Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
i noticed that the rca 44 mic goes up to about 10k. correct? not sure how
low it goes. and it is regarded as one of the great sounding classic mics. i had read that les paul loved this on guitar and this makes alot of sense. however i'm wondering about this type of curve on a variety of other instruments. there are also some very inexpensive electrets that have a similar curve... i am not talking about quality of sound just the basic curves what is the difference in sound between electret and condensor microphones? can you approximate the curves of these mics with a high and low pass filter? ive been noticing recently that there are some situations that i like a limited freq range... dumbing it down seems to be working does anyone here intentionally use really cheap mics with high end preamps to attain a sound, or vice versa high quality mics with intentionally low quality preamps |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
a-l wrote:
i noticed that the rca 44 mic goes up to about 10k. correct? not sure how low it goes. and it is regarded as one of the great sounding classic mics. i had read that les paul loved this on guitar and this makes alot of sense. however i'm wondering about this type of curve on a variety of other instruments. "goes up to" is meaningless. Look at an actual plot. The 44B doesn't have a lot of usable response up in the top octave, but it has some and it the response curve is very ragged up on the top end. there are also some very inexpensive electrets that have a similar curve... i am not talking about quality of sound just the basic curves No, they don't. Look for a narrowband curve on some cheap electrets and you will see that they are ragged but very different than the raggedness of the 44B. Also, of course, the frequency response tells you very little about what the mike sounds like... an impulse response or a waterfall plot would do a lot better to actually show you something useful. what is the difference in sound between electret and condensor microphones? Electret mikes are condenser mikes. The sound has nothing to do with whether the capsule is externally polarized or not. can you approximate the curves of these mics with a high and low pass filter? Maybe if you had a filter bank with a few hundred narrowband filters so you could emulate every peak and dip. But it wouldn't do you any good, because in the case of the 44B, the peaks and dips all move around as you move around in front of the mike. And you wouldn't be necessarily emulating the impulse response of the mike anyway. ive been noticing recently that there are some situations that i like a limited freq range... dumbing it down seems to be working So get a bag of 635As, some ribbon mikes, and play around. Get a good cabinet of microphones, get to know how they sound, and then pick the microphone that gives the sound you want. does anyone here intentionally use really cheap mics with high end preamps to attain a sound, or vice versa high quality mics with intentionally low quality preamps What is high quality and what is low quality? Lots of folks use the SM57 and the EV 635A because they like the way they sound, when they have lots of other choices. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
a-l wrote: i noticed that the rca 44 mic goes up to about 10k. correct? That's about right. I had read that les paul loved this on guitar and this makes alot of sense. Sure. It was about the best microphone, and about the only decent quality microphone around when Les Paul started recording. And there's practically nothing coming out of a guitar amplifier above about 5 kHz. however i'm wondering about this type of curve on a variety of other instruments. The mic is a mic. The instrument is an instrument. They should compliment each other. there are also some very inexpensive electrets that have a similar curve... i am not talking about quality of sound just the basic curves what is the difference in sound between electret and condensor microphones? An electret is a kind of element used in a condenser mic. They used be the cheap condenser mics but today there are some very good sounding mics that use an electret rather than externally polarizing the capacitor element. can you approximate the curves of these mics with a high and low pass filter? Sure, and maybe with a little adjustable midrange equalization. Curves are mostly generated by the marketing department and don't very well represent how a mic is going to sound in a particular application. ive been noticing recently that there are some situations that i like a limited freq range... dumbing it down seems to be working That's a useful mixing technique to allow you to use things in a mix that would naturally fight each other for their piece of the spectrum. does anyone here intentionally use really cheap mics with high end preamps to attain a sound, or vice versa high quality mics with intentionally low quality preamps Not usually. But experimentation is a wonderful thing. If you got stuff that you're not using and you're looking for a different sound than you're getting, it never hurts to try unexpected combinations. But don't go out and buy a cheap mic or a great preamp just because you read about the combination on a newsgroup. Whatever worked for someone else probably isn't going to work for you. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
"a-l" wrote:
