[peter]

Some mic are purposely made and advertised to have a non flat frequency
response, in order to make certain voice/instrument sound better.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic and let the user
add an EQ or audio post processing?

[William Sommerwerck]

Two reasons...

It's difficult to make mics with a truly flat response. Using a mic with a
skewed response to "enhance" a particular instrument is turning a liability
into an asset.

EQ and post-processing only came into their own with digital recording. *
Engineers of earlier decades didn't have the vast array of tools (or as I
prefer to call them, weapons). Having a "warm" or "crisp" mic meant you had
the sound you wanted from the get-go, rather than having to fiddle with it
later.

* Please don't post comments about the multitude of analog processors that
have been available since the '60s. I'm aware of them. It's that digital
pretty much lets you do "anything".

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:11:28 GMT, "peter" wrote:

Some mic are purposely made and advertised to have a non flat frequency
response, in order to make certain voice/instrument sound better.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic and let the user
add an EQ or audio post processing?

You can't have directional AND flat response. Eq won't give
proximity effect, giving a singer that rich bass sound as they move
closer and (hopefully:-) sing quieter. But it's a fair question. Get
hold of a couple of Behringer ECM 8000s and see what you can do with
them.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:29:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

EQ and post-processing only came into their own with digital recording. *
Engineers of earlier decades didn't have the vast array of tools (or as I
prefer to call them, weapons). Having a "warm" or "crisp" mic meant you had
the sound you wanted from the get-go, rather than having to fiddle with it
later.

* Please don't post comments about the multitude of analog processors that
have been available since the '60s. I'm aware of them. It's that digital
pretty much lets you do "anything".

Funny how digital eq is often advertised as emulating the old analog
models isn't it :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"peter" wrote in message
news:AxFOj.75$XY1.46@trndny03

Some mic are purposely made and advertised to have a non
flat frequency response, in order to make certain
voice/instrument sound better.

The actual strategy shapes up like this:

(1) Acoustical environments tend to systematically do certain things that
causes the sound that falls on the microphone to have an unnatural timbre.

(2) Microphones with certain non-flat frequency responses tend to compensate
for those systematic effects of the enviroment on the sound.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic
and let the user add an EQ or audio post processing?

The problem with Eq is that it affects the entire signal coming from the
microphone. The enviromental effects mentioned above, are different
depending on which direction the sound reaching the microphone comes from.

A microphone can be designed to have different frequency response, depending
on which direction the sound comes from. If done right, a better
compensation of acoustical effects can be obtained, than can be obtained
from simple equalization.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:29:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

EQ and post-processing only came into their own with
digital recording. * Engineers of earlier decades didn't
have the vast array of tools (or as I prefer to call
them, weapons). Having a "warm" or "crisp" mic meant you
had the sound you wanted from the get-go, rather than
having to fiddle with it later.

* Please don't post comments about the multitude of
analog processors that have been available since the
'60s. I'm aware of them. It's that digital pretty much
lets you do "anything".

Funny how digital eq is often advertised as emulating the
old analog models isn't it :-)

For some people, sentimentality is more important than effectiveness, I
guess.

I think that the big advantage of digital eq is that it is more flexible,
and cheaper.

On the more flexible front, some digital eqs have high Q or narrow
bandwidths, or numbers of independent dips and notches that would be
difficult or impossible to implement using analog circuitry. Hi Q is
primarily important for live sound, but having more independent dips and
peaks allows more effective tailoring of sound to compensate for
environmental effects.

On the cheaper front, some lower cost digital consoles costing less than
$7,000 have 4-section parametric equalizers and a variable high pass filter
on each of their 32 inputs and 8 or more outputs. If you bought that many
separate analog equlizers, not only would you have to house rack after rack
of equalizers, it would cost a lot more than 7 grand.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:45:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A microphone can be designed to have different frequency response, depending
on which direction the sound comes from. If done right, a better
compensation of acoustical effects can be obtained, than can be obtained
from simple equalization.

So you feel that, taking the mic/room system as a whole, flat response
is the aim?

