[Bob Cain]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
For completeness could you also do this same test with a transformer
you think is of adequate quality, all else identical in the setup, and
post the equivalent measurement photos?

I will see about doing that, but you can probably look on the Jensen or
Lundahl site and see their 1KC square wave responses. It's a standard
measurement everybody uses for transformers because it tells you a whole
lot on one screen.

The interesting thing would be to see the results under otherwise
identical conditions (including the person doing the testing.)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:52:48 -0500, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ) :

Ty Ford wrote:

There has always been a bit of low level grit in the clones. I've talked to
enough of the clone importers about the problem and they have acknowledged
the existence of the grit and said that they are working with the chinese
to
get that fixed. I haven't heard it happen yet.

There must be something missing.

A reasonable definition of grit?


Bob


Listen to the NT1-a sample of the acoustic guitar track that's been part of
this experiment. Then listen to the TLM 103 guitar track. You'll hear the
grit on the NT1-a track and not on the TLM 103 track.

And the NT1-a isn't even Chinese. Actually, know what, there are other
non-chinese mics I've herd the grit from, even some over $1000 mics.


articulated low level distortion, how's that?

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:41:00 -0500, Paul Stamler wrote
(in article ):

Question for Ty: Are there microphones which sound good on the Mackie,
Radius or Focusrite Red preamps, in your experience? If so, what are they?

Peace,
Paul



The radius isn't here anymore. The FR Red was at another studio (they now use
GML, BTW.)

There is no consistent data.

Harv's 603 sounded better on the mackie than the GML or the Aphex 1100.

It didn't sound as good as a TLM 103 through a GML.

So we get striated; some bad mics sound better on bad preamps, but not as
good as good mics on good preamps. Then, too, I heard some old SM58 through a
really old Peavey live board that sounded surprisingly good.

This wicket is very sticky.

Regards,

Ty


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:44:26 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:52:48 -0500, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ) :

Ty Ford wrote:

There has always been a bit of low level grit in the clones. I've talked to
enough of the clone importers about the problem and they have acknowledged
the existence of the grit and said that they are working with the chinese
to
get that fixed. I haven't heard it happen yet.

There must be something missing.

A reasonable definition of grit?


Bob


Listen to the NT1-a sample of the acoustic guitar track that's been part of
this experiment. Then listen to the TLM 103 guitar track. You'll hear the
grit on the NT1-a track and not on the TLM 103 track.


No, I hear extra brightness. When I apply my eq to the Rode track it
becomes very similar. There is no grit.

And the NT1-a isn't even Chinese. Actually, know what, there are other
non-chinese mics I've herd the grit from, even some over $1000 mics.


articulated low level distortion, how's that?

You'd have your work cut out convincing me that was anything but a
concatenation of words. In this context, what does articulated mean?
And isn't low level distortion meant to be a good thing rather than a
bad one?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[hank alrich]

Paul Stamler wrote:

Question for Ty: Are there microphones which sound good on the Mackie,
Radius or Focusrite Red preamps, in your experience? If so, what are they?

The Mackies seem to work okay, IME, with the Beyer M88, and with Audix
OM5's, which may suggest they'd work with other Audix dynamics,
excluding the OM7. I've also run the M500's with a 1202 and it wasn't as
bad as I expected.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[drichard]

Hi Don,

Could you elaborate on these test results a little? I'm not savvy on
what this type of test shows, and how good the IM distortion
performance of the Rode is.

Ty has often expressed that he hears "grit" with the NT1A and also with
Chinese clones, that it seems he believes to be distortion. (I don't
want to put words in his mouth, but I think that's about right.)

How does this test show that IM distortion is not a factor? Could the
character of IM distortion be different for the Rode than the TLM?

Thanks,

Dean


Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:35:34 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On 18 Jan 2007 10:28:36 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

I just reworked my FFT analysis and find that I was wrong, its the Rode's
response that is up, and the difference is more like 5 dB in the 3.5 - 6.5
KHz range.

I bet a nickel if you look at pure tones and two-tone tests that you will
find lots of distortion products on the top end of the Rode also, while
the distortion spectrum on the Neumann is very different.
--scott

I'd take your nickel and double it. They are both a bit of thin metal
stretched across a plate. They have all the same mechanisms in play,
and there is no reason to suppose that the Rode would cause any more
distortion than the Neumann. Now you may be right in supposing the
distortion spectra would be different, because there are slight
differences in geometry, but I suspect that what you meant was that
the Rode would be considerably worse.

d

OK, done my bit with an intermod measurement of the Rode.
Here is a plot of intermod between sine tones at 10kHz and 11kHz, at
an SPL of about 105dB (it isn't easy to measure SPL of pure tones).

http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif

The plot needs some interpretation. The two tones are clear enough -
the big pair above are alias products, and nothing to do with the
mics. The intermods are the tones at 9kHz and 12kHz, down at around
-100dB. The original tones are about -15dB, which makes an intermod
performance of about 85dB. The harmonic distortion performance won't
be too far off that.

