Re: can condenser mics be improved?

[tim perry]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
> computers are always getting better, so...
>
> i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
> or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
> impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
> frequency response, etc.
>
> for example, the $5000 manleys and $12000 vintage elam 251's, etc...
> have they reached an unimprovable spec?
>
> sound is subjective, but i'm wondering if analog electronics have hit
> a specification limit for microphones. maybe new computerized
> manufacturing are allowing for thinner diaphragms, mabye new military
> spec capacitors will come out with tighter tolerances...just curious!

maybe one day we will just point a laser at someones throat or chest and
sample the vibrations (hey no feedback)

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(xy) wrote:
>computers are always getting better, so...
>
>i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
>or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
>impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
>frequency response, etc.
>
>for example, the $5000 manleys and $12000 vintage elam 251's, etc...
>have they reached an unimprovable spec?
>
>sound is subjective, but i'm wondering if analog electronics have hit
>a specification limit for microphones. maybe new computerized
>manufacturing are allowing for thinner diaphragms, mabye new military
>spec capacitors will come out with tighter tolerances...just curious!

Until someone makes a betterone, yes.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Mike Rivers]

(xy) wrote in message >...

> i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
> or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
> impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
> frequency response, etc.

Being mechanical devices at heart, there are certain physical limits,
but people still seem to be making better and better microphones. My
dealer is raving about how genuinely good Neumann's new digital
microphone sounds. It's a condenser diaphragm, but made to be really
flat and smooth (rather than "tailored" as other condenser mics are)
since you have so much control over its tonal characteristics in the
digital domain. In addition, they've worked some magic with a
two-stage A/D converter so that the full dynamic range the capsule can
produce can be handled digitally.

So, yeah, I'd say that there's some progress being made in
microphones.

[Andy Eng]

On 16 Sep 2003 21:20:41 -0700, (xy)
wrote:

>computers are always getting better, so...
>
>i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
>or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
>impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
>frequency response, etc.
>
>for example, the $5000 manleys and $12000 vintage elam 251's, etc...
>have they reached an unimprovable spec?
>
>sound is subjective, but i'm wondering if analog electronics have hit
>a specification limit for microphones. maybe new computerized
>manufacturing are allowing for thinner diaphragms, mabye new military
>spec capacitors will come out with tighter tolerances...just curious!

I've been following what's been going on over in the Nanotechnology
shop and seeing really nice stuff happening...

I suppose an array of active condenser mic elements that would be
smart enough and fast enough to block out coughs, bumping into mic
stands, ringing cell phones, and the like would be nice... :-)

Maybe too replace phantom power needs with something like a watch
battery?

Just pondering...

Andy

[Scott Dorsey]

xy > wrote:
>
>i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
>or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
>impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
>frequency response, etc.

No, distortion specs on condenser microphones are still way too high,
patterns are way too sloppy. If you're looking for neutrality, we have
a long way to go to get from the Schoeps/B&K/Josephson level to perfection.

>for example, the $5000 manleys and $12000 vintage elam 251's, etc...
>have they reached an unimprovable spec?

Now, THOSE microphones are intended to be deliberately colored. That's
a different thing altogether. Those mikes can't be improved, because
they have the specific coloration that has been dialed into them and
they have it perfectly. The SM-57 is the same way. You can make it a
lot more accurate and a lot more transparent but it's not intended to be
that way.

>sound is subjective, but i'm wondering if analog electronics have hit
>a specification limit for microphones. maybe new computerized
>manufacturing are allowing for thinner diaphragms, mabye new military
>spec capacitors will come out with tighter tolerances...just curious!

The electronics are no longer the limiting factor in high-end mike
performance. The physics of the capsules are severa limitations, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

tim perry > wrote:
>
>maybe one day we will just point a laser at someones throat or chest and
>sample the vibrations (hey no feedback)

We can do that today, though it's not very useful.

For an interesting exercise, tape a piezo pickup to your throat and talk.
Vowels all sound the same but consonants are well-distinguished. Very
weird vocal sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[normanstrong]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
> computers are always getting better, so...
>
> i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
> or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
> impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
> frequency response, etc.
>
> for example, the $5000 manleys and $12000 vintage elam 251's, etc...
> have they reached an unimprovable spec?