[Eeyore]

peter wrote:

Some mic are purposely made and advertised to have a non flat frequency
response, in order to make certain voice/instrument sound better.

It's arguable whether it is in fact better. The SM58 vocal mic for example is
notorious for its presence peak and I find it a damn nuisance.

I think in the case of the '58 it was an unwanted side-effect of a very old
design that some people grew to like (it helped compensate for the falling HF
response of old column speakers for example) and it's stuck rather than there
being any truly good reason for it any more.


Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic and let the user
add an EQ or audio post processing?

Very much so in my opinion.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

"peter" wrote:

Some mic are purposely made and advertised to have a non flat frequency
response, in order to make certain voice/instrument sound better.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic and let the user
add an EQ or audio post processing?

You can't have directional AND flat response.

Uh ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

A microphone can be designed to have different frequency response, depending
on which direction the sound comes from. If done right, a better
compensation of acoustical effects can be obtained, than can be obtained
from simple equalization.

So you feel that, taking the mic/room system as a whole, flat response
is the aim?

Sometimes it is.

Graham

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

So you feel that, taking the mic/room system as a whole, flat response
is the aim?

It's probably the best starting point, but there are always exceptions.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:41:53 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

So you feel that, taking the mic/room system as a whole, flat response
is the aim?

It's probably the best starting point, but there are always exceptions.

Interesting. Would your ideal choice for, say, a vocalist then be an
omni mic in an anechoic chamber? Or are you referring to the special
case of distant mics on a full ensemble?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:21:51 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

You can't have directional AND flat response.

Uh ?

Eh?

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

So you feel that, taking the mic/room system as a whole, flat response
is the aim?

It's probably the best starting point, but there are always exceptions.

Interesting. Would your ideal choice for, say, a vocalist then be an
omni mic in an anechoic chamber?

What a bizarre idea.

MY idea of a good mic is one with a published frequency repsonse that's
reasonably flat and isn't like an SM58 etc etc.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You can't have directional AND flat response.

Uh ?

Eh?

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

Graham

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:35:16 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it? All the measurement mics
I see are omni.

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it?

There are plenty of unidirectional mics with very respectably flat
frequency response.


All the measurement mics I see are omni.

Do you record music with measurement mics ? A crossed pair for example
NEEDS to be directional to get stereo.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

In article AxFOj.75$XY1.46@trndny03, peter wrote:
Some mic are purposely made and advertised to have a non flat frequency
response, in order to make certain voice/instrument sound better.

Yes, but they often have differing _impulse_ response as well.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic and let the user
add an EQ or audio post processing?

Yes, if you could get the same effect from EQ. Note also that the reseponse
off-axis of a microphone has as much (or more, for ambient miking) to do with
the sound than the on-axis response. EQ can only change all of the frequency
responses at the same time; it is independant of direction.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:35:16 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it? All the measurement mics
I see are omni.

Not that I know of. And of course, directional mikes have response that
varies considerably with direction. So which direction do you want it to
be flat in?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:11:28 GMT, "peter" wrote:

Some mic are purposely made and advertised to have a non flat frequency
response, in order to make certain voice/instrument sound better.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic and let the
user add an EQ or audio post processing?

You can't have directional AND flat response. [snip]

Oh? What about EV RE15, Sennheiser MD441, Shure SM81, beyerdynamic M130,
etc.

I've mixed hundreds of hours of music using all RE15s on orchestras and
groups with basic analog EQ to get the sounds I wanted. The results hold
up quite well to this day. Proximity effect is a tool that must be
understood and used with care.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:35:16 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it? All the measurement mics
I see are omni.

Not that I know of. And of course, directional mikes have response that
varies considerably with direction. So which direction do you want it to
be flat in?
--scott

The EV RE15 Super Cardioid is essentially flat on-axis and almost as flat
from all directions. http://www.coutant.org/re15/index.html Ditto the RE20
Cardioid. http://www.coutant.org/6a.html

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Laurence Payne wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat
frequency response since you appear to be saying it
can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it?

