I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high frequencies
becomes an issue. Examination of the Studio Concepts C4,
http://www.studioprojects.com/c4.html reveals some negative comments:
http://www.harmony-central.com/Recor...ects/C4-1.html
(defects, excessive noise floor, rolloff)
that suggest that the upper end may not be as flat as advertised:
http://www.studioprojectsusa.com/pdf/c4.pdf

It would seem (please hold the flames) that these issues are significant in
distant miking with the Jecklin, even if these mics will perform well for
overhead drum.

Another contender is the MXL 604,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which I would
guess may use the same capsule. The frequency response curve actually
resembles the reports of the C4 more than the curve advertised for the C4.

Or, I could stick with the MXL 603s,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which, while not
omnis, manage to carry out to 20 kHz, albeit with a significant bump in the
8 - 16 kHz region. Probably also the same capsule.

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret measurement mics,
http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which charmingly
resemble the physical appearance of the Earthworks at only 2% the price. By
far the most even frequency and polar response, but these are far too noisy,
right?

Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...
I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high
frequencies becomes an issue. Examination of the Studio Concepts C4,
http://www.studioprojects.com/c4.html reveals some negative comments:
http://www.harmony-central.com/Recor...ects/C4-1.html
(defects, excessive noise floor, rolloff)
that suggest that the upper end may not be as flat as advertised:
http://www.studioprojectsusa.com/pdf/c4.pdf

It would seem (please hold the flames) that these issues are significant
in distant miking with the Jecklin, even if these mics will perform well
for overhead drum.

Another contender is the MXL 604,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which I would
guess may use the same capsule. The frequency response curve actually
resembles the reports of the C4 more than the curve advertised for the C4.

Or, I could stick with the MXL 603s,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which, while
not omnis, manage to carry out to 20 kHz, albeit with a significant bump
in the 8 - 16 kHz region. Probably also the same capsule.

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret measurement mics,
http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which charmingly
resemble the physical appearance of the Earthworks at only 2% the price.
By far the most even frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob

No.

Steve King

Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but just wanted to
clear something up. For distant miking with omnis, air absorption
("adiabatic loss") really isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that
you're in a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times before it
reaches your microphones. The high frequency energy is absorbed to a
considerable extent by the materials that have reflected the sound
waves, more than it is by the air.

Especially with more distant recording, it's hard to get an optimal
signal-to-noise ratio from a very small (say, 1/4" diameter) pressure
transducer. But larger ones (1/2" and up) aren't omnidirectional for
short wavelengths--at high frequencies the response is always stronger
on-axis than off-axis. People still want the microphones to have
basically flat response overall, but when the main sound energy is
arriving from all angles at once, to get flat average (integrated)
response people generally choose omnis that are "diffuse-field
equalized", i.e. that have ~6 dB or so of on-axis lift at high
frequencies.

Their printed on-axis response curves may look as if they'd sound
harsh--and they can indeed sound harsh when used very close up and/or
in an overly "dry" acoustic. But when they're used at the distances
where they're designed to be used, they should sound natural despite
the way the on-axis curves look.

--best regards

"David Satz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but just wanted to
clear something up. For distant miking with omnis, air absorption
("adiabatic loss") really isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that
you're in a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times before it
reaches your microphones. The high frequency energy is absorbed to a
considerable extent by the materials that have reflected the sound
waves, more than it is by the air.

Thanks for that clarification. My concern is sparked by users' notes that
various mikes sounded "dark", or had an extreme droop at 20 kHz (Rode NT-5).
I figured that for distance miking, this would be undesirable.

Especially with more distant recording, it's hard to get an optimal
signal-to-noise ratio from a very small (say, 1/4" diameter) pressure
transducer. But larger ones (1/2" and up) aren't omnidirectional for
short wavelengths--at high frequencies the response is always stronger
on-axis than off-axis. People still want the microphones to have
basically flat response overall, but when the main sound energy is
arriving from all angles at once, to get flat average (integrated)
response people generally choose omnis that are "diffuse-field
equalized", i.e. that have ~6 dB or so of on-axis lift at high
frequencies.

