Hi Richard, you are probably asleep now, but here goes:
Your responses are similar to mine (without me contributing myself).
Now everyone, what are we talking about when it comes to microphone frequency response and its importance in modern recording?
First, a little history, about what was acceptable maybe 50 years ago and successful, why it was so, and could we do better today? Back 50 years ago, almost all rock groups were more or less happy with dynamic microphones, they were simple, cost effective, rugged, and they did not easily overload like large area condensers did, that were often used in the folk era 10 years before. When we tested a microphone for acceptability, we gave it the 'hoot test' which was covering the mike with our hand around it while 'hooting' into it noting its output on an oscilloscope. Yes we really did that. Usually what passed was Shure, Electrovoice, etc dynamic mikes and that is what we used for rock recording and live concerts.
Then in 1971 we made a rock film with many different groups. Along with the GD, Jefferson Airplane, etc was Santana. For the film, Santana brought in their own recording truck and added extra microphones (condenser) for the Santana set, as well as an exact split of what we in another record truck were using on stage. In Hollywood, we directly compared the two recordings, made at the some instant, and found the Santana tape brighter and more 'live' sounding with the Santana set, so we used it in the film. It was obvious at the time.
Now in 1972, I was hired to make the GD Wall of Sound. We then decided that condenser microphones used differentially could be used for this purpose, so we selected the 4133 capsules (40KHz response). We could have, then, used a 1" mike (20K response) instead, but why? Larger capsules would just have higher output and will more easily overload. (Remember the 'hoot test') and be physically more imposing on stage, so we selected the 1/2" version. Working with these 1/2" mikes in general, we found them to be amazingly accurate for classical, jazz, folk, as well as rock. John Meyer, a colleague at the time, became enthusiastic at the time with these mikes and ultimately we used them for recording classical performances for a few years, (experimentally), and they were ultimately used by John Meyer in the late 70's and '80's with Crystal Clear Records, where they made many, many recordings using these mikes.
Then came digital! Now these mikes with their extended bandwidth was completely wasted with 48KHz recording, so they fell to disuse.
NOW! We have extended frequency digital recording available, so these mikes and their cousins will most likely be reintroduced into serious recording, and why not?
Your responses are similar to mine (without me contributing myself).
Now everyone, what are we talking about when it comes to microphone frequency response and its importance in modern recording?
First, a little history, about what was acceptable maybe 50 years ago and successful, why it was so, and could we do better today? Back 50 years ago, almost all rock groups were more or less happy with dynamic microphones, they were simple, cost effective, rugged, and they did not easily overload like large area condensers did, that were often used in the folk era 10 years before. When we tested a microphone for acceptability, we gave it the 'hoot test' which was covering the mike with our hand around it while 'hooting' into it noting its output on an oscilloscope. Yes we really did that. Usually what passed was Shure, Electrovoice, etc dynamic mikes and that is what we used for rock recording and live concerts.
Then in 1971 we made a rock film with many different groups. Along with the GD, Jefferson Airplane, etc was Santana. For the film, Santana brought in their own recording truck and added extra microphones (condenser) for the Santana set, as well as an exact split of what we in another record truck were using on stage. In Hollywood, we directly compared the two recordings, made at the some instant, and found the Santana tape brighter and more 'live' sounding with the Santana set, so we used it in the film. It was obvious at the time.
Now in 1972, I was hired to make the GD Wall of Sound. We then decided that condenser microphones used differentially could be used for this purpose, so we selected the 4133 capsules (40KHz response). We could have, then, used a 1" mike (20K response) instead, but why? Larger capsules would just have higher output and will more easily overload. (Remember the 'hoot test') and be physically more imposing on stage, so we selected the 1/2" version. Working with these 1/2" mikes in general, we found them to be amazingly accurate for classical, jazz, folk, as well as rock. John Meyer, a colleague at the time, became enthusiastic at the time with these mikes and ultimately we used them for recording classical performances for a few years, (experimentally), and they were ultimately used by John Meyer in the late 70's and '80's with Crystal Clear Records, where they made many, many recordings using these mikes.
Then came digital! Now these mikes with their extended bandwidth was completely wasted with 48KHz recording, so they fell to disuse.
NOW! We have extended frequency digital recording available, so these mikes and their cousins will most likely be reintroduced into serious recording, and why not?
Last edited:
No reason why not, it makes sense from a technical perspective. To what degree is it beneficial without equal attention being payed to the speakers?
Gentleman, I suggest you all re-read post #1, particularly the part about trading insults. In line with this a significant number of posts have had to be deleted.
Well Scott, some speaker systems have extended response, but I added a super tweeter to my Sasha 1's, because the tweeter does not extend far enough. The new Wilson Sasha DW's do go further out, but I can't afford to move up to them. I am prepared for the future! Richard was, and perhaps will be again, with his JBL speakers. The Quads are pretty good, I should think for the moment.
