David Bock wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 12:00 |
Quote: | Well, the same way we have transient measures for power amp to reproduce music...
| Sadly, or Greatly, measuring microphones is still far more complex than measuring an amplifier. ... in those measurements, transient response doesn't come up so much. FWIW greater minds than mine have and are addressing this topic, with still, no overwhelming evidence that one could use measurements instead of listening.
Quote: | More accurate transient response is one of the reason people will love condenser for example.
| You have proof or evidence to justify this?
|
Measuring the transient response of a mic is simple:
Use a gunshot - compressed air pistols works very well delivering an almost perfect pulse of not to high SPL.
When I did comparisons with this type of measurement I found the following:
The B&K reference mic (1/8") recorded @ 96kHz/24bit delivered a sharp pulse of 1-2 Samples with no ringing (as hoped and expected).
The larger the condenser mic the broader the pulse became, but no obvious ringing (may be some in the low level range).
This complies with theory, as those mics have a more limited bandwidth, therefore the pulse must be broader.
Using dynamic mics there wasn't a sharp pulse, but more like a bell shaped form with evidence of pre- and post-ringing.
Does this help us - it just confirms what most of us know from our own listening experience - condenser mics have a better transient response.
As this is in the time domain it's not possible to change a dynamic into a condenser sound and vice versa.
But - I couldn't find any significant difference in the transient responses of obviously different sounding condensers.
My conclusion - listening is the final judge.
Measuring can help to track down problems when constructing a mic.
Regards
Kai