Their printed on-axis response curves may look as if they'd sound
harsh--and they can indeed sound harsh when used very close up and/or
in an overly "dry" acoustic. But when they're used at the distances
where they're designed to be used, they should sound natural despite
the way the on-axis curves look.

--best regards

Dave,
First class post! This is a saver, thanks. I am aware of the issues from
the physics perspective, but it takes someone like you to make it practical.
It seems that all the Chinese mikes are copies of the Neumann 180 series,
which appears to have a 20mm diaphram. These mikes get out to 20 khz, but
the low end manufacturers, perhaps because of the lack of sophistication of
the market, don't label the curves as on-axis/diffuse, and they tend to
exaggerate the qualities in the curves (at least the inexpensive ones, not
Neumann et al), so it's very difficult to get a true picture. Ironically,
the Rode NT-5, which uses a somewhat smaller 1/2" diaphram, is reputed to be
darker than most of the 20mm mikes. Perhaps they had to roll it off to save
the s/n.

As the diaphram shrinks, s/n decreases, while physical perfection of the
response has at least the potential to increase. I am curious what
proportion of a mike's self-noise is due to Brownian motion of molecules
hitting the diaphram, as opposed to the 1st stage of the mike's electronics.

Do you have an opinion on whether the Jecklin disk can be used with 20mm
cardioids? The originator claimed a requirement of omnis.

Best regards,
Bob Morein

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"David Satz" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but
just wanted to clear something up. For distant miking
with omnis, air absorption ("adiabatic loss") really
isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that you're in
a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times
before it reaches your microphones.

The high frequency
energy is absorbed to a considerable extent by the
materials that have reflected the sound waves, more than
it is by the air.

This fact becomes very non-subtly apparent if you record the same source
with matched mics at different distances. Close up, things are hot and
crisp. From the back of the room things are dull and lifeless if not lost in
echoes. The right answer is someplace in-between. ;-)

The closest thing to an exception might be observed by the poor souls who do
SR, broadcast, and recording from Orange County's Crystal Cathedral. ;-)

Thanks for that clarification. My concern is sparked by
users' notes that various mikes sounded "dark", or had an
extreme droop at 20 kHz (Rode NT-5). I figured that for
distance miking, this would be undesirable.

The NT-4 and NT-5 are generally regarded as pretty good mics for minimal
miced recording, especially given the price. I've probably logged about 100
recordings with a NT-4, and there are never complaints about the sound
quality from the people who get these recordings, who are professional
musicians of the educator variety. They tell me they listen to them quite
critically and intently. What I know for sure is that the CDs are generally
scooped up within about 15 minutes of being finalized.

I think this is just another practical example of how response at 20 KHz
isn't just that important as a if you get things right up to 10 KHz and
don't screw up too badly above that.

snip sage comments about omnis

First class post! This is a saver, thanks. I am aware
of the issues from the physics perspective, but it takes
someone like you to make it practical. It seems that all
the Chinese mikes are copies of the Neumann 180 series,
which appears to have a 20mm diaphram. These mikes get
out to 20 khz, but the low end manufacturers, perhaps
because of the lack of sophistication of the market,
don't label the curves as on-axis/diffuse, and they tend
to exaggerate the qualities in the curves (at least the
inexpensive ones, not Neumann et al), so it's very
difficult to get a true picture.

The true picture is a moving target that moves every time you set up a mic.

Ironically, the Rode
NT-5, which uses a somewhat smaller 1/2" diaphram, is
reputed to be darker than most of the 20mm mikes. Perhaps
they had to roll it off to save the s/n.

The noise floor of a NT5 or a NT4 (which is just 2 NT5s fixed-mounted in a
very practical but ugly way) in use is IME *always* dominated by the room,
every time I look at it and really listen to it.

The noise floor in a room with 20 musicians and an audience is about 35 dB
SPL on a really good day, if you get *eveybody* to hold their breath at the
same time and capture that moment. There are very few quality mics that are
*that* bad. One hidden agenda in mic noise specs is the shape of the noise
floor. Obviously, you'd prefer a noise floor that looks something like a
room which is probably well-approximated by red or brown noise.