There are plenty of unidirectional mics with very
respectably flat frequency response.

On axis, maybe. Off-axis, no.

Case in point might be the Sennheiser MKH 800

http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite...transid=004927

On-axis response is generally exemplary, if a little short of the best
measurment-type mics.

Off-axis response varies considerably with frequency, some patterns more
than others.


All the measurement mics I see are omni.

Do you record music with measurement mics ?

Yes, and other omindirectional more general-purpose mics as well.

A crossed pair for example NEEDS to be directional to get stereo.

Agreed, and some say that coincident hypercardioids are better then
coincident cardioids.

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it? All the measurement mics
I see are omni.

Not that I know of. And of course, directional mikes have response that
varies considerably with direction. So which direction do you want it to
be flat in?

I had the on-axis response in mind myself ! You can make exactly thwe same
comment about loudspeakers.

Graham

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Interesting. Would your ideal choice for, say, a vocalist then be an
omni mic in an anechoic chamber? Or are you referring to the special
case of distant mics on a full ensemble?

No, but I might look for a cardioid mic with reasonably flat frequency
response on axis. There are such mics, for large values of "reasonably."


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:45:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A microphone can be designed to have different frequency
response, depending on which direction the sound comes
from. If done right, a better compensation of acoustical
effects can be obtained, than can be obtained from
simple equalization.

So you feel that, taking the mic/room system as a whole,
flat response is the aim?

I'm not sure that we're always compensating with the goal of obtaining flat
response. I do think that we are compensating with the goal of relatively
smooth and in some sense balanced response.

Sorry for the hedgy answer, but I also think that we really don't know
exactly and precisely what we want. I think we have some good ideas at
times, but not the final answer by any means.

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

Oh? What about EV RE15, Sennheiser MD441, Shure SM81, beyerdynamic M130,
etc.

None of these have anything even approaching flat response. The MD441
is probably the closest of the set, and if you look at the curve that
comes with it, you'll see the on-axis response is anything but flat,
and off-axis it's even worse.

Contrast the MD441 curve with, say, the curve that comes with a B&K 4145
measurement mike... they are pretty radically different. The 4145 is
a straight line for most of its travel... but even the 4145 rolls off the
top when you turn it to the side.

I've mixed hundreds of hours of music using all RE15s on orchestras and
groups with basic analog EQ to get the sounds I wanted. The results hold
up quite well to this day. Proximity effect is a tool that must be
understood and used with care.

Oh, absolutely. The fact that we can get away with inaccurate microphones
in the real world is in great part a testament to how flexible human
hearing is, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

The EV RE15 Super Cardioid is essentially flat on-axis and almost as flat
from all directions. http://www.coutant.org/re15/index.html Ditto the RE20
Cardioid. http://www.coutant.org/6a.html

Not even close. Compare the response of either microphone with the response
of even a cheap preamplifier or power amplifier. The microphone is _still_
the least accurate part of the chain.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it? All the measurement mics
I see are omni.

Not that I know of. And of course, directional mikes have response that
varies considerably with direction. So which direction do you want it to
be flat in?

I had the on-axis response in mind myself ! You can make exactly thwe same
comment about loudspeakers.

Loudspeakers are even worse! It's a wonder stereophony works at all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:

Oh? What about EV RE15, Sennheiser MD441, Shure SM81, beyerdynamic
M130, etc.

None of these have anything even approaching flat response. The MD441
is probably the closest of the set, and if you look at the curve that
comes with it, you'll see the on-axis response is anything but flat,
and off-axis it's even worse.
--scott

The published curve for the MD441 is with the presence switch "IN". With
it "OUT", the mic is *essentially* flat as are the others. Of course these
mics don't compare with B&K measurement mics, but the OP's quest appears to
seek avoidance of SM57 or U87 types of coloration.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Oh, absolutely. The fact that we can get away with
inaccurate microphones in the real world is in great part
a testament to how flexible human hearing is, though.

Nicely said.

