Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Martin Kantola]

Dear fellow Forumers,

would you be so kind and share your thoughts on these two test recordings we've prepared?

To explain why I'm asking you to lend your golden ears to me for a little while; where I live is not exactly London or Nashville, where it would be possible to summon a crowd of sound engineers. No, this is a deep and dark forest in a cold country (to be honest it's gorgeous here now, and we are celebrating midsummer!).

Anyway, all I can say is that I would very much appreciate if I may run these little test recordings by you, and hopefully we'll have some interesting observations to discuss.

About the tracks... These are processed versions, in other words mixed on a console with effects applied. Both wav and mp3 versions are uploaded. My wish is to keep this a blind test otherwise, you will not know anything about the microphones used. We'll only talk about what we hear. OK?

http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/X-microphone-beep.mp3
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/Y-microphone-beep.mp3
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/X-microphone-beep.wav
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/Y-microphone-beep.wav

Thank you!!!

Martin

[Martin Kantola]

More than 140 views and not a single comment? Please don't be shy, and tell me if you think was a bad idea

Martin

[Barry Hufker]

OK, I'll bite.

I listened to the wav files.

I thought "Brand X" had a couple of voice pops, had a general raspiness (the quality of the voice?) and emphasized sibilants (and maybe the highs in general).

I thought "Brand Y" didn't have any voice pops, had a better balance across the frequency range with much better control of sibilants and possessed (or at least conveyed) less raspiness.

Now that I've said, please PM the "answers" to me and the point of the exercise.  I'm eager to know how poorly I've done.  And I can keep my trap shut.

[Mike Cleaver]

OK, I'll bite.
I listened to the .wav files both on several pairs of speakers and very high end headphones.
I dumped both tracks into my DAW and lined them up to A/B them.
Of course, they don't match up completely, given the two different performances but it works well enough.
Keep in mind I'm 62 years old now and one ear is much better on the high end than the other.
With those facts, I liked X better than Y.
Y seems to be slightly louder and with more high end.
But X to me is more balanced with a nice mid-range and enough high end detail.
It also seems to extend further into the bass region.
It also sounds (here's that word again) "warmer" than Y.
Not sure which would translate better in a mix but knowing my voice, I think I'd like X better than Y.
Just one old audio guy's opinion.
Thanks for posting this Martin.

[Martin Kantola]

THANKS GUYS! You made me so happy!

Great idea about PM:ing the details of the recordings to those who already participated! Will think about it for a while.

Barry, what kind of setup did you listen on? A mike should sound good anywhere, that's why I thought the "mixed" versions would make sense to post. Lots of people enjoy (?) music on laptops.

Meanwhile, keep 'em comin' if you like!

Martin

[MagnetoSound]

I thought X felt a bit smoother, (perhaps) more extended at each end of the spectrum, but very natural in the middle, 'warm' if you like.

I thought Y certainly had something of an upper midrange/low treble 'rasp' in the vowels and better defined sibilants, more 'presence' if you like.

(Listening on my Beyer 'phones.)


Dan

[Schallfeldnebel]

I agree very much with Barry, esp. in the beginning there is an f sound in the word *for* which really sounds distorted in the X microphone, but I feel the Y sample has a sort of nasal phasy effect. Also it is very hard to judge how much the artificial reverb effects the sound. I hear very strong reflections on the sibilants, which makes it hard to judge if there are any phase problems in the microphones or not. I think the samples should be dry without reverb.

X overall nice natural sound, bad sss and fff and pops.
Y nasal sound, better sss and fff, no pops.

X-> perimeter connected membrane?
Y-> center connected membrane?


Erik Sikkema

[Martin Kantola]

So grateful to you all for participating! One little piece of info, both of the tracks were recorded without any (external) pop filter.

You have no idea how exciting this is for me, especially any highly educated guesses on what kinds of microphones these might be are just thrilling. Capsule? Transformer? Tube?

