Print

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

[Andy Simpson]

It would seem that the question of measurement has been discussed 'ad infinitum', and I would agree that the apparently extensive discussion appears to have got nowhere, but not because all avenues have been explored.

I would say that the most critical, fundamental measurements are simply not being made.

If they were, we would not need to be having this conversation.

Andy

[Jim Williams]

I would tend to agree with this. Research into capsule design has not been fully explored. Part of the reason is the best research labs have no interest in consumer audio. If a M7 was sent up to Cal Tech, it would be subjected to their multi million dollar lab and its top flight equipment. The level of precision done there is the best in the world. Just their laser department would show many of the dynamic reactions of the capsule in high speed.

Since pro audio and its development has been in decline, there are no top level physicists dedicating their talents to microphone design; it's now the purview of audio engineers and EE's.

If there was such interest and top flight lab work was being done, such supposed mysteries would be solved. That would take millions in development costs most don't have to spend on microphones.

[Klaus Heyne]

Neither Jim's not Andy's arguments address my point: So you start up that multi-billion dollar test machine at RAND or Cal Tech or MIT. Then - what? Who's going to be the one to interpret the data? And along what criteria?  How do you objectively define which M7 is preferable to the professional recordist? The singer? The end consumer?

Let's say, all three user groups agree on which one they like better. Let's even say, the critical feature in the design of THIS particular capsule could be identified among the physical dimensions, tensions, electrical properties,etc. and correlated back to the listening experience. How do you then translate the data output of the sophisticated machinery that displayed the minute timbral variation in the M7 to other capsules, like the K47, the K67, the CK12, the Sony C37....?

Because the desirable outcome of any capsule development is judged primarily (in my case, only) by the ear, rather than derived from any agreed-upon measurement characteristics, it strikes me as impossible to choose any other way than listening to get there.

[compasspnt]

Give the electric guitarist a choice between an amplifier that "reads out perfect specs," and one that happens to be somewhat "crazy" spec-wise, but sounds big and powerful, and they will always choose the latter.

It is all about the sound at the end of the day.

[Unwinder]

Your absolutely right Klaus, and it makes complete sense.

The only thing is, where do you find someone with extensive capsule listening experience, and how does one translate these differences down to actual machine work?

Once the machine work and listening criteria are acceptable, then one could presumably trust the measurements in production.

It sounds like Mr. Thiersch and yourself are on the right track to producing an excellent, balanced sounding capsule.

[Klaus Heyne]

First,
I believe in the value of making decisions through hearing; listening education needs to be stressed and promoted more in these discussions and in audio engineering and production.

Listening and interpretation of what we hear, and then feeling comfortable in making decisions based upon listening, is not a gift, but a skill. Listening skills can be learned by most, and need to be encouraged.

Second,
I am not in a contractual or commercial relationship with Mr. Thiersch. I just enjoy the fact that he has been open to my input, and that is big, in my book. I sure hope the result will be a better capsule.

[J.J. Blair]

I can see it now: The Thiersch M7 KHE.

[aamicrophones]

Hi, I am guessing, that I am wrong here!!!   However, I thought the object of audio was to get the frequency response as flat as possible from 20hz to 20,000 hz.

Now the physics of the LDC capsule design always leaves some bumps and valleys in the response and significant differences in the proximity effect.  The design criteria one would think is to get this response as flat as possible.

We have just learned to to accept these "flaws" in the response.  Some differences are better for certain vocalists and instruments than others as they enhance certain frequencies and harmonics.  this is what makes on microphone sound "better" than another in a specific recording situation.

What's interesting is that often a "average" U47 might sound great in SOLO but an "average" C12 will often work better in the track as it often cuts through a bit more.

Again, this is not a given but it is these "Un HiFi" differences that we seem to focus on more than not.  

Cheers, Dave
www.aamicrophones.com

[Barry Hufker]

Dave,

I'll respectfully contend the goal of audio is *not* to get the flattest response between 20Hz and 20 kHz.  It is to get the best sound, with "best" being subjective.  Some people want an audio "photograph" and therefore want a microphone as neutral as possible.  Others want a signal enhancer.  In either case, tools are available.  It all comes down to "if it sounds good, it is good".  Any goal than that may well be a waste of time.

Barry

[Klaus Heyne]

aamicrophones wrote on Tue, 17 March 2009 13:38

Hi, I am guessing, that I am wrong here!!!   However, I thought the object of audio was to get the frequency response as flat as possible from 20hz to 20,000 hz.

You might indeed be guessing wrong.

Have you ever seen a frequency response graph of the five most expensive and most desirable microphones ever made for recording music? Radio Shack's top-of-the-line $89.95 Electret condenser will leave each of them in the dust with its ruler-flat response, yet somehow sounds like ... $89.95.