The last time I looked, Manley mikes didn't have a spec. If you've
read a spec for Manley mikes I'd be interested in it myself.

Norm Strong

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>computers are always getting better, so...
>
>i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
>or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
>impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
>frequency response, etc.
>
>for example, the $5000 manleys and $12000 vintage elam 251's, etc...
>have they reached an unimprovable spec?
>
>sound is subjective, but i'm wondering if analog electronics have hit
>a specification limit for microphones. maybe new computerized
>manufacturing are allowing for thinner diaphragms, mabye new military
>spec capacitors will come out with tighter tolerances...just curious!
>
>
Thes specifications on the 251's and Manley's have aren't all that great.

What people buy, use, covet thes microphones is for the sound that they
produce.

You want specs, there are lots out there with very low self noise and
diatortion.

I don't listen to specs anymore, it is the sound that matters.

A 251 might be the right microphone for some applications, but in others, not
so great.

Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Josh Snider]

in article , Garthrr at
wrote on 9/17/03 03.27:

> In article >, "tim perry"
> > writes:
>
>> maybe one day we will just point a laser at someones throat or chest and
>> sample the vibrations (hey no feedback)
>
>
> If I'm not mistaken, this has already been done in the form of a drum mic. I
> recall Scott Dorsey or someone saying that the sound of the mic was very
> uninteresting but very accurate and of course there is no leakage or feedback.
> I think its an interesting concept to study. Maybe it can be made to sound
> "good".
>
> Garth~
>
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney

Actually I think it was done first for theatre for wireless lavs. A laser
was bounced of the diaphragm and that modulation was converted to audio. It
made the capsule impossible to sweat out, which is of course, a big problem
for theatre actors, and soundmen.

J

--
josh.snider
cave.productions
416.524.6927

[xy]

i've been curious about that neumann digital mic too. i love neumann.

but the whole idea of a digital mic seems problematical because:
1)you can't gain stage to maximize bit saturation
2)you can't place a limiter in path to maximize bit saturation
3)you could clip the a-d
4) you're at the mercy of the a-d quality level...proably not as good
as weiss.
5) latency...how do you mult the signal to monitor without a wait
state?

but the idea of bypassing a preamp is fascinating, seems like a whole
new world of possibility.


>
> Being mechanical devices at heart, there are certain physical limits,
> but people still seem to be making better and better microphones. My
> dealer is raving about how genuinely good Neumann's new digital
> microphone sounds. It's a condenser diaphragm, but made to be really
> flat and smooth (rather than "tailored" as other condenser mics are)
> since you have so much control over its tonal characteristics in the
> digital domain. In addition, they've worked some magic with a
> two-stage A/D converter so that the full dynamic range the capsule can
> produce can be handled digitally.
>
> So, yeah, I'd say that there's some progress being made in
> microphones.

[Mike Rivers]

(xy) wrote in message >...

> i've been curious about that neumann digital mic too. i love neumann.
> but the whole idea of a digital mic seems problematical because:
> 1)you can't gain stage to maximize bit saturation
> 2)you can't place a limiter in path to maximize bit saturation
> 3)you could clip the a-d

First off, you aren't supposed to saturate at the microphone. If you
like the saturated sound, go analog.

The A/D converter that's used in the Neumann Solution D is a unique
design and it can handle all of the dynamic range that the capsule can
put out. You can adjust the gain right at the mic through the computer
connection. The downside is that it's quite dumb (essentially useless)
until you connect a computer to its interface box to set it up. But
rest assured, you can set the gain for optimum output for your source.
Neumann didn't want this to be a deterrment.

> 4) you're at the mercy of the a-d quality level...proably not as good
> as weiss.

You might be surprised. But then if you're working with Weiss
equipment already, then you surely have a dealer who can get you a
demo and you can prove it out yourself. And if you're just blowing
smoke, then you can't afford one anyway so don't worry about it.

> 5) latency...how do you mult the signal to monitor without a wait
> state?

Hey, it's digital. You have to deal with this at some point, might as
well be at the mic. See your friendly local system engineer who will
help you look over all the specs and come up with something that has a
tolerable delay.