ive been noticing recently that there are some situations that i like a limited freq range... dumbing it down seems to be working Scott Dorsey's and Mike Rivers' answers pretty well cover the turf. Let me add an interesting "rule of thumb" for limited frequency range: Multiplying the LF and HF -3dB numbers should come out to about 600,000. For example 30Hz to 20KHz = 600,000. In the days of 5KHz Telco loops, we would use a 120Hz high-pass. The result? A natural sounding bass-treble balance. Small box radios and TVs that can't produce much below 100Hz benefit from a 6KHz low pass. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
"Let me add an interesting "rule of thumb" for limited frequency range: Multiplying the LF and HF -3dB numbers should come out to about 600,000. For example 30Hz to 20KHz = 600,000. In the days of 5KHz Telco loops, we would use a 120Hz high-pass. The result? A natural sounding bass-treble balance. Small box radios and TVs that can't produce much below 100Hz benefit from a 6KHz low pass. --------------------------------- ???? please explain how you go from 600,000 to 120 hz |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
a-l wrote: "Let me add an interesting "rule of thumb" for limited frequency range: Multiplying the LF and HF -3dB numbers should come out to about 600,000. For example 30Hz to 20KHz = 600,000. In the days of 5KHz Telco loops, we would use a 120Hz high-pass. The result? A natural sounding bass-treble balance. Small box radios and TVs that can't produce much below 100Hz benefit from a 6KHz low pass. --------------------------------- ???? please explain how you go from 600,000 to 120 hz I never heard of this rule of thumb before, but-- I get it. So 120 X 5000 equals 600,000 and if a telephone is 200Hz-3kHz it still = 600,000 |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Richard Kuschel wrote:
I never heard of this rule of thumb before, but-- I get it. So 120 X 5000 equals 600,000 and if a telephone is 200Hz-3kHz it still = 600,000 Right. There's actually a paper on the subject from the BSTJ some time in the 1930s. I will see if I can find a citation on it. But the notion is that for the response to be subjectively "balanced," whatever is lost on the top needs to be balanced with a corresponding loss on the bottom and vice-versa. Note that once you get beyond 10KC or so, this becomes less and less the case, and the original paper was entirely about voice reproduction. Still it's a good rule of thumb. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
So get a bag of 635As, some ribbon mikes, and play around. Get a good
cabinet of microphones, get to know how they sound, and then pick the microphone that gives the sound you want. thanks for the 635 suggestion. theres a host of other ev omni dynamics as well, why the 635 over these. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
a-l wrote:
So get a bag of 635As, some ribbon mikes, and play around. Get a good cabinet of microphones, get to know how they sound, and then pick the microphone that gives the sound you want. thanks for the 635 suggestion. theres a host of other ev omni dynamics as well, why the 635 over these. This may be off topic a bit, but what is the best microphone for listening to outside nature? I would like to put one in a tree on my property that is usually full of birds and be able to record them onto my hard drive via my sound card input. I have a stereo input but would like to just use one mike if at all possible. The last time I tried something like this I took (get ready) a speaker out of an old tube radio that had the matching transformer on it. The transformer was meant to translate the 5K plate to the 8ohm speaker but worked just as well in reverse, giving me a hum proof isolated 5K to input into my standalone, ah, Radio Shack pre-amp. So far it is just junk I have laying around, and did work well in the past, but I have lost the speaker/transformer combo and don't have a broken tube radio to kill for parts. Ideas? -- Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
bill wrote: This may be off topic a bit, but what is the best microphone for listening to outside nature? I would like to put one in a tree on my property that is usually full of birds and be able to record them onto my hard drive via my sound card input. A waterproof dynamic mic. An EV 635 with a condom over it would probably work pretty well. Hopefully your sound card has a balanced input so you can avoid the mic cable acting like an antenna. The speaker trick is pretty clever, but when used as a microphone, it probably doesn't have very good high frequency response. Birds don't sing bass. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
"Richard Kuschel" wrote in message oups.com... a-l wrote: "Let me add an interesting "rule of thumb" for limited frequency range: Multiplying the LF and HF -3dB numbers should come out to about 600,000. For example 30Hz to 20KHz = 600,000. In the days of 5KHz Telco loops, we would use a 120Hz high-pass. The result? A natural sounding bass-treble balance. Small box radios and TVs that can't produce much below 100Hz benefit from a 6KHz low pass. --------------------------------- ???? please explain how you go from 600,000 to 120 hz I never heard of this rule of thumb before, but-- I get it. So 120 X 5000 equals 600,000 and if a telephone is 200Hz-3kHz it still = 600,000 IME, tt's been around forever. I remember finding it in some consumer audio handbooks from the 50s and 60s. I think you'll find it in ancient texts like Tremain's audio handbook and the Radiotron designer's handbook. The basic idea is that the ear seems to be more comfortable with a