Recording with Measurement Mics

[James Price[_5_]]

If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?

For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price > wrote:
>If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?

1. Usually that isn't the goal at all.

2. When that IS the goal often a measurement mike is a good choice.

3. Because measurement mikes are flat in all directions and perfectly
omnidirectional, spotmiking anything becomes problematic and the
possible stereo miking configurations are limited.

>For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?

Try it, you may find that you likely don't actually like it, and that some
of the sound you are familiar with on recordings is actually a consequence
of breakup problems with the SM-57.

A measurement mike will record the sound an inch away from the cabinet as
accurately as possible, but you don't normally listen to guitar amps an inch
away from the cabinet. When you pull back, because of the wide pattern, you
get a lot more room effects than you would if you'd pulled back with a
cardioid mike.

Still, try it, you might like it.

In general, though, the effect of moving a microphone half an inch across
the cone of a guitar amp is more dramatic than the effect of different
microphones.

However, measurement microphones and microphones derived from measurement
designs like the Josephson 617 can be very good choices for area miking in
good rooms. A lot of classical folks swear by them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Price[_5_]]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:51:33 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> James Price wrote:
> >If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?
>
> 1. Usually that isn't the goal at all.
>
> 2. When that IS the goal often a measurement mike is a good choice.
>
> 3. Because measurement mikes are flat in all directions and perfectly
> omnidirectional, spotmiking anything becomes problematic and the
> possible stereo miking configurations are limited.
>
> >For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?
>
> Try it, you may find that you likely don't actually like it, and that some
> of the sound you are familiar with on recordings is actually a consequence
> of breakup problems with the SM-57.
>
> A measurement mike will record the sound an inch away from the cabinet as
> accurately as possible, but you don't normally listen to guitar amps an inch
> away from the cabinet. When you pull back, because of the wide pattern, you
> get a lot more room effects than you would if you'd pulled back with a
> cardioid mike.
>
> Still, try it, you might like it.
>
> In general, though, the effect of moving a microphone half an inch across
> the cone of a guitar amp is more dramatic than the effect of different
> microphones.

When recording a cab with a measurement mic, how much difference does the
position (rather than distance) across the cone make, or does it
really matter since it's omnidirectional?

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price > wrote:
>When recording a cab with a measurement mic, how much difference does the
>position (rather than distance) across the cone make, or does it
>really matter since it's omnidirectional?

A tremendous, tremendous amount. The microphone is omnidirectional, but the
speaker isn't.

Even more interesting than the guitar amp is the violin. Get in one direction
and it's all string noise, move a few inches away and it's all from the body.
And that doesn't just go for close miking.... even many feet away the sound
coming out is very different in different directions.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/26/2018 12:11 PM, James Price wrote:
> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?

It depends on the instrument, but mostly it depends on the room you're
recording in. Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.
The principle, regardless of what mic you're using, is to listen as you
move it around, and put it where it sounds best to you.

> For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately as possible?

If you were recording it in an anechoic chamber, or, as a reasonable
substitute, outdoors. But then you probably wouldn't care much for that
sound, though you could manipulate it with reverbs, delays, and
equalization to get the sound you want


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/26/2018 12:11 PM, James Price wrote:
> > If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's not flat?
>
> It depends on the instrument, but mostly it depends on the room you're
> recording in. Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
> you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.

Is that a result of room reflections and resonances?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/26/2018 5:39 PM, James Price wrote:
> Is that a result of room reflections and resonances?

Yes. That's what rooms do.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

"James Price" wrote in message
...
>> Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
>> you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.
> Is that a result of room reflections and resonances?

That's one reason. Another major reason is that sound sources (instrument,
speakers, singers, etc.) do not radiate sound uniformly in all directions.
To observe this effect, listen in front of the trumpet section, and then
listen behind them.