The only mics that I've used that actually had an audible noise floor of
their own in actual use were like SM57s in a vain attempt at distance micing
with a Mackie SR32 console, and Behringer ECM8000s positioned about 25-35
feet from the musicians.

At 5 or 10 feet, ECM8000s are usually pretty blameless from a noise
standpoint. However, I've found that ECM 8000s are prone to a failure where
their output drops by say 6 dB just while sitting around fixed in place.
I've thrown away 2 or 3 in the past 18 months. They are marginal enough that
if you get one of the bad ones, the most obvious fault will be that they
seem to be noisier, which is too much noise for many applications.

IME very small omnis get a bad rap for noise that is undeserved in some
cases because they might be picking up HVAC noise in an unexpected way
because they are just so omni at high frequencies compared to just about
everthing else. Remember that ECM 8000s are based on electret capsules that
are more like 1/4", and the approx 1/2" head is more like an adaptor for
1/2" mic calibrators than the functional size of the mic from a directivity
standpoint.

As the diaphram shrinks, s/n decreases, while physical
perfection of the response has at least the potential to
increase. I am curious what proportion of a mike's
self-noise is due to Brownian motion of molecules hitting
the diaphram, as opposed to the 1st stage of the mike's
electronics.

I'm informed by a source that was intimately involved with Knowles Research
for a number of years, that for small mics, Brownian noise is *the* major
issue.

For reference, the human ear's maximum sensitivity (arouind 4 KHz) is just
a skosh above Brownian noise. This is achieved by fairly agressive
filtering out of other noise sources in the human body, mostly by an
acoustic resonance in the ear.

Do you have an opinion on whether the Jecklin disk can
be used with 20mm cardioids? The originator claimed a
requirement of omnis.

The fact of the matter is that *all* micing is approximate. There are no
mics that are anywhere as ideal as electronics. What works is what works.
Every theory of micing has failed in practice at least once. There's no
substitute for strategic experimentation and the most unbiased evaluation of
results that you can obtain.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"David Satz" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but
just wanted to clear something up. For distant miking
with omnis, air absorption ("adiabatic loss") really
isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that you're in
a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times
before it reaches your microphones.

The high frequency
energy is absorbed to a considerable extent by the
materials that have reflected the sound waves, more than
it is by the air.

This fact becomes very non-subtly apparent if you record the same source
with matched mics at different distances. Close up, things are hot and
crisp. From the back of the room things are dull and lifeless if not lost
in echoes. The right answer is someplace in-between. ;-)

The closest thing to an exception might be observed by the poor souls who
do SR, broadcast, and recording from Orange County's Crystal Cathedral.
;-)

Thanks for that clarification. My concern is sparked by
users' notes that various mikes sounded "dark", or had an
extreme droop at 20 kHz (Rode NT-5). I figured that for
distance miking, this would be undesirable.

The NT-4 and NT-5 are generally regarded as pretty good mics for minimal
miced recording, especially given the price. I've probably logged about
100 recordings with a NT-4, and there are never complaints about the sound
quality from the people who get these recordings, who are professional
musicians of the educator variety. They tell me they listen to them quite
critically and intently. What I know for sure is that the CDs are
generally scooped up within about 15 minutes of being finalized.

I think this is just another practical example of how response at 20 KHz
isn't just that important as a if you get things right up to 10 KHz and
don't screw up too badly above that.

snip sage comments about omnis

First class post! This is a saver, thanks. I am aware
of the issues from the physics perspective, but it takes
someone like you to make it practical. It seems that all
the Chinese mikes are copies of the Neumann 180 series,
which appears to have a 20mm diaphram. These mikes get
out to 20 khz, but the low end manufacturers, perhaps
because of the lack of sophistication of the market,
don't label the curves as on-axis/diffuse, and they tend
to exaggerate the qualities in the curves (at least the
inexpensive ones, not Neumann et al), so it's very
difficult to get a true picture.

The true picture is a moving target that moves every time you set up a
mic.

Ironically, the Rode
NT-5, which uses a somewhat smaller 1/2" diaphram, is
reputed to be darker than most of the 20mm mikes. Perhaps
they had to roll it off to save the s/n.

