| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
A year or so back, I followed a link from here, r.a.p., to a good
article that described why the proximity effect of a cardioid microphone goes away when the side of the diaphragm is pointed at the sound source rather than the front, but now I can't find it. The URL was http://81.174.169.10/odds/mic/ If you know what article I'm talking about could you tell me if the article has a new URL? Maybe you know or remember the guy who wrote it. This is somewhat frivolous, but related. I don't know much about what makes a radio mike a radio mike. But, someone commented on this picture (link below) saying the DJ in the pic would be better off using the right mike type and angle, and I made a simple comment back about the angle. But I wondered, if a female DJ did in fact want to eliminate the proximity effect using this technique, would a mike designed for radio still be the better mike? Why is a radio mike better for radio (or usually better, if that's the case) when used in the usual way, than a mike singers would pick? pic (link is to my comment, scroll up for the pic) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/2...ment-470703194 I'm not that interested in commenting back over there, since I have no experience in this matter, except maybe to point him to this thread if it illuminates anything. -- Matt |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
Matt Faunce wrote:
A year or so back, I followed a link from here, r.a.p., to a good article that described why the proximity effect of a cardioid microphone goes away when the side of the diaphragm is pointed at the sound source rather than the front, but now I can't find it. The URL was http://81.174.169.10/odds/mic/ If you know what article I'm talking about could you tell me if the article has a new URL? Maybe you know or remember the guy who wrote it. But... it doesn't. The proximity effect remains no matter what direction it's pointed in. It has only to do with the pattern of the microphone and the distance from the source. In fact, if you turn the microphone to the side so the source is off-axis, you will lose the high end (since typical cardioid mikes are only cardioid at higher frequencies and are omni down on the bottom). So the bass boost seems even more emphasized in comparison. But if you want to find the original article you can probably go to archive.org and use the Wayback Machine to see if the article has been archived. This is somewhat frivolous, but related. I don't know much about what makes a radio mike a radio mike. But, someone commented on this picture (link below) saying the DJ in the pic would be better off using the right mike type and angle, and I made a simple comment back about the angle. But I wondered, if a female DJ did in fact want to eliminate the proximity effect using this technique, would a mike designed for radio still be the better mike? Why is a radio mike better for radio (or usually better, if that's the case) when used in the usual way, than a MIke singers would pick? pic (link is to my comment, scroll up for the pic) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/2...ment-470703194 I don't have any graphics, but if the picture is Rush Limbaugh, he uses an RE-20 which is a microphone with some trickery to greatly reduce proximity effect. It is popular with broadcasters but it's also a great PA mike. Tight and even pattern. No "off mike" sound for people who can't stand still. In fact, all of the popular broadcast mikes, from the RCA 77 to the Sennheiser 421, Shure SM-7, EV RE-20, are also great mikes for studio and PA applications too. i'm not that interested in commenting back over there, since I have no experience in this matter, except maybe to point him to this thread if it illuminates anything. People are too quick to categorize mikes and say "that is a kick drum mike" and "that is a studio mike" and "that is a PA mike," when in fact good clean microphones have a wide variety of applications. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
On 3/30/12 1:25 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Mar 2012 22:37:33 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Matt wrote: A year or so back, I followed a link from here, r.a.p., to a good article that described why the proximity effect of a cardioid microphone goes away when the side of the diaphragm is pointed at the sound source rather than the front, but now I can't find it. The URL was http://81.174.169.10/odds/mic/ If you know what article I'm talking about could you tell me if the article has a new URL? Maybe you know or remember the guy who wrote it. But... it doesn't. The proximity effect remains no matter what direction it's pointed in. It has only to do with the pattern of the microphone and the distance from the source. In fact, if you turn the microphone to the side so the source is off-axis, you will lose the high end (since typical cardioid mikes are only cardioid at higher frequencies and are omni down on the bottom). So the bass boost seems even more emphasized in comparison. But if you want to find the original article you can probably go to archive.org and use the Wayback Machine to see if the article has been archived. This is somewhat frivolous, but related. I don't know much about what makes a radio mike a radio mike. But, someone commented on this picture (link below) saying the DJ in the pic would be better off using the right mike type and angle, and I made a simple comment back about the angle. But I wondered, if a female DJ did in fact want to eliminate the proximity effect using this technique, would a mike designed for radio still be the better mike? Why is a radio mike better for radio (or usually better, if that's the case) when used in the usual way, than a MIke singers would pick? pic (link is to my comment, scroll up for the pic) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/2...ment-470703194 I don't have any graphics, but if the picture is Rush Limbaugh, he uses an RE-20 which is a microphone with some trickery to greatly reduce proximity effect. It is popular with broadcasters but it's also a great PA mike. Tight and even pattern. No "off mike" sound for people who can't stand still. In fact, all of the popular broadcast mikes, from the RCA 77 to the Sennheiser 421, Shure SM-7, EV RE-20, are also great mikes for studio and PA applications too. i'm not that interested in commenting back over there, since I have no experience in this matter, except maybe to point him to this thread if it illuminates anything. People are too quick to categorize mikes and say "that is a kick