Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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". |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 :-) |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
"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. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
"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. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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? |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 ) |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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? |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:21:51 +0100, Eeyore
wrote: You can't have directional AND flat response. Uh ? Eh? |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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!" |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
(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!" |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
"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. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 ) |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
"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. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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." |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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." |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
"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. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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." |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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?". |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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? |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response?
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Frequency Response of XM | High End Audio | |||
Frequency response | Pro Audio | |||
Frequency response | Pro Audio | |||
Mic Frequency Response | Pro Audio | |||
Frequency response of Headphone amp? | Vacuum Tubes |