to interfere destructively when they meet at the membrane if they're coming from a certain direction, and now you have a polar pattern! in a capsule with 2 diaphragms, the filtering that comes from the diaphragm is accounted for in the design of the capsule. the 180 degree measurement is performed precisely to measure that mechanical filtering and interference because it tells us a lot about the performance of the capsule.
 
Last edited:

tomas.borgstrom

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
55
I made a post earlier in this thread that I generally prefer solid state single pattern microphones when I make true stereo recordings, except grand piano where I tend to use M269 or M49. Well I disproved myself when I recorded a Chopin record this week and I really preferred the sound of DPA 4006. So sharp and suited for the elegant compositions. Next time I won't bring the fragile and heavy Neumanns. Perhaps I'll sell them after reading this thead :). Sorry a bit of topic.
 

Attachments

  • Short clip DPA4006.wav
    15.1 MB

Latest posts

Top