The flattest mics are calibration mics, mostly made by B&K, a few by Microtech Gefell. Why are they rarely used for recording music?

One tiny additional problem with frequency measurements: at what distance from the sound source is the mic positioned, and what's the volume of the test signal? Which manufacturer is adhering to any of many AES protocols in this regard?

[mwurfl]

My training as a EE led me also for many years to believe that the resultant sound quality of a given audio device could be completely known and predicted by full and accurate charaterization of all the "usual suspect" parameters.  Only in the last six or seven years have I begun to truly comprehend how simple-minded and inaccurate this perception is, particularly with respect to microphones.  Anymore I liken the process of making fine microphones to that of making a fine violin (or any number of other fine instruments).  I have yet to hear of one example where someone has duplicated all the magic of the sound of a Stradivarius by "cloning" all the construction parameters of a violin that can be measured by what metrics we yet know of today.  The best are still made "by ear."  And so it is, I believe, with microphones.

Klaus, I believe you have it exactly right about the need for making more widespread the knowledge of how to listen, and what to listen for.  So here's a question and a challenge:  Is there any way you could include a lesson or two about this in your upcoming book, by including a CD/DVD that has high-resolution examples (exaggerated if need be) that one could listen to while reading your narratives?  That might be one way to help get more folks on the same page as you when it comes to knowing what to listen for.

Regards,

Mark W

[miics]

I must agree with Klaus on this one.  Over the years i have listened and measured many of the worlds best microphones.  What makes them sound so good?

After much deliberation i have come to the conclusion that it is the whole package, the reaction of the capsule to the diaphragm resonance, the capsules reaction to the impdeance conversion/amp circuit, the inductance of the coupling cap, the transformer and even the kinetic control (dampening) of the microphone structure.

What frequency response is best?  = Inconclusive, I love at least 16 microphones on this planet and all of them perform very differently!

All i know is that no matter what a mic does on a tef graph, the end result can only be measured by ear.  

I am yet to see a Tef/Lindos or Audio precision test set buy a top 40 album.

I currently manufacture 5 different variations of the K47 capsule.  Each sounds remarkably different, which one is best?  Well i still make all of them because they are different.  Sure i have my favourite but that won't necessarily be yours!

[Andy Simpson]

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 17 March 2009 18:41

Give the electric guitarist a choice between an amplifier that "reads out perfect specs," and one that happens to be somewhat "crazy" spec-wise, but sounds big and powerful, and they will always choose the latter. It is all about the sound at the end of the day.

Hi Terry,

It is all about the sound, but that is not to say that the AC30 or fender twin would not MEASURE better than a horrible sounding transistor guitar amp.

I would expect these amps to measure a lot better actually.

Andy

[Andy Simpson]

Jim Williams wrote on Tue, 17 March 2009 15:57

I would tend to agree with this. Research into capsule design has not been fully explored. Part of the reason is the best research labs have no interest in consumer audio.

Hi Jim,

Another part of the reason is that the industry itself has no interest in putting time into proving that the old mics (that people are so fond of) actually measure better than the modern replacements (after all this time).

Quote:

If a M7 was sent up to Cal Tech, it would be subjected to their multi million dollar lab and its top flight equipment. The level of precision done there is the best in the world. Just their laser department would show many of the dynamic reactions of the capsule in high speed.

This would hardly be necessary.

Simple wide-band linearity, polar & self-tuning measurements would probably do the job.

All of which can be done in a standard audio facility.

Quote:

Since pro audio and its development has been in decline, there are no top level physicists dedicating their talents to microphone design;

In general, I agree.

Aside from the hearing-aid industry - who do very good work that some of us pay a great deal of attention to -, what we have is mostly marketing.

As far I'm concerned, the 'mysteries' are all quite measureable & applicable (as can be seen from the writing on my website).

However, I'm not interested in reproducing the old capsules & their limitations, as it is a better use of time to simply improve on them.

Andy

[Jim Williams]

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 17 March 2009 10:41

Give the electric guitarist a choice between an amplifier that "reads out perfect specs," and one that happens to be somewhat "crazy" spec-wise, but sounds big and powerful, and they will always choose the latter. It is all about the sound at the end of the day.

Bad analogy, the amp is an extension of the instrument, in this case, an electric guitar. Sonic choices for instruments are always selected on a subjective consideration.

However, understanding the reactions of a mic capsule is not the same as a guitar amp which is intentionally designed with non-linearities in mind.

I fail to see how understanding how and why a capsule has it's characteristics is a bad thing. If as Klaus suggests that this is the domain of "tuners" and alchemists, there is no hope other than to trust a manufacturer and not question any of the efforts made to get there. I just don't have that much faith in alchemy.