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

The published curve for the MD441 is with the presence switch "IN". With
it "OUT", the mic is *essentially* flat as are the others. Of course these
mics don't compare with B&K measurement mics, but the OP's quest appears to
seek avoidance of SM57 or U87 types of coloration.

Ahh, but that's not what he said!

The SM57 and U87 are definitely special cases, in that they are intended
to have presence peaks, and those presence peaks are clearly designed into
the microphone.

But all the OTHER crap on the plot is definitely inadvertent. In the case
of both microphones, it has to be pointed out that both were flatter than
their predicessors, but both are very old designs that have in many ways
been superseded. And both were designed to be inexpensive too (although
in recent years the prices for the U87 have gone through the roof).

Okay, MAYBE some of the top end spikiness on the U87 is deliberate, but I
doubt it. And the top end on the U87 is _less_ spiky than the U67 and U47.

Likewise the top end on the SM-57 is a hell of a lot flatter and more
extended than on the 55S. And the pattern is a lot better too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:

The published curve for the MD441 is with the presence switch "IN".
With it "OUT", the mic is *essentially* flat as are the others. Of
course these mics don't compare with B&K measurement mics, but the OP's
quest appears to seek avoidance of SM57 or U87 types of coloration.

Ahh, but that's not what he said!

But I think it interprets the spirit of what he did say:

"Some mics are purposely made and advertised to have a non flat frequency
response, in order to make certain voice/instrument sound better.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make a flatter response mic and let the user
add an EQ or audio post processing?"

[snip]

Okay, MAYBE some of the top end spikiness on the U87 is deliberate, but I
doubt it. And the top end on the U87 is _less_ spiky than the U67 and
U47.

If the top of a U87 is not deliberate, why isn't it more like the top of
the SM81?

--scott

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Okay, MAYBE some of the top end spikiness on the U87 is deliberate, but I
doubt it. And the top end on the U87 is _less_ spiky than the U67 and
U47.

If the top of a U87 is not deliberate, why isn't it more like the top of
the SM81?

Or like the KM84? I don't think it's possible to make a capsule that size
without having high end spikes; the worst of them have to do with the capsule
being so large that standing waves on the diaphragm can be created. Some
of them may have to do with the grille, but it's pretty clear that some
careful engineering went into minimizing the grille resonances on the U87.

I don't think it's possible to avoid some of that spikiness without either
giving up on the pattern control or going to a much smaller capsule. Both
of which the KM84 and SM81 did (although the SM81 has some top end spikiness
as well due to the baffling in front of the diaphragm; the 1972 JAES article
on the design mentions some of the trickery they did to bring the top end
response up but it doesn't mention the side effects of doing so).

I think the U87 was as flat a microphone as possible given the design and
cost constraints of the time (and the requirement of the presence peak).
Sadly, most of the folks who have adapted and copied the U87 design have
not always done so well. Many of them have clearly misunderstood some
of the design features that went into the capsule and some of them have
just plainly not done any acoustical engineering at all. And now we have
come to a time where the deficiencies of the U87 are considered to be
beneficial characteristic sounds and everybody wants to copy them.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Okay, MAYBE some of the top end spikiness on the U87 is deliberate,
but I doubt it. And the top end on the U87 is _less_ spiky than the
U67 and U47.

If the top of a U87 is not deliberate, why isn't it more like the top of
the SM81?

Or like the KM84? I don't think it's possible to make a capsule that
size without having high end spikes; the worst of them have to do with
the capsule being so large that standing waves on the diaphragm can be
created. Some of them may have to do with the grille, but it's pretty
clear that some careful engineering went into minimizing the grille
resonances on the U87.

I don't think it's possible to avoid some of that spikiness without
either giving up on the pattern control or going to a much smaller
capsule. Both of which the KM84 and SM81 did (although the SM81 has some
top end spikiness as well due to the baffling in front of the diaphragm;
the 1972 JAES article on the design mentions some of the trickery they
did to bring the top end response up but it doesn't mention the side
effects of doing so).