Not too shabby I'd say. Now, what does the Neumann look like?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Paul Stamler]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. ..
So we get striated; some bad mics sound better on bad preamps, but not as
good as good mics on good preamps. Then, too, I heard some old SM58
through a
really old Peavey live board that sounded surprisingly good.

This wicket is very sticky.

And the SM58 is a dynamic, so the mechanisms for mic/input interaction are
very different. Let's leave that for another day.

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce]

On 23 Jan 2007 08:53:34 -0800, "drichard" wrote:

Hi Don,

Could you elaborate on these test results a little? I'm not savvy on
what this type of test shows, and how good the IM distortion
performance of the Rode is.

Ty has often expressed that he hears "grit" with the NT1A and also with
Chinese clones, that it seems he believes to be distortion. (I don't
want to put words in his mouth, but I think that's about right.)

How does this test show that IM distortion is not a factor? Could the
character of IM distortion be different for the Rode than the TLM?

Thanks,

Dean

Intermod is just another product of the same non-linearity that
produces harmonic distortion. Distortion figures of -85dB of whatever
type of distortion are truly excellent, and there will be no resulting
effect on the sound.

I've heard this term "grit" before and the usual supposition seems to
be that it is caused by distortion, but I have now convinced myself
that it is no such thing - just a frequency response that accentuates
whatever grit is in the original sound. It is easily cured with
suitable eq as I have found.

There is also the "tired ears" phenomenon that has led Ty to decide
that I had somehow manipulated the TLM103 sample to make it worse - of
course I hadn't.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Geoff]

Don Pearce wrote:

I've heard this term "grit" before and the usual supposition seems to
be that it is caused by distortion, but I have now convinced myself
that it is no such thing - just a frequency response that accentuates
whatever grit is in the original sound. It is easily cured with
suitable eq as I have found.

There is also the "tired ears" phenomenon that has led Ty to decide
that I had somehow manipulated the TLM103 sample to make it worse - of
course I hadn't.

It could equally be some MISSING from the other mic, that is subconciously
being put into the position of being the 'reference'. Or something else in
the replay chain.

geoff

[AT]

Weird enough i sold a 103 to a friend that uses behringer. it sounds
better that on my mackie.

it was too brittle on the mac. flatter response on the beh.

any ideas as to why?

AT

[Arny Krueger]

"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com
Hi Don,

Could you elaborate on these test results a little? I'm
not savvy on what this type of test shows, and how good
the IM distortion performance of the Rode is.

Ty has often expressed that he hears "grit" with the NT1A
and also with Chinese clones, that it seems he believes
to be distortion. (I don't want to put words in his
mouth, but I think that's about right.)

How does this test show that IM distortion is not a
factor? Could the character of IM distortion be different
for the Rode than the TLM?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif

Shows the two test tones played through the Rode as large spikes at 10 and
11 KHz. One has an amplitude of about -18 dB, and the other has an
amplitude of about -13 dB.

The difference was no doubt accidental and could be adjusted out during the
set up of the test. It can also be accounted for in the analysis of the
results.

Second order IM would be indicated by a difference tone at 1 KHz.

Third order IM would be indicated by sidebands, the largest in band, at 9 &
11 KHz.

Fourth order IM would be have its largest in-band indications in the form
of difference tones at 1 & 2 KHz.

....and so on.

The largest spurious response related to IM in

http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif

is the 1 KHz difference tone whose amplitude is -77 dB.

It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty low.

[drichard]

Hi Arny,

Thanks to both you and Don. This is becoming educational, though I'm
not sure I entirely grasp how good the IM performance is when you say:

It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty low.

Since I've never seen this type of test before, or tried to interpret
the results, I don't know how bad it would be for a mic that performs
poorly, or how good it would be with the best microphones. Do you (or
Don, or anyone else) have any idea how other mics good or bad) perform
in this type of test?

Again, thanks to both you and Don, and Ty too. Words like "grit" and
other subjective terms can be meaningful, but I do think they become
more relevant if a measurable characteristic can be used to explain or
disprove them. I tend to put more credence in comments substantiated by
blind listening tests and test data.

It's apparent that some people will have a predisposition to like or
dislike a product based on brand / location of manufacturing / price,
so I'm a little skeptical of subjective comments (good or bad) unless
the tests substantiate them.

Dean



On Jan 23, 9:07 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"drichard" wrote in ooglegroups.com

Hi Don,

Could you elaborate on these test results a little? I'm
not savvy on what this type of test shows, and how good
the IM distortion performance of the Rode is.

Ty has often expressed that he hears "grit" with the NT1A
and also with Chinese clones, that it seems he believes
to be distortion. (I don't want to put words in his
mouth, but I think that's about right.)