The noise floor of a NT5 or a NT4 (which is just 2 NT5s fixed-mounted in a
very practical but ugly way) in use is IME *always* dominated by the room,
every time I look at it and really listen to it.

The noise floor in a room with 20 musicians and an audience is about 35 dB
SPL on a really good day, if you get *eveybody* to hold their breath at
the same time and capture that moment. There are very few quality mics
that are *that* bad. One hidden agenda in mic noise specs is the shape of
the noise floor. Obviously, you'd prefer a noise floor that looks
something like a room which is probably well-approximated by red or brown
noise.

The only mics that I've used that actually had an audible noise floor of
their own in actual use were like SM57s in a vain attempt at distance
micing with a Mackie SR32 console, and Behringer ECM8000s positioned about
25-35 feet from the musicians.

At 5 or 10 feet, ECM8000s are usually pretty blameless from a noise
standpoint. However, I've found that ECM 8000s are prone to a failure
where their output drops by say 6 dB just while sitting around fixed in
place. I've thrown away 2 or 3 in the past 18 months. They are marginal
enough that if you get one of the bad ones, the most obvious fault will
be that they seem to be noisier, which is too much noise for many
applications.

IME very small omnis get a bad rap for noise that is undeserved in some
cases because they might be picking up HVAC noise in an unexpected way
because they are just so omni at high frequencies compared to just about
everthing else. Remember that ECM 8000s are based on electret capsules
that are more like 1/4", and the approx 1/2" head is more like an adaptor
for 1/2" mic calibrators than the functional size of the mic from a
directivity standpoint.

As the diaphram shrinks, s/n decreases, while physical
perfection of the response has at least the potential to
increase. I am curious what proportion of a mike's
self-noise is due to Brownian motion of molecules hitting
the diaphram, as opposed to the 1st stage of the mike's
electronics.

I'm informed by a source that was intimately involved with Knowles
Research for a number of years, that for small mics, Brownian noise is
*the* major issue.

For reference, the human ear's maximum sensitivity (arouind 4 KHz) is
just a skosh above Brownian noise. This is achieved by fairly agressive
filtering out of other noise sources in the human body, mostly by an
acoustic resonance in the ear.

Do you have an opinion on whether the Jecklin disk can
be used with 20mm cardioids? The originator claimed a
requirement of omnis.

The fact of the matter is that *all* micing is approximate. There are no
mics that are anywhere as ideal as electronics. What works is what works.
Every theory of micing has failed in practice at least once. There's no
substitute for strategic experimentation and the most unbiased evaluation
of results that you can obtain.

Nice post, Arny. I'll file it.

Nice post, Arny. I'll file it.

Quoting 130 lines of Arny's posting just to add one single line does not
qualify as "filing" it. Please learn to quote economically in
newsgroups.

Daniel

Don't buy cheap microphones, half a year later you will throw them away
and buy better ones. So it's wise to plan your budget accordingly. And
if you do so, you can now buy someting better.
Why don't you try the MBHO 410CL ? List price is somewhere in the 300$
range but you will have excellent quality for your money.


soundhaspriority wrote:
I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high frequencies
becomes an issue.

It's not air absorbtion, you are moving into the diffuse field. You need
diffuse field equalized microphones (but you can do that also with an
equalizer)

br
RH

Reiner,
That is a very interesting subject for discussion. It appears that
Chinese microphones are upsetting the established order. Whatever they are,
they are not throwaways, except for the very cheapest. In comparisons
between Neumanns and MXL's, or Studio Projects, differences are noted, but
not necessarily killing differences. Nevertheless, I appreciate your
mention, because MBHO is not well distributed here, so I was completely
unaware of them. The MBNM-622 looks interesting. Do you have any experience
with it?


"Reiner" "Reiner wrote in message
...

Don't buy cheap microphones, half a year later you will throw them away
and buy better ones. So it's wise to plan your budget accordingly. And
if you do so, you can now buy someting better.
Why don't you try the MBHO 410CL ? List price is somewhere in the 300$
range but you will have excellent quality for your money.


soundhaspriority wrote:
I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As
usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high
frequencies
becomes an issue.