balance of energy around some point in the midrange. If the bass cutoff goes too low for the given treble cutoff, then things sound bass-heavy and, vice-versa. I think that this balanced energy theory starts to fall apart when bandwidth goes so low or so high that the ear and music sources start introduce roll-offs of their own. Then, you're not specing the strong contributors to perceived sonic balance with system performance parameters. IOW, if you have a system that goes flat down to 3 Hz it probably won't reproduce a lot more music-related energy on the low side, than one that cuts off at 30 Hz, unless you have an atypical music source. Also, the ear rolls off pretty fast below 100 Hz and above 10 KHz. In the 50s and 60s lots of consumers were still struggling to get smooth, clean, response below say 150 Hz, and above 8 KHz. Based on recordings from those times, many production people were also struggling. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Mike Rivers wrote:
bill wrote: This may be off topic a bit, but what is the best microphone for listening to outside nature? I would like to put one in a tree on my property that is usually full of birds and be able to record them onto my hard drive via my sound card input. A waterproof dynamic mic. An EV 635 with a condom over it would probably work pretty well. Hopefully your sound card has a balanced input so you can avoid the mic cable acting like an antenna. The speaker trick is pretty clever, but when used as a microphone, it probably doesn't have very good high frequency response. Birds don't sing bass. You are right about the bass, and a bare speaker does pick up the wind pretty good. What was strange about that setup was that a bug crawling on the speaker surface was LOUD. -- Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
"bill" wrote ...
You are right about the bass, and a bare speaker does pick up the wind pretty good. What was strange about that setup was that a bug crawling on the speaker surface was LOUD. You may be on to something there (for insects, at least). But doesn't seem very well-suited for birds. What about an ordinary (and ultra-cheap) electret mic capsule in some sort of weather-resistant enclosure like those louvered little round housings they use for weather station thermal sensors? |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
a-l wrote:
So get a bag of 635As, some ribbon mikes, and play around. Get a good cabinet of microphones, get to know how they sound, and then pick the microphone that gives the sound you want. thanks for the 635 suggestion. theres a host of other ev omni dynamics as well, why the 635 over these. Because all the others have been discontinued, except for the RE-50 which is a 635A with better shockmounting. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
"a-l" wrote:
So get a bag of 635As, some ribbon mikes, and play around. Get a good cabinet of microphones, get to know how they sound, and then pick the microphone that gives the sound you want. thanks for the 635 suggestion. theres a host of other ev omni dynamics as well, why the 635 over these. I don't think you'll be able to find many EV 635s. ;-) The 635A has been a "best seller" for 40 years. It is "tailored" (top and bottom) for voice and, in the field, excludes some of the sounds of nature that aren't needed in news reports. If you want amazing frequency range and accuracy, try to locate an EV RE55, DO54 or PL9. These share the same dynamic element, the RE55 is twice as long to deliver better LF performance. Unless you want to record earthquakes, the shorter DO54 or PL9 will serve you quite well. Also, using a condom for moisture protection really corrupts the sound. I'd consider a large open-cell foam sock that can be wrung out when the rain gets too serious. I've known EV 642s to have been doused by ocean waves, rinsed thoroughly in tap water and dried, resulting in "as new" performance! -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Richard Crowley wrote:
"bill" wrote ... You are right about the bass, and a bare speaker does pick up the wind pretty good. What was strange about that setup was that a bug crawling on the speaker surface was LOUD. You may be on to something there (for insects, at least). But doesn't seem very well-suited for birds. What about an ordinary (and ultra-cheap) electret mic capsule in some sort of weather-resistant enclosure like those louvered little round housings they use for weather station thermal sensors? I'm collecting ideas right now. The speaker did kind of roll off the birds but I could hear trucks and trains for miles, even farther than with my own ears. A 4" speaker does seem to be kind of optimum around 200-400 Hz. I put a pre-emphasis network on it and it wasn't too terribly bad. -- Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
