Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:
A)faithfully represent the source?
B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?
C)add/increase desirable frequencies to the source?
D)all of the above?
E)do 'B' and 'C'?
When you choose a mic what are you considering? I've been under the
assumption that you want a mic that colors the sound of the source('E'
above)in a way that's right for a particular application, so you don't
need to EQ it much. This is why I talked about brightening my muddy
voice when auditioning mics in my other post. But is it better to just
get a hot mic that faithfully represents the source and tweak it later?
Thanks,
Jeff

straightnut wrote:
Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:
A)faithfully represent the source?
B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?
C)add/increase desirable frequencies to the source?
D)all of the above?
E)do 'B' and 'C'?
When you choose a mic what are you considering? I've been under
the assumption that you want a mic that colors the sound of the
source ('E' above)in a way that's right for a particular application,
so you don't need to EQ it much. This is why I talked about
brightening my muddy voice when auditioning mics in my other
post. But is it better to just get a hot mic that faithfully
represents
the source and tweak it later?


If I build a cheap microfone which has problems with
high levels (distortion), self noise and no flat frequency
response. I would try to sell it as a especial microfone
only for bass drum, or for very close rap singing with the
extra phone sound, everyone needs to have.
For my recordings I would choose only neural sounding
small diaphragm microfones. If there is a need for EQing
I would do it after having tried to find the right position
for the microphone.

Cheers Jens

"straightnut" wrote in message
ups.com

Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:

A)faithfully represent the source?

No, it represents the source as you'd like it to be
represented, with accuracy being an option.

B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?

Could be, but you forgot a major point - supressing
undesirable sounds coming from someplace else but the
source.

And then there's the artistic negation of that - including
esirable sounds coming from someplace else but the source.

straightnut wrote:
Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:
A)faithfully represent the source?
B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?
C)add/increase desirable frequencies to the source?
D)all of the above?
E)do 'B' and 'C'?

That depends on the job.

When you choose a mic what are you considering? I've been under the
assumption that you want a mic that colors the sound of the source('E'
above)in a way that's right for a particular application, so you don't
need to EQ it much. This is why I talked about brightening my muddy
voice when auditioning mics in my other post. But is it better to just
get a hot mic that faithfully represents the source and tweak it later?

That depends on what you want to do. If you are doing reproductive work,
where you want to reconstruct an actual event, you want a microphone that
is as accurate as possible. If you are looking for a particular sound,
you want a microphone that will give you that sound, in that room, with
that performer. The room may have as much as anything to do with the
sound, especially in the case of muddiness, but sometimes you can play
with microphone patterns to get away with working in a bad room.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:33:06 -0400, straightnut wrote
(in article . com):

Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:
A)faithfully represent the source?

That's impossible. A mic can not replace the ear.

B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?

Assuming you are referring to subjective "negative" frequencies, no, a mic
can not distinguish between good and bad. You need to position it properly.

C)add/increase desirable frequencies to the source?

See answer B.

D)all of the above?

See answer B.

E)do 'B' and 'C'?

See answer B.

When you choose a mic what are you considering? I've been under the
assumption that you want a mic that colors the sound of the source('E'
above)in a way that's right for a particular application, so you don't
need to EQ it much. This is why I talked about brightening my muddy
voice when auditioning mics in my other post. But is it better to just
get a hot mic that faithfully represents the source and tweak it later?
Thanks,
Jeff

No. Hot mics are OK, but it's more than about sensitivity. It's about polar
pattern, frequency response, selfnoise, transient response, harmonic
distortion, proximity effect and off-axis anomalies. What am I leaving out?
Oh, right, room acoustics.

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"straightnut" wrote in message
ups.com...
Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:
A)faithfully represent the source?
B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?
C)add/increase desirable frequencies to the source?
D)all of the above?
E)do 'B' and 'C'?

A) No
B) No ... whatever "negative frequencies" may be!
C) No ... you don't want the mike to add noise.
D) No
E) No

You use different mikes for different purposes. Usually, you don't want a
mike to respond to low frequencies ... hence "No" to A ... but sometimes you
do. And, with the frequency range you want to capture, you sometimes want
the mike to be more responsive to some frequencies than others. For
example, for capturing cymbals, you might prefer a mike that is less
responsive to frequencies below about 500Hz.

You also want the mike to have the desired directional characteristics, and
to handle the sound pressures it is likely to be used for. And for live
work, you want a mike that is less likely to induce feedback.

Tim

Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:
A)faithfully represent the source?

"Represent" is an ill-chosen word there. The totality of the sound
reproduction process represents the sound, the mic only plays a part in it.
A certain mic in conjunction with a certain compressor might suit your needs
better than another mic that is more 'faithful' on its own.

B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?
C)add/increase desirable frequencies to the source?

The frequency of sound is but one aspect, there are many more ways to
distinguish and filter sounds, and more sound sources than the object being
mic'ed, but your general premise is correct.


When you choose a mic what are you considering? I've been under the
assumption that you want a mic that colors the sound of the source('E'
above)in a way that's right for a particular application, so you don't
need to EQ it much. This is why I talked about brightening my muddy
voice when auditioning mics in my other post. But is it better to just
get a hot mic that faithfully represents the source and tweak it later?

The first thing I want to know about a mic is how versatile or specialized
it is. You should have versatile mics to cover as many needs as possible,
then consider specialized mics for jobs you tend to do often, and are often
"fixing in the mix".

"straightnut" wrote in message
ups.com...
Does the perfect mic for a particular situation:
A)faithfully represent the source?
B)suppress negative frequencies coming from the source?
C)add/increase desirable frequencies to the source?
D)all of the above?
E)do 'B' and 'C'?
When you choose a mic what are you considering? I've been under the
assumption that you want a mic that colors the sound of the source('E'
above)in a way that's right for a particular application, so you don't
need to EQ it much. This is why I talked about brightening my muddy
voice when auditioning mics in my other post. But is it better to just
get a hot mic that faithfully represents the source and tweak it later?


Depends on what the objective of the recording project is. To produce a
real document of an audio event, or to prodcue an outcome that sounds nice.


geoff

Thank you all. I think I've gotten the gist.
Jeff