How does this test show that IM distortion is not a
factor? Could the character of IM distortion be different
for the Rode than the TLM?http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif

Shows the two test tones played through the Rode as large spikes at 10 and
11 KHz. One has an amplitude of about -18 dB, and the other has an
amplitude of about -13 dB.

The difference was no doubt accidental and could be adjusted out during the
set up of the test. It can also be accounted for in the analysis of the
results.

Second order IM would be indicated by a difference tone at 1 KHz.

Third order IM would be indicated by sidebands, the largest in band, at 9 &
11 KHz.

Fourth order IM would be have its largest in-band indications in the form
of difference tones at 1 & 2 KHz.

...and so on.

The largest spurious response related to IM in

http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif

is the 1 KHz difference tone whose amplitude is -77 dB.

It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty low.

[Arny Krueger]

"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com

Thanks to both you and Don. This is becoming educational,
though I'm not sure I entirely grasp how good the IM
performance is when you say:

It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty
low.

For a benchmark number, consider that 60 dB down corresponds to 0.1%.

0.05% is about where it becomes difficult to hear spurious responses, no
matter how ideal the test conditions.

Since I've never seen this type of test before, or tried
to interpret the results, I don't know how bad it would
be for a mic that performs poorly, or how good it would
be with the best microphones. Do you (or Don, or anyone
else) have any idea how other mics good or bad) perform
in this type of test?

At this point it would seem appropiate to test some highly-regarded mics,
but I don't have any such thing at my disposal.

The basic test is simple enough to set up, have say a 10 KHz tone playing
through one speaker, and an 11 KHz tone playing through another. The use of
separate signal paths for each tone pretty well eliminates the possibility
of there being any IM in the signal generation equipment.

Then just record whatever comes out of the mic and post it.

I would hope that most mic preamps and digital recording gear would not
contribute to measured noise and distortion in a way that would contaminate
the results in such a profound way that they are not useful.

It's easy enough to attenuate the test signals and route them through the
electronics on the recording side of the process to confirm their
performance.

Again, thanks to both you and Don, and Ty too. Words like
"grit" and other subjective terms can be meaningful, but
I do think they become more relevant if a measurable
characteristic can be used to explain or disprove them.

I agree. At this point anything that can be heard is potentially measurable
and if measured it can be analyzed in a relevant way.

Grit is one of those terms that can float in the realm between linear and
nonlinear distortion, and perhaps be confusing.

I tend to put more credence in comments substantiated by
blind listening tests and test data.

I think most people do.

It's apparent that some people will have a predisposition
to like or dislike a product based on brand / location of
manufacturing / price, so I'm a little skeptical of
subjective comments (good or bad) unless the tests
substantiate them.

Audio is not yet an area were we have too much confirmation and explanation
for what we hear. ;-)

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:59:16 -0500, AT wrote
(in article ):

Weird enough i sold a 103 to a friend that uses behringer. it sounds
better that on my mackie.

it was too brittle on the mac. flatter response on the beh.

any ideas as to why?

AT

yes, different preamps.

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob Cain wrote:
I will see about doing that, but you can probably look on the Jensen or
Lundahl site and see their 1KC square wave responses. It's a standard
measurement everybody uses for transformers because it tells you a whole
lot on one screen.

The interesting thing would be to see the results under otherwise
identical conditions (including the person doing the testing.)

Okay, here are some shots. These have much better image quality in part
because I used a new pack of film instead of some long-out-of-date stuff.
But the square waves are similar.

http://www.panix.com/~kludge/1kc.pdf

Upper left hand corner is a Jensen JT-11-BMCF. It's completely unloaded,
but there is still no overshoot, and the top of the waveform is flat. This
is maybe a _little_ unfair since this is a physically larger transformer
than the Chinese mikes use. But this is what I would consider an excellent
looking plot, especially considering the transfomrer is unloaded. This is
a fifty-dollar transformer.

Below it is a shot of the Tamura MET-59, unloaded. You can see that it's
ringing on the leading edge of the waveform, and the top of the waveform
slopes down (which indicates poor low frequency response). In the upper
right is the same image with the scale expanded so you can see it better.
I would consider this a very good quality transformer for voice and
communications applications but not hi-fi. This is a $12 transformer.

In the lower right, there is a shot of the same MET-59 transformer, same
expanded scale, but with a 600 ohm load on the secondary. The ringing is
all gone and the leading edge of the waveform is nice and square. There
is still a very obvious low end rolloff, however. This is an example of
how many transformers are very sensitive to loading, but that proper
termination can get greatly improved performance from inexpensive transformers.

I meant to do a cheap filament transformer too, but I did not get the chance
to do so. Even the Stancor filament transformers have better wideband
response than the transformer from the $1k Chinese tube microphone shown
in http://www.panix.com/~kludge/xformer.pdf
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."