bill wrote: The speaker did kind of roll off the birds but I could hear trucks and trains for miles, even farther than with my own ears. A 4" speaker does seem to be kind of optimum around 200-400 Hz. A local sound company built some long throw (very directional) horn cabinetss, and to test them out, pointed them off the back deck of their building, across a field, and out to a major highway, a distance of about a quarter of a mile. Someone from the company drove down the highway while they were playing music through the speakers to get an idea of the directivity pattern. Then they got the idea to hook one up to a mixer mic input (this was before anyone had "mic preamps") and listen to what they were picking up. They could hear radios in the cars going by. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Roy W. Rising wrote: I don't think you'll be able to find many EV 635s. ;-) The 635A has been a "best seller" for 40 years. Picky, picky, but you're right. These days, someone is sure to ask: "I was told to look for a 635. I found a 635A for a good price. Will it affect my sound quality?" |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Roy W. Rising wrote: I don't think you'll be able to find many EV 635s. ;-) The 635A has been a "best seller" for 40 years. Picky, picky, but you're right. These days, someone is sure to ask: "I was told to look for a 635. I found a 635A for a good price. Will it affect my sound quality?" |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Mike Rivers wrote:
bill wrote: The speaker did kind of roll off the birds but I could hear trucks and trains for miles, even farther than with my own ears. A 4" speaker does seem to be kind of optimum around 200-400 Hz. A local sound company built some long throw (very directional) horn cabinetss, and to test them out, pointed them off the back deck of their building, across a field, and out to a major highway, a distance of about a quarter of a mile. Someone from the company drove down the highway while they were playing music through the speakers to get an idea of the directivity pattern. Then they got the idea to hook one up to a mixer mic input (this was before anyone had "mic preamps") and listen to what they were picking up. They could hear radios in the cars going by. Sounds right. I got crazy around 1989 and tried mounting one in a snow dish and managed to make a pretty good poor man's directional pickup. -- Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Mike Rivers wrote:
bill wrote: The speaker did kind of roll off the birds but I could hear trucks and trains for miles, even farther than with my own ears. A 4" speaker does seem to be kind of optimum around 200-400 Hz. A local sound company built some long throw (very directional) horn cabinetss, and to test them out, pointed them off the back deck of their building, across a field, and out to a major highway, a distance of about a quarter of a mile. Someone from the company drove down the highway while they were playing music through the speakers to get an idea of the directivity pattern. Then they got the idea to hook one up to a mixer mic input (this was before anyone had "mic preamps") and listen to what they were picking up. They could hear radios in the cars going by. I can do you one better than that. The guys that discovered the big bang residue found that with their big microwave horn they could clearly hear kids playing in a school yard in a town some 12 miles away. Later... Ron Capik -- |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
Ron Capik wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: bill wrote: The speaker did kind of roll off the birds but I could hear trucks and trains for miles, even farther than with my own ears. A 4" speaker does seem to be kind of optimum around 200-400 Hz. A local sound company built some long throw (very directional) horn cabinetss, and to test them out, pointed them off the back deck of their building, across a field, and out to a major highway, a distance of about a quarter of a mile. Someone from the company drove down the highway while they were playing music through the speakers to get an idea of the directivity pattern. Then they got the idea to hook one up to a mixer mic input (this was before anyone had "mic preamps") and listen to what they were picking up. They could hear radios in the cars going by. I can do you one better than that. The guys that discovered the big bang residue found that with their big microwave horn they could clearly hear kids playing in a school yard in a town some 12 miles away. Later... Ron Capik -- That just beat the heck out of my snow 3' dish and speaker. 12 miles is pretty darn impressive. -- Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
"Mike Rivers" wrote:
bill wrote: The speaker did kind of roll off the birds but I could hear trucks and trains for miles, even farther than with my own ears. A 4" speaker does seem to be kind of optimum around 200-400 Hz. A local sound company ... Then they got the idea to hook one up to a mixer mic input (this was before anyone had "mic preamps") ... The venerable RCA OP-6 was called a Remote Amp. It had mic-level input and true line-level out able to drive a Telco line. There was a real VU meter and a real variable attenuator on the front. It dates back 50 years or more. And ... it used real "fire bottles" in a VERY quiet circuit design. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
electret, ribbon, and eq
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:34:45 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote: I don't think you'll be able to find many EV 635s. ;-) The 635A has been a "best seller" for 40 years. Picky, picky, but you're right. These days, someone is sure to ask: "I was told to look for a 635. I found a 635A for a good price. Will it affect my sound quality?" Last time I ordered a 635A they sent me a 635A/B instead. I found it a lot darker g |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Chinese ribbon questions - Scott D.? JP Gerard? | Pro Audio | |||
Questions about old ribbon mic | Pro Audio | |||
Ribbon Mic Techniques and Mods? | Pro Audio | |||
Will bascially any ribbon mic record trumpet decently? How about Nady RSM-2? | Pro Audio | |||
Ribbon Mic Question | Pro Audio |