[geoff]

On 27/07/2018 7:57 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/26/2018 12:11 PM, James Price wrote:
>> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
>> faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement mic
>> with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response that's
>> not flat?
>
> It depends on the instrument, but mostly it depends on the room you're
> recording in. Even though the microphone records sound pressure flat,
> you'll find that the sound changes as you move the mic around the room.
> The principle, regardless of what mic you're using, is to listen as you
> move it around, and put it where it sounds best to you.

And hold well clear of your body, or mount and move away to test.
Because your body proximity will also affect the sound from the
room/environment.

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

James Price wrote:
>
>
> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
> faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
> mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
> that's not flat?
>

** The main thing about a " measurement mic " is, as with rulers and scales, that they all give essentially the same results with the same objects.

Each mic has been calibrated to a standard SPL and the design is one known to eliminate anomalies in response and omni directionality. For the purposes usually intended (like pink noise testing), this is enough to make the results the same.

Sure, response is flat but this don't make them perfect.


> For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12 cab
> at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred if
> the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as accurately
> as possible?
>

** For "accurately as possible" the result needs to sound like people in the room hear it. Human ears are not "flat" and omnidirectional only at low frequencies.

Recording mics need to be placed at the correct distance to blend direct and reflected sounds in the right ratio for playback in another room which also has reflected sound. Solving this problem is generally done with a cardioid mic or mics, despite the fact they are neither flat nor omnidirectional..

OTOH, if you want to record a voice faithfully & separate from its environment - a small diaphragm condenser held at a few inches away is somewhere to start.


..... Phil

[James Price[_5_]]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> ** For "accurately as possible" the result needs to sound like people in the room hear it. Human ears are not "flat" and omnidirectional only at low frequencies.
>
> Recording mics need to be placed at the correct distance to blend direct and reflected sounds in the right ratio for playback in another room which also has reflected sound. Solving this problem is generally done with a cardioid mic or mics, despite the fact they are neither flat nor omnidirectional.

Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of a
cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic,
would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce the
appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
the need to bake said distance into the recording?

[geoff]

On 27/07/2018 4:13 PM, James Price wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
>> ** For "accurately as possible" the result needs to sound like people in the room hear it. Human ears are not "flat" and omnidirectional only at low frequencies.
>>
>> Recording mics need to be placed at the correct distance to blend direct and reflected sounds in the right ratio for playback in another room which also has reflected sound. Solving this problem is generally done with a cardioid mic or mics, despite the fact they are neither flat nor omnidirectional.
>
> Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of a
> cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic,
> would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce the
> appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
> sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
> the need to bake said distance into the recording?
>


To a degree yes. But everyone in the audience will hear something
slightly different in some rooms, and very different in other rooms
rooms. Especially it there are strongly reflective surfaces.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 27/07/2018 3:13 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 27/07/2018 4:13 PM, James Price wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd
>> recording of a
>> cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said
>> measurement mic,
>> would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally
>> reproduce the
>> appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
>> sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus
>> eliminating
>> the need to bake said distance into the recording?
>
> To a degree yes.

And to as much or more of a degree, no.


> But everyone in the audience will hear something
> slightly different in some rooms, and very different in other rooms
> rooms. Especially it there are strongly reflective surfaces.

Right. A listener will hear a lot more directional sound with less
reflection than the measurement mic will. IME even a directional mic
located at the same position as a listener will have far more room sound
when played back, than what the listener hears live. Your hearing
perception *IS* directional after all, and the brains ability to
discriminate better than most microphones.

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price > wrote:
>
>Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of =
>a
>cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic=
>,
>would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce th=
>e
>appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
>sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
>the need to bake said distance into the recording?

No, because the ear hears very differently than the microphone, and when you
play back you're hearing both the playback room sound combined with the
room sound on the recording. So most of the time the microphone needs to
be closer than where a listener would be for the same sound.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> James Price wrote:
> >
> >Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of =
> >a
> >cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic=
> >,
> >would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce th=
> >e
> >appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
> >sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
> >the need to bake said distance into the recording?
>
> No, because the ear hears very differently than the microphone, and when you
> play back you're hearing both the playback room sound combined with the
> room sound on the recording. So most of the time the microphone needs to
> be closer than where a listener would be for the same sound.