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, (Andy
Eng) wrote:
>On 16 Sep 2003 21:20:41 -0700, (xy)
>wrote:
>
>>computers are always getting better, so...
>>
>>i'm wondering if analog condenser microphone specs can be improved.
>>or did we already hit the electronics limit in terms of self noise,
>>impedance, sensitivity, diaphragm construction, gold connectivity,
>>frequency response, etc.
>>
>>for example, the $5000 manleys and $12000 vintage elam 251's, etc...
>>have they reached an unimprovable spec?
>>
>>sound is subjective, but i'm wondering if analog electronics have hit
>>a specification limit for microphones. maybe new computerized
>>manufacturing are allowing for thinner diaphragms, mabye new military
>>spec capacitors will come out with tighter tolerances...just curious!
>
>I've been following what's been going on over in the Nanotechnology
>shop and seeing really nice stuff happening...

The entire electronics inductry got a boost a few years back when they found
out how to run circuits on lower voltages and current. That's why you can
run a Sound Devices 442 mixer for four houurs on four AA batteries, for example.

>I suppose an array of active condenser mic elements that would be
>smart enough and fast enough to block out coughs, bumping into mic
>stands, ringing cell phones, and the like would be nice... :-)

Zaxcom has a two lav mic system that switches so fast it doesn't hear a
touch of one mic. Opposing daiphragms in the same mic to lower cable and
bump noise have been in exixtence for a while. The Sony ECM 88B is the most
recent interation of that tehcnology; damn helpful at times.

>Maybe too replace phantom power needs with something like a watch
>battery?

Hmm well diaphragm charge does relate to output so that'd be a tough one.

I do think Gefell's use of opto isolators to decouple the power for phantom
power within each mic is very novel. There's a light source and an
opto-receptor so no phantom power gets to the mics's audio electronics.

I think surface mount technology (SMT) can be seen as an improovement, even
though it ****es off some crusty bench guys. SMT results in shorter leads on
components. Them little pieces of wire can act as transmitting or receiving
antennae. The shorter the better.


>Just pondering...
>
>Andy

Ponder on..

Regards,

Ty Ford


For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Scott Dorsey]

xy > wrote:
>i've been curious about that neumann digital mic too. i love neumann.
>
>but the whole idea of a digital mic seems problematical because:
>1)you can't gain stage to maximize bit saturation
>2)you can't place a limiter in path to maximize bit saturation

Nobody cares about "bit saturation" any more. The whole key to having
a digital mike is that the resolution of the converters is so high and
the converter so monotonic that you don't need to worry about gain up
front.

>3)you could clip the a-d

Again, not an issue because the A-D is designed to clip at about the same
point the mike electronics do.

>4) you're at the mercy of the a-d quality level...proably not as good
>as weiss.

Now, that's an issue. And what is more important is the fact that the
converter technology is still changing. You can't upgrade just the
converter; you have to replace the whole mike when the converter technology
moves ahead.

>5) latency...how do you mult the signal to monitor without a wait
>state?

Is this that serious an issue? What is the actual latency of the mike
converters anyway?

>but the idea of bypassing a preamp is fascinating, seems like a whole
>new world of possibility.

There's still analogue gain inside there! It's not completely bypassed!
But all the differential stuff is, it's true.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gidney and Cloyd]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ... the industry started obsessing over the low power stuff.
> Fine for cellphones, but I am not sure it's a great idea for audio.
> ... I keep telling them I want stuff running on 48 or 96 volt
> rails. ... Nobody listens to me.
> They want to sell parts for cellphones.

'Afore yee know it you'll be running CEP or PT on yer cellphone!
The "cellphone" part is just the cellular packet switched interface
that'll let your portable appliance make calls and download the
virus of the day over the air. A cellphone is anything that
gets you a monthly bill from a cellular service provider.
ARPU, indeed.

[Josh Snider]

in article , Ty Ford at
wrote on 9/18/03 07.48:

> The entire electronics inductry got a boost a few years back when they found
> out how to run circuits on lower voltages and current. That's why you can
> run a Sound Devices 442 mixer for four houurs on four AA batteries, for
> example.

Really? I've run them for MUCH longer then that driving a couple of phantom
powered sources. Even in the cold. I've gotten at least 6 to 8 hours.

J

--
josh.snider
cave.productions
416.524.6927