It's not air absorbtion, you are moving into the diffuse field. You need
diffuse field equalized microphones (but you can do that also with an
equalizer)

br
RH

soundhaspriority wrote:
Reiner,
That is a very interesting subject for discussion. It appears that
Chinese microphones are upsetting the established order. Whatever they are,
they are not throwaways, except for the very cheapest. In comparisons
between Neumanns and MXL's, or Studio Projects, differences are noted, but
not necessarily killing differences.

I don't want to start a discussion about chinese and not-chinese here. I
personally stay on my Schoeps, MBHO and Neumann... some of them are more
than 30 years old and still in permanent use. I recently bought a
Schoeps MK4 capsule and found a perfect match to an other 15 year old
MK4 - can you do that with a chinese microphone ? -

Nevertheless, I appreciate your
mention, because MBHO is not well distributed here,

This is true even in germany. But I think that microphones are only a
few % of Mr. Haun's business. But I know that MBHO is manufacturing
capsules for other well known manufacturers (Brauner, Audix...)


The MBNM-622 looks interesting. Do you have any experience
with it?

I would not go for the 622E-PZ, it's an electret PZM and designed to be
placed on the floor. I think, the usage is too limited. Go for the
410's. You can use them on a Jecklin disc, but you can use them as a
general purpose omni (with an excellent sound) Try 2 omnis's in a
distance of 40cm (which is exactly 15.748031 inch - we go metric, inch
by inch :-)).
This gives you a recording angle of 140 degrees and a wonderful sound.
(in my ears a much better sound than a jecklin setup)

br
RH

Reiner, I have a short question about the 410, could you mail me (don't
want to hijack the thread).

Daniel

"Daniel Fuchs" wrote in message
...

Reiner, I have a short question about the 410, could you mail me (don't
want to hijack the thread).

Daniel

Daniel,
Please do hijack! Every bit of info is precious. Or, if you could post
the response.

Thanks,
Bob

"Reiner" "Reiner wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
Reiner,
That is a very interesting subject for discussion. It appears that
Chinese microphones are upsetting the established order. Whatever they
are,
they are not throwaways, except for the very cheapest. In comparisons
between Neumanns and MXL's, or Studio Projects, differences are noted,
but
not necessarily killing differences.

I don't want to start a discussion about chinese and not-chinese here. I
personally stay on my Schoeps, MBHO and Neumann... some of them are more
than 30 years old and still in permanent use. I recently bought a
Schoeps MK4 capsule and found a perfect match to an other 15 year old
MK4 - can you do that with a chinese microphone ? -

No. I simply said they are not throways. If I was a professional, I would
buy the German stuff. In fact, I use Sennheiser shotguns because they have
no equal.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your
mention, because MBHO is not well distributed here,

This is true even in germany. But I think that microphones are only a
few % of Mr. Haun's business. But I know that MBHO is manufacturing
capsules for other well known manufacturers (Brauner, Audix...)


The MBNM-622 looks interesting. Do you have any experience
with it?

I would not go for the 622E-PZ, it's an electret PZM and designed to be
placed on the floor. I think, the usage is too limited. Go for the
410's. You can use them on a Jecklin disc, but you can use them as a
general purpose omni (with an excellent sound) Try 2 omnis's in a
distance of 40cm (which is exactly 15.748031 inch - we go metric, inch
by inch :-)).
This gives you a recording angle of 140 degrees and a wonderful sound.
(in my ears a much better sound than a jecklin setup)

br
RH

Perhaps if I become more professionally involved, I will buy them.

On Tue, 2 May 2006 11:20:14 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ) :

Reiner,
That is a very interesting subject for discussion. It appears that
Chinese microphones are upsetting the established order. Whatever they are,
they are not throwaways, except for the very cheapest. In comparisons
between Neumanns and MXL's, or Studio Projects, differences are noted, but
not necessarily killing differences. Nevertheless, I appreciate your
mention, because MBHO is not well distributed here, so I was completely
unaware of them. The MBNM-622 looks interesting. Do you have any experience
with it?

You want a killer omni?
Gefell m296
or the new 100 kHz Sanken I haven't quite heard enough of.