The more I think about it, you should all receive PMs with detailed info about the microphones, as suggested by Barry.  

You guys rock!

Martin

[sui-city]

I found:

X - More low-end energy. A bit sibilant up top. In two minds about the mids though. I found that the increased low-end masked the mids a touch. Not in a bad way, but definitely created a bit of a dip in the middle.

Y - More Mid forward. A definite increased hardness in the mids. Smoother on the S's.

[Barry Hufker]

Martin,

I used a pair of Lipinski 707 speakers fed by a Lavry DA10 and a Naim NT5i (I think) amplifier.  If that's what it takes to get this wrong then there you have it!

I didn't think about tube or solid state.  To my mind either could sound good or bad.  I just care about how the sound is overall no matter which of those two is used.

[panman]

Well, I did listen to the waves one after another just once to get an impression. I was using earphones and will not specify, since I agree,that it should not matter,what you listening with.
I found the X beeing superior in capturing the performance and having more details. I paid attention to the singer playing with the overtones on X,but on Y they were not present to that extent. Yes, I found Y too smooth.
Regards,
       Esa

[Martin Kantola]

Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 23:41

Martin, I used a pair of Lipinski 707 speakers fed by a Lavry DA10 and a Naim NT5i (I think) amplifier.  If that's what it takes to get this wrong then there you have it!

Who said you got anything wrong?

Martin

[matti]

X sample seems to have more energy around say 400- 600 hz
while Y has more around 3-4 khz
Both sound fine to me

Matti

[Mike Cleaver]

Wow, I can't match Barry's monitoring system but I used what I normally do to reference audio tracks.
My DAW uses a Lynx 2 card feeding both my Monsoon Flat Panel computer monitor speakers with sub and a Bryston Amp feeding some old JBL three ways.
The headphones were Sony MDR V900HD, which I normally use because they pick out noise, hum and distortion products so well and are very handy in system troubleshooting.
Going out on a limb, I assume both mics are condensers and I think X may be tube.
It sounds like a German capsule to me.
There's really not THAT much difference between the samples but I'll still go with X because it sounds more musically engaging with the subject material, at least to my ears, on my system, today.

[maarvold]

X really brings out the chest voice aspect in an always present way.  And I don't know the guy's voice, but the mic seems to add an extra midrange bite that I don't believe exists in the human voice acoustically, at least not in that way.  It is not unpleasing, and metallic is much too strong a word, but it is leaning in that direction a bit.  And it's not an unattractive aspect... not thin, wispy, edgy, 'pointy', brittle, etc.--like copper instead of aluminum.  I periodically encounter inexperienced singers who seem to be singing to no-one in particular and this mic might help them to appear to have a message by adding '"ring" and focus to their performance.  For me, it might be just a bit too much, though.  

Y is less 'chesty', but not 'skinny'.  It feels like the resonance of the capsule is higher in the frequency range than X.  It is significantly more problematic in the sibilance area to me, at least on "our love is here to stay" near the beginning where the "S"s have sort of a 'ripping' sound--or I feel like they would if he really gave you a truly big "S"; they jump out more on this phrase than X.  Same thing with the "T" in "oh, but my dear..." near the middle.  That "T" just jumps out with Y, less so with X.  The sound of the mic makes the singer's performance seem a bit more conversational, less powerful than X.  

Sometimes I feel like X is a less complex sound than Y, but this is elusive.  X is smoother, Y's upper mid & treble is more to my liking, except for the sibilance aspect.  Actually, on my mains I feel like X is more 'manipulated' frequency-wise, Y is more natural over all, but still too forward in the mids & top for my taste.  X feels like a mic I might use to accomplish a specific goal with a specific singer, Y to just go for a good sound if it was a good match with the singer's voice.  

Sennheiser HD600's (which some say are bright).  Just checked on my mains.  Tough call to really accurately identify and describe the differences--especially because the performances differ slightly.  To me, the mics feel related somehow though.