Right, and that's basically what I was asking. The idea was to eliminate the
room sound in the recording via close mic'ing so that it doesn't mingle with
the sound of the listener's room.

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price > wrote:
>On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> James Price wrote:
>> >
>> >Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of =
>> >a
>> >cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic=
>> >,
>> >would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce th=
>> >e
>> >appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
>> >sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
>> >the need to bake said distance into the recording?
>>
>> No, because the ear hears very differently than the microphone, and when you
>> play back you're hearing both the playback room sound combined with the
>> room sound on the recording. So most of the time the microphone needs to
>> be closer than where a listener would be for the same sound.
>
>Right, and that's basically what I was asking. The idea was to eliminate the
>room sound in the recording via close mic'ing so that it doesn't mingle with
>the sound of the listener's room.

If you do that, then you have ONLY the sound of the listener's room, which
means you're hearing the sound of a small living room. You likely want
a more distant sound than that, which you can achieve with more distant
mikes, with leakage between different mikes used at the same time, or
with artificial reverb.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:36:37 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> James Price wrote:
> >On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> James Price wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Just out of curiosity, if you were listening to a close mic'd recording of =
> >> >a
> >> >cab in the same room that the cab was recorded in with said measurement mic=
> >> >,
> >> >would the distance from the listener to the monitors naturally reproduce th=
> >> >e
> >> >appropriate room reflections / resonances necessary for the recording to
> >> >sound like the source to people in the room who heard it, thus eliminating
> >> >the need to bake said distance into the recording?
> >>
> >> No, because the ear hears very differently than the microphone, and when you
> >> play back you're hearing both the playback room sound combined with the
> >> room sound on the recording. So most of the time the microphone needs to
> >> be closer than where a listener would be for the same sound.
> >
> >Right, and that's basically what I was asking. The idea was to eliminate the
> >room sound in the recording via close mic'ing so that it doesn't mingle with
> >the sound of the listener's room.
>
> If you do that, then you have ONLY the sound of the listener's room, which
> means you're hearing the sound of a small living room. You likely want
> a more distant sound than that, which you can achieve with more distant
> mikes, with leakage between different mikes used at the same time, or
> with artificial reverb.

You're right, of course. My original question pertained to listening to the
recording in the same room that it was recorded in, though.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/27/2018 9:43 AM, James Price wrote:
> You're right, of course. My original question pertained to listening to the
> recording in the same room that it was recorded in, though.

Then why listen to the recording? Why not just listen to the guitar
player? ;)

One of the things that recording engineers do when recording electric
guitars is to record a split of the signal direct from the pickup on its
own track. That track can then be used as is for one kind of sound,
processed by an "amplifier simulator" for another kind of sound, or fed
to a real amplifier in a room - the same one where the original
recording was made or a bathroom or a stairwell or the Taj Mahal - with
mics placed to get the sound the engineer wants to hear.

I don't know if you were asking a practical question (if so, what were
you really hoping to accomplish?) or if this was a hypothetical question.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:19:19 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/27/2018 9:43 AM, James Price wrote:
> > You're right, of course. My original question pertained to listening to the
> > recording in the same room that it was recorded in, though.
>
> Then why listen to the recording? Why not just listen to the guitar
> player? ;)
>
> One of the things that recording engineers do when recording electric
> guitars is to record a split of the signal direct from the pickup on its
> own track. That track can then be used as is for one kind of sound,
> processed by an "amplifier simulator" for another kind of sound, or fed
> to a real amplifier in a room - the same one where the original
> recording was made or a bathroom or a stairwell or the Taj Mahal - with
> mics placed to get the sound the engineer wants to hear.
>
> I don't know if you were asking a practical question (if so, what were
> you really hoping to accomplish?) or if this was a hypothetical question.

It was completely hypothetical and solely out of curiosity.