Ty Ford



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

Ty Ford wrote:

You want a killer omni?
Gefell m296

Yeah, rub it in, Ty... ;-)
I just decided not to buy a pair of these anytime soon, for money
reasons... Well, I have a pair of Neumann KM 131 to console myself with
for the time being... Along with my good old AKGs, that is...


Daniel

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which
charmingly resemble the physical appearance of the
Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most even
frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you already have?

GMAB!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which
charmingly resemble the physical appearance of the
Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most even
frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you already have?

GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different microphones which are
both sold as the ECM8000. They have the same case but the electronics
are not the same. One of them is noisier than the other but has better
low end response.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which
charmingly resemble the physical appearance of the
Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most even
frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you already have?

GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different microphones which are
both sold as the ECM8000. They have the same case but the electronics
are not the same. One of them is noisier than the other but has better
low end response.
--scott
--
Thanks, Scott. I'll check them.

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG
which charmingly resemble the physical appearance of
the Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most
even frequency and polar response, but these are far
too noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you
already have? GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different
microphones which are both sold as the ECM8000. They
have the same case but the electronics are not the same.
One of them is noisier than the other but has better low
end response. --scott
--
Thanks, Scott. I'll check them.

The interesting question is - how does one check them without disassembly?

The general difference between the two models is that one has a
transformer-coupled output, and the other has an electronically-balanced
output. I've never personally seen the transformer-coupled output version,
but I've seen pictures of them (check the google archive for a link, we've
talked about this several times).

I don't even know for sure which version is the one with the better bass and
higher noise, but I'd guess it is the one with the electronically-balanced
output. I also suspect the higher noise is because a different capsule was
used.

I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled ECM 8000s with an
ohm meter - then would be the ones with electrical continuity on the order
of a few 100's ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The electronically-balanced
outputs also have continuity, but its more like 195K. I checked my inventory
and both the good and bad ECM 8000s measure about 195K ohm pin2-pin3. IOW
they are both he electronically-balanced (recent) models.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG
which charmingly resemble the physical appearance of
the Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most
even frequency and polar response, but these are far
too noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you
already have? GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different
microphones which are both sold as the ECM8000. They
have the same case but the electronics are not the same.
One of them is noisier than the other but has better low
end response. --scott
--
Thanks, Scott. I'll check them.

The interesting question is - how does one check them without disassembly?

The general difference between the two models is that one has a
transformer-coupled output, and the other has an electronically-balanced
output. I've never personally seen the transformer-coupled output version,
but I've seen pictures of them (check the google archive for a link, we've
talked about this several times).

I don't even know for sure which version is the one with the better bass
and higher noise, but I'd guess it is the one with the
electronically-balanced output. I also suspect the higher noise is because
a different capsule was used.

I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled ECM 8000s with an
ohm meter - then would be the ones with electrical continuity on the order
of a few 100's ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The
electronically-balanced outputs also have continuity, but its more like
195K. I checked my inventory and both the good and bad ECM 8000s measure
about 195K ohm pin2-pin3. IOW they are both he electronically-balanced
(recent) models.
Arny, good info.

"Arny Krueger" said:


I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled ECM 8000s with an
ohm meter - then would be the ones with electrical continuity on the order
of a few 100's ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The electronically-balanced
outputs also have continuity, but its more like 195K. I checked my inventory
and both the good and bad ECM 8000s measure about 195K ohm pin2-pin3. IOW
they are both he electronically-balanced (recent) models.


And if you had transformer-coupled mics, they'd most likely be ruined.
Tiny transformers can get permanently magnetized by even the small DC
currents of an ohm meter.

NEVER measure microphone- or MC transformers with an ohm meter.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

On Mon, 1 May 2006 21:44:34 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.


Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob


Sure. Holophone.com was showing a new $1696 5.1 micing system at NAB. Very
neat. Their $2495 solution includes an Lt Rt encoder and preamps (among other
things).

Regards,

Ty Ford



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

soundhaspriority wrote:

Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob

You may want to consider getting some Avenson Audio STO-2s. They run
about $400 USD for a pair (they're only sold in sets).

-Andrew-

wrote in message
ups.com...
soundhaspriority wrote:

Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob

You may want to consider getting some Avenson Audio STO-2s. They run
about $400 USD for a pair (they're only sold