drum mike" and "that is a studio mike" and "that is a PA mike," when in fact good clean microphones have a wide variety of applications. --scott That URL. I will sort out a new link over the next few days and repost it somewhere. As for the proximity effect. It genuinely IS absent at 90 degrees from the microphone as the velocity component is (near as dammit) zero from that direction, and only the pressure response is available. Sure you lose highs from the side - diaphragm geometry sees to that. But that is not the same thing as bass boost through proximity effect. d I goggled around last night and found that it was your article. After Scott's reading post I thought maybe you took it down because you found a flaw, which happens to even the best scientists... So late last night I tested a 0.5 inch cardioid mike I have (AKG blueline) by placing it one inch away from my metronome speaker which clicks at two different pitches. I used the metronome because it has a single small speaker, so direction will be more precise than a multi-speaker speaker. I had to make two takes, one for each mike position, then for playback I boosted the gain on the sideways position take to match the other. The bass boost seemed gone at the sideways position. I do remember listening to some sound files you put up along with your article, which were convincing. Since normal listening is at a distance, and highs get absorbed in the air, won't the sideways position give you a more realistic tone? Especially if listening to playback with headphones? I've always imagined that sound engineers might angle their cardioid mikes closer to the side as they move from within a foot to even closer to the source, especially if the source comes from a tight area like a small speaker. -- Matt |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
On 3/30/12 8:37 AM, Matt Faunce wrote:
I goggled around last night and found that it was your article. After Scott's reading post I thought maybe you took it down because you found I meant, "After reading Scott's post..." -- Matt |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:37:54 -0400, Matt Faunce
wrote: On 3/30/12 1:25 AM, Don Pearce wrote: On 29 Mar 2012 22:37:33 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Matt wrote: A year or so back, I followed a link from here, r.a.p., to a good article that described why the proximity effect of a cardioid microphone goes away when the side of the diaphragm is pointed at the sound source rather than the front, but now I can't find it. The URL was http://81.174.169.10/odds/mic/ If you know what article I'm talking about could you tell me if the article has a new URL? Maybe you know or remember the guy who wrote it. But... it doesn't. The proximity effect remains no matter what direction it's pointed in. It has only to do with the pattern of the microphone and the distance from the source. In fact, if you turn the microphone to the side so the source is off-axis, you will lose the high end (since typical cardioid mikes are only cardioid at higher frequencies and are omni down on the bottom). So the bass boost seems even more emphasized in comparison. But if you want to find the original article you can probably go to archive.org and use the Wayback Machine to see if the article has been archived. This is somewhat frivolous, but related. I don't know much about what makes a radio mike a radio mike. But, someone commented on this picture (link below) saying the DJ in the pic would be better off using the right mike type and angle, and I made a simple comment back about the angle. But I wondered, if a female DJ did in fact want to eliminate the proximity effect using this technique, would a mike designed for radio still be the better mike? Why is a radio mike better for radio (or usually better, if that's the case) when used in the usual way, than a MIke singers would pick? pic (link is to my comment, scroll up for the pic) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/2...ment-470703194 I don't have any graphics, but if the picture is Rush Limbaugh, he uses an RE-20 which is a microphone with some trickery to greatly reduce proximity effect. It is popular with broadcasters but it's also a great PA mike. Tight and even pattern. No "off mike" sound for people who can't stand still. In fact, all of the popular broadcast mikes, from the RCA 77 to the Sennheiser 421, Shure SM-7, EV RE-20, are also great mikes for studio and PA applications too. i'm not that interested in commenting back over there, since I have no experience in this matter, except maybe to point him to this thread if it illuminates anything. People are too quick to categorize mikes and say "that is a kick drum mike" and "that is a studio mike" and "that is a PA mike," when in fact good clean microphones have a wide variety of applications. --scott That URL. I will sort out a new link over the next few days and repost it somewhere. As for the proximity effect. It genuinely IS absent at 90 degrees from the microphone as the velocity component is (near as dammit) zero from that direction, and only the pressure response is available. Sure you lose highs from the side - diaphragm geometry sees to that. But that is not the same thing as bass boost through proximity effect. d I goggled around last night and found that it was your article. After Scott's reading post I thought maybe you took it down because you found a flaw, which happens to even the best scientists... So late last night I tested a 0.5 inch cardioid mike I have (AKG blueline) by placing it one inch away from my metronome speaker which clicks at two different pitches. I used the metronome because it has a single small speaker, so direction will be more precise than a multi-speaker speaker. I had to make two takes, one for each mike position, then for playback I boosted the gain on the sideways position take to match the other. The bass boost seemed gone at the sideways position. I do remember listening to some sound files you put up along with your article, which were convincing. Since normal listening is at a distance, and highs get absorbed in the air, won't the sideways position give you a more realistic tone? Especially if listening to playback with headphones? I've always imagined that sound engineers might angle their cardioid mikes closer to the side as they move from within a foot to even closer to the source, especially if the source comes from a tight area like a small speaker. The problem here is that most recordings are made in real rooms, so the sound arrives from all sorts of angles with varying amounts of delay. The whole purpose of the directional mic is to try and give a little added isolation to the direct sound from those delayed arrivals. So you put up with the proximity effect and kill it with appropriate eq. This is where my article can help, because it gives the correct eq for a set of distances. When I say correct, I mean correct to kill the proximity boost. You probably need to vary it from that point to achieve the actual sound you want, but that is another matter. d |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