[Matt Faunce]

James Price > wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:19:19 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 7/27/2018 9:43 AM, James Price wrote:
>>> You're right, of course. My original question pertained to listening to the
>>> recording in the same room that it was recorded in, though.
>>
>> Then why listen to the recording? Why not just listen to the guitar
>> player? ;)
>>
>> One of the things that recording engineers do when recording electric
>> guitars is to record a split of the signal direct from the pickup on its
>> own track. That track can then be used as is for one kind of sound,
>> processed by an "amplifier simulator" for another kind of sound, or fed
>> to a real amplifier in a room - the same one where the original
>> recording was made or a bathroom or a stairwell or the Taj Mahal - with
>> mics placed to get the sound the engineer wants to hear.
>>
>> I don't know if you were asking a practical question (if so, what were
>> you really hoping to accomplish?) or if this was a hypothetical question.
>
> It was completely hypothetical and solely out of curiosity.
>

Check out this video of an experiment by Ethan Winer:
https://youtu.be/lpTTDe0Aho0

--
Matt

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 4:30:22 PM UTC-5, Matt Faunce wrote:
> James Price wrote:
> > It was completely hypothetical and solely out of curiosity.
> >
>
> Check out this video of an experiment by Ethan Winer:
> https://youtu.be/lpTTDe0Aho0

I originally watched this many months ago and had forgotten about it. It's nice to view it again within the context of this thread.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/27/2018 5:46 PM, James Price wrote:
>> Check out this video of an experiment by Ethan Winer:
>> https://youtu.be/lpTTDe0Aho0

> I originally watched this many months ago and had forgotten about it. It's nice to view it again within the context of this thread.

I listened to the video and even with my computer speakers (Radio Shack
Minimus 7s) I heard significant differences between the mic and speaker
playback on every source except maybe for a shaker. I think that nearly
all of the measurement mic recordings could be acceptable, but that
wasn't really the point of the video - at least I didn't think so.




--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Matt Faunce]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 7/27/2018 5:46 PM, James Price wrote:
>>> Check out this video of an experiment by Ethan Winer:
>>> https://youtu.be/lpTTDe0Aho0
>
>> I originally watched this many months ago and had forgotten about it.
>> It's nice to view it again within the context of this thread.
>
> I listened to the video and even with my computer speakers (Radio Shack
> Minimus 7s) I heard significant differences between the mic and speaker
> playback on every source except maybe for a shaker. I think that nearly
> all of the measurement mic recordings could be acceptable, but that
> wasn't really the point of the video - at least I didn't think so.
>

The point was to show how close the playback of close-miked recording comes
to a live performance. Based on what you guys said earlier in this thread,
I think Ethan's experiment would have to be done a large number of times,
say 100 times, each time with a slightly different close-mic-placement.
Then an informed assessment would be the one that takes into consideration
(1) the average difference (of live vs. memorex) of those hundred
experiments and (2) the distribution of the differences.

I have no doubt that you experienced recording engineers have a pretty good
idea of where that average would be and what the distribution would look
like, but we lay folks are in the dark. But hey, Ethan's one-off experiment
gets us lay folks in the park; the problem is we still have no idea how big
the park is or how close to the center we are.

--
Matt

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:15:38 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/27/2018 5:46 PM, James Price wrote:
> >> Check out this video of an experiment by Ethan Winer:
> >> https://youtu.be/lpTTDe0Aho0
>
> > I originally watched this many months ago and had forgotten about it. It's nice to view it again within the context of this thread.
>
> I listened to the video and even with my computer speakers (Radio Shack
> Minimus 7s) I heard significant differences between the mic and speaker
> playback on every source except maybe for a shaker. I think that nearly
> all of the measurement mic recordings could be acceptable, but that
> wasn't really the point of the video - at least I didn't think so.

To my ears, there were fairly obvious differences on all but the wood blocks and shaker.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

James Price wrote:
> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
> faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
> mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
> that's not flat?
>
> For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
> cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
> if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
> accurately as possible?
>

What people want is what's on records they have heard. So that's
something like an SM57, a Senn e609 ( or e906 ) or Audix i5.

I've done what you say. For distorted amps, people don't want
that. It's too crunchy and if it gets loud, it can overload the
FET in the condenser element.

For nice clean amps at reasonable volume it's great.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 28/07/2018 3:17 PM, James Price wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 5:15:38 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 7/27/2018 5:46 PM, James Price wrote:
>>>> Check out this video of an experiment by Ethan Winer:
>>>> https://youtu.be/lpTTDe0Aho0
>>
>>> I originally watched this many months ago and had forgotten about it. It's nice to view it again within the context of this thread.
>>
>> I listened to the video and even with my computer speakers (Radio Shack
>> Minimus 7s) I heard significant differences between the mic and speaker
>> playback on every source except maybe for a shaker. I think that nearly
>> all of the measurement mic recordings could be acceptable, but that
>> wasn't really the point of the video - at least I didn't think so.
>
> To my ears, there were fairly obvious differences on all but the wood blocks and shaker.
>


On my semi-cruddy computer speakers only the cello sounded close.


geoff

[Tobiah]

On 07/26/2018 09:11 AM, James Price wrote:
> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
> faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
> mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
> that's not flat?
>
> For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
> cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
> if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
> accurately as possible?
>

I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
often record quieter sounds.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Tobiah > wrote:
>I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
>up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
>designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
>often record quieter sounds.

Low self noise and sometimes low distortion are often overlooked with
measurement microphone design.

There is an article in the July 2016 issue of AudioXPress about modifying
B&K lab mikes for recording applications, which changes some of those
compromises.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:53:28 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:

>On 07/26/2018 09:11 AM, James Price wrote:
>> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
>> faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
>> mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
>> that's not flat?
>>
>> For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
>> cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
>> if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
>> accurately as possible?
>>
>
>I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
>up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
>designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
>often record quieter sounds.
>

There is a conflict which needs a compromise. The ideal measurement
mic has zero size, but that means infinite noise. So you need to make
a decision where to reach a desirable compromise between accuracy and
noise. B&K have their decision, Behringer have another. Depending on
what you want to measure, there will be an optimum mic.

d

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:11:01 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:53:28 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>>On 07/26/2018 09:11 AM, James Price wrote:
>>> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
>>> faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
>>> mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
>>> that's not flat?
>>>
>>> For example, if I wanted to record a guitar playing through a 1x12
>>> cab at a reasonable volume, wouldn't a flat response mic be preferred
>>> if the goal were to record the sound coming out of the cab as
>>> accurately as possible?
>>>
>>
>>I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
>>up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
>>designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
>>often record quieter sounds.
>>
>
>There is a conflict which needs a compromise. The ideal measurement
>mic has zero size, but that means infinite noise. So you need to make
>a decision where to reach a desirable compromise between accuracy and
>noise. B&K have their decision, Behringer have another. Depending on
>what you want to measure, there will be an optimum mic.
>
>d


FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
worthless for audio recording.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

"FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
worthless for audio recording. "

So this begs the question: When and where(within the recording
and playback of music) is 'flat' important??

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/1/2018 4:25 PM, wrote:
> "FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
> Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
> was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
> cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
> worthless for audio recording. "

He could have been using one of these, or something similar from another
manufacturer:

http://www.mic-w.com/products.php?cid=46

As it's been pointed out here, small measurement mics typically have low
sensitivity, that is, significantly less output than a typical recording
mic for a given SPL. Recording mics need to work satisfactorily over a
very wide dynamic range (you want to capture the stick hitting the snare
drum and the tail end of the reverberation decay, a range of 80 to 90
dB), while a measurement mic is usually used over a much smaller dynamic
range, or at a single level for a single measurement. You wouldn't use
the same measurement mic to measure noise on an airport runway as you
would in a field on a quiet night.

> So this begs the question: When and where(within the recording
> and playback of music) is 'flat' important??