I think the U87 was as flat a microphone as possible given the design and
cost constraints of the time (and the requirement of the presence peak).
Sadly, most of the folks who have adapted and copied the U87 design have
not always done so well. Many of them have clearly misunderstood some
of the design features that went into the capsule and some of them have
just plainly not done any acoustical engineering at all. And now we have
come to a time where the deficiencies of the U87 are considered to be
beneficial characteristic sounds and everybody wants to copy them.
--scott

From the very first time I heard the then-revered U47 I knew there was
something about the HF performance that was not right. This persists in
every large diaphragm condenser mic I know of. Standing waves, summations
and cancellations by reflections into the incoming waves, and acoustical
phase distortion from arrival time offsets across the capsule all
contribute to the sound I do not like.

In the Physics of Sound, mics and loudspeakers are reduced to a point in
space to make the math manageable. The closer to a point a mic becomes,
the better it performs. Small (really medium) diaphram condensers are
better. Tiny electret body/head mics can be quite good. There are no
medium or large diaphragm measurement mics. One must wonder why many
persist in their love for the distortions of a large diaphragm condenser!
But then, I prefer honey-mustard dressing to ranch. ;-)

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Michael Rempel[_2_]]

persist in their love for the distortions of a large diaphragm condenser!
But then, I prefer honey-mustard dressing to ranch. ;-)

--
The "Distortion" of small is that it fails to reproduce bass. Oh it
can pick up some bass, but the bass response you get is not full.

Then we can talk condenser vs dynamic vs ribbon and the differences in
'flat' responses from them.

Sensitivity, off axis phase response, self noise (in the real world of
spec) and a ton of other factors besides flatness go into making a
good mic.

If you want a really good large diaphram mic you can't go and buy a
cheap knockoff and expect miracles. I have one that is pretty good,
but then I know what I am looking at when I look at a circuit board
and a capsule. If you want one that is good look at a Rode or the Sure
studio mic. There are others, but those are good.

For my money you can't beat a Royer ribbon mic on anything that has a
overly high velocity component to it. The ribbon mic ignores most of
the air pressure changes that a conical diaphragm mic bases it's
response on, and picks up on the resonant vibration of the air more.
It can be a religious experience the first time you really hear the
difference. Try one on a really good acoustic guitar player for
instance.

[Richard Corfield]

On 2008-04-20, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:35:16 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So how do they make directional mics with a flat frequency response
since you appear to be saying it can't be done ?

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it? All the measurement mics
I see are omni.

I read the post about the Behringers as

See what you can do with them [utilising their non flat response and
proximity effect for interesting artistic effect]

I was involved in just reinforcement for a meeting last night using a
Sure SM58, and noted that when the presenter leaned right over towards
the audience and the mic not only did he not speak any quieter but the
extra bass was definitely there.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Richard Corfield]

On 2008-04-20, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I don't know. Has someone managed to do it? All the measurement mics
I see are omni.

Not that I know of. And of course, directional mikes have response that
varies considerably with direction. So which direction do you want it to
be flat in?

Hence that traditional auctioneer sound caused my someone speaking into
the side of it - at least auctions I remember as a child.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:07:37 +0100, Richard Corfield
wrote:

Hence that traditional auctioneer sound caused my someone speaking into
the side of it - at least auctions I remember as a child.

Or that peculiar habit, common among local dignitries speechifying
after an entertainment, of talking into a SM58 pointing up and
slightly away from their face. Preceded, of course, by tap, tap, tap,
"is this thing on?".

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Rempel
wrote:

The "Distortion" of small is that it fails to reproduce bass. Oh it
can pick up some bass, but the bass response you get is not full.

Is that really true?

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:30:32 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Rempel
wrote:

The "Distortion" of small is that it fails to reproduce bass. Oh it
can pick up some bass, but the bass response you get is not full.

Is that really true?

No, it is utter garbage. There is no reason why a small mic should
fail to respond fully to bass. That is set by two things, the
electronics and the air leak that keeps the diaphragm pressure
equalised.

--

d