Matt Faunce wrote:
On 3/30/12 1:25 AM, Don Pearce wrote: As for the proximity effect. It genuinely IS absent at 90 degrees from the microphone as the velocity component is (near as dammit) zero from that direction, and only the pressure response is available. Sure you lose highs from the side - diaphragm geometry sees to that. But that is not the same thing as bass boost through proximity effect. Okay, I'll buy that argument. I guess it's something we never really notice since the response off-axis is usually so wonky. I know that with an SM-7 when you speak up close parallel to the diaphragm you still get a massive bass boost (but reduced popping) and a lot of broadcast guys like doing that. Since normal listening is at a distance, and highs get absorbed in the air, won't the sideways position give you a more realistic tone? Especially if listening to playback with headphones? I've always imagined that sound engineers might angle their cardioid mikes closer to the side as they move from within a foot to even closer to the source, especially if the source comes from a tight area like a small speaker. Could be, but then you have all the other response problems that come from being off-axis. If you want a realistic tone up close, either use an omni or use equalization. There's no crime in using equalization, especially if you have a mike with a built-in compensation filter. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
|
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Okay, I'll buy that argument. I guess it's something we never really notice since the response off-axis is usually so wonky. I know that with an SM-7 when you speak up close parallel to the diaphragm you still get a massive bass boost (but reduced popping) and a lot of broadcast guys like doing that. "up close parallel to the diaphragm" is likely to be 70 degrees off axis rather than 90 with that mic because the capsule is recessed that far. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
On 3/30/2012 8:37 AM, Matt Faunce wrote:
.. So late last night I tested a 0.5 inch cardioid mike I have (AKG blueline) by placing it one inch away from my metronome speaker which clicks at two different pitches. I used the metronome because it has a single small speaker, so direction will be more precise than a multi-speaker speaker. I had to make two takes, one for each mike position, then for playback I boosted the gain on the sideways position take to match the other. The bass boost seemed gone at the sideways position. How much bass do you get out of a metronome? A better experiment would be to speak an inch from the front of the mic, then an inch from the side of the mic. Then a foot from the front of the mic and a foot from the side of the mic. That proximity effect goes away (or doesn't) off to the side of a cardioid mic is really kind of a silly premise, though. The mic simply sounds different off axis than on axis. And there's no sharp a dividing line. I would expect the amount of proximity effect to be reduced off axis, but even an inch away, there will still be some sound getting into the front of the mic, so you'll hear some proximity effect. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:24:12 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote: On 3/30/2012 8:37 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: .. So late last night I tested a 0.5 inch cardioid mike I have (AKG blueline) by placing it one inch away from my metronome speaker which clicks at two different pitches. I used the metronome because it has a single small speaker, so direction will be more precise than a multi-speaker speaker. I had to make two takes, one for each mike position, then for playback I boosted the gain on the sideways position take to match the other. The bass boost seemed gone at the sideways position. How much bass do you get out of a metronome? A better experiment would be to speak an inch from the front of the mic, then an inch from the side of the mic. Then a foot from the front of the mic and a foot from the side of the mic. That proximity effect goes away (or doesn't) off to the side of a cardioid mic is really kind of a silly premise, though. The mic simply sounds different off axis than on axis. And there's no sharp a dividing line. I would expect the amount of proximity effect to be reduced off axis, but even an inch away, there will still be some sound getting into the front of the mic, so you'll hear some proximity effect. I will be reposting the web page soon, so you can both see and hear what this is all about. You may be surprised - but then again, maybe not. d |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing Proximity Effect Article and Radio Microphones
On 3/30/12 12:24 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/30/2012 8:37 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: .. So late last night I tested a 0.5 inch cardioid mike I have (AKG blueline) by placing it one inch away from my metronome speaker which clicks at two different pitches. I used the metronome because it has a single small speaker, so direction will be more precise than a multi-speaker speaker. I had to make two takes, one for each mike position, then for playback I boosted the gain on the sideways position take to match the other. The bass boost seemed gone at the sideways position. How much bass do you get out of a metronome? This is another question that I'm not sure I know enough to even articulate. I still hear a fattening effect. Maybe the mike isn't boosting the bass frequencies of the metronome, but fattening the attack. Or is it converting the attack into a bass frequency? I haven't gotten the physics of proximity effect straight in my head yet. So Don, I'll be looking forward to going back your article. Matt |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Proximity effect: Is the inverse true? | Pro Audio | |||
| Adding proximity effect | Pro Audio | |||
| Proximity effect: explanation? | Pro Audio | |||
| Proximity effect/Compressor ratio? | Pro Audio | |||
| dealing with proximity effect - schoeps mk4s | Pro Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