Everyone please remember: All speakers and electronics rolls off somewhere, but how fast it rolls off and at what start frequency is important. CD is always severely rolled off above 20KHz. It's a law! (of physics)
Everyone please remember: All speakers and electronics rolls off somewhere, but how fast it rolls off and at what start frequency is important. CD is always severely rolled off above 20KHz. It's a law! (of physics)
John, didn't you just state a couple of pages ago that you don't hear beyond appr. 11k? Why a super tweeter?
//
//
You repeat the same two or three stories over and over, people are still paying $7000 for Neumann bottle mics (and using them) and that is probably not going to stop soon.
🙂 Well, I'm trying to remove the subjective element and focus on the technical, I know that might not be a wise move on my part due to me not being an expert in anything discussed here, which is quite evident 😉
Nueman/Telefunkin condensers have been used in recording studios for 70 years and will never be replaced by dynamics. Its the inacuracies like non flat FR, that make thes mics special or people would use measurement mics. Why would anyone record a vocal with a 20hz to 40khz BW unless they want more noise? Its recording 101.
And recording live music is a completly different thing than in a studio and different mics often need to be used.
Last edited:
I’m lost.
One moment arguments are that Hi-Res is more accurate, closer to the original.
But now mics are defended because of their inaccuracies, their FR not being flat and their restricted BW, so what’s it gonna be ??
Hans
One moment arguments are that Hi-Res is more accurate, closer to the original.
But now mics are defended because of their inaccuracies, their FR not being flat and their restricted BW, so what’s it gonna be ??
Hans
No argument just the usual personal anecdotes being restated, Google "top recording engineers favorite microphones" or something similar, you can read all day for yourself.
etc., etc.
EDIT - this I like...
Last edited:
The mike story is a little more complicated:
First, a larger area mike has MORE output, and therefore better S/N, all else being equal. In the old days, the main limit for LF noise was the effective size of the tube grid bias resistor. For practical reasons it was 500 Meg or less. due to grid leakage. So back in the early '50's (no good fets) a large element 1" sq more or less was used. It went mostly up to 20KHz. For measurement above 20KHz or for higher spls a half inch or 1/4"sq more or less was used but they were sort of noisy. I measured them in 1972 and decided to lower their noise, by increasing the value of the input resistors (2 in parallel). It worked! and all the GD differential mikes were modified for higher value resistors, usually 1gig and 10gig in parallel.
When John Meyer and I visited B&K in Copenhagen in 1974, we insisted in this upgrade in our microphone order. B&K charged us extra for this. They also upgraded their further microphone production following my suggestion, but we still had to pay for the upgrade, ourselves. ;-) Now the 1/2" mikes were quiet enough for general audio recording, and that is what Crystal Clear Records used them for years and many recordings. These 1/2" mikes also worked well enough for CD recording, but much of the inherent transient response was lost, and the company failed to make really successful recordings and the went out of business. With CD recording, larger, and more versatile microphones, that were lower noise, (because of their intrinsically higher output), directional, and comparable with standard remote powering solutions were more practical for the typical recording engineer. That is why they are still using these mikes today, as well as the useful frequency response aberrations sometimes useful for individual human voices. And so it goes.
First, a larger area mike has MORE output, and therefore better S/N, all else being equal. In the old days, the main limit for LF noise was the effective size of the tube grid bias resistor. For practical reasons it was 500 Meg or less. due to grid leakage. So back in the early '50's (no good fets) a large element 1" sq more or less was used. It went mostly up to 20KHz. For measurement above 20KHz or for higher spls a half inch or 1/4"sq more or less was used but they were sort of noisy. I measured them in 1972 and decided to lower their noise, by increasing the value of the input resistors (2 in parallel). It worked! and all the GD differential mikes were modified for higher value resistors, usually 1gig and 10gig in parallel.
When John Meyer and I visited B&K in Copenhagen in 1974, we insisted in this upgrade in our microphone order. B&K charged us extra for this. They also upgraded their further microphone production following my suggestion, but we still had to pay for the upgrade, ourselves. ;-) Now the 1/2" mikes were quiet enough for general audio recording, and that is what Crystal Clear Records used them for years and many recordings. These 1/2" mikes also worked well enough for CD recording, but much of the inherent transient response was lost, and the company failed to make really successful recordings and the went out of business. With CD recording, larger, and more versatile microphones, that were lower noise, (because of their intrinsically higher output), directional, and comparable with standard remote powering solutions were more practical for the typical recording engineer. That is why they are still using these mikes today, as well as the useful frequency response aberrations sometimes useful for individual human voices. And so it goes.
Last edited:
one for mike bias (200V), one for grid or gate bias (near 0V) separated by a quality cap. They are in NOISE parallel.