It's important in the signal chain, so that you can modify it
predictably if you choose to do so. Recording microphones are usually
designed with known frequency response peaks and dips that have proven
to be flattering or useful for particular sound sources. This is why a
mic that sounds good on a snare drum has a different frequency response
curve than a mic that sounds good on a male vocal. There's no reason why
you couldn't use a dead flat mic on either of those sources but it
wouldn't sound like you're accustomed to hearing those sources miked
with the usual mics.

You could make it sound more or less like a "sounds good on...." mic by
applying EQ, but since most of the "sounds good on..." mics are
directional, they have their unique off-axis frequency response curves,
and a measurement mic, which is typically omni, wouldn't be able to
accurately reproduce the off-axis response with simple EQ.

There's been a fair amount of work in microphone modeling in the past
few years, so now we have mics from, for example, Antelope Audio and
Steven Slate, that start out with a pretty flat, pretty omni mic and DSP
is used to create the phase shifts and resonances within a particular
"sounds good on..." mic to provide a reasonably good faith model.

But that's more than you want to know.
--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 2/08/2018 8:25 AM, wrote:
> "FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
> Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
> was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
> cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
> worthless for audio recording. "
>
> So this begs the question: When and where(within the recording
> and playback of music) is 'flat' important??
>

Depends on what the producer or engineer is trying to achieve.

If desired response is a perfect capture of the real performance sound,
then a flat frequency response over the required range (and some other
attributes such as self-noise, directivity, off-axis response, etc) are
desirable.

If recording for a 'produced' result, then a non-flat mic may be chosen
for a particular desired effect, or that effect may be able to be added
later in mixing, or not. Or both.

geoff

[geoff]

On 2/08/2018 9:39 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> There's been a fair amount of work in microphone modeling in the past
> few years, so now we have mics from, for example, Antelope Audio and
> Steven Slate, that start out with a pretty flat, pretty omni mic and DSP
> is used to create the phase shifts and resonances within a particular
> "sounds good on..." mic to provide a reasonably good faith model.
>
> But that's more than you want to know.

Remember Antares Mic Modeller ? Those are my Tannoy ribbon mics as one
of their presets on there. In recompense got a copy of the plug-in. Have
never used it ....

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

wrote:
>
>
> "FWIW, In the early '70s I was visiting a top level R&D lab in
> Nashville. A tech was showing me some of their projects. One
> was using a measurement mic. I was very small, about the size of a
> cigarette filter. He said the freq response was very good but it was
> worthless for audio recording. "
>
>
> So this begs the question: When and where(within the recording
> and playback of music) is 'flat' important??
>

** The tech's comment implies wide, flat response is important to music recording, the tiny mic has that but is compromised in other ways - like having limited dynamic range. IOW it's too noisy for low level audio.

Classical and Jazz musicians care a lot about the tonal qualities of their instruments, often paying big money to get desired qualities. The mistake is in thinking it takes a "measurement mic" to capture sound quality accurately when judged by human ears or that using one would do a better job.




..... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

Just for a quick example I put this up:
http://www.panix.com/~kludge/bk_examp.wav

This is recorded with a pair of B&K 4155 microphones with homebrew electronics
behind them, into a Tascam HS-P82. Microphones are on a Jecklin baffle about
thirty feet forward of the brass, ten feet forward of the soloist. The choir
is way in the back and there's a minor flutter echo above them that you might
hear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dieter Michel]

Hi Tobiah,

>> If the goal of a live recording is to record the instruments as
>> faithfully as possible to the source audio, wouldn't a measurement
>> mic with a flat response be preferred over a mic with a response
>> that's not flat?

> I posted a similar question some time ago, and one person brought
> up the idea that low self noise may not be a primary objective when
> designing a measurement mic. That's important to me because I
> often record quieter sounds.

I actually made that very experience like 30 years ago
when I attempted to make speech recordings in a very
quiet and acoustically dry environment.

The first trial using B&K measurement mics and
corresponding (pre)amplifiers resulted in too noisy
recordings.

After I bought a John Hardy M1 mic preamp and used
a Neumann U87 or AKG C414 mic, everything was fine.

Best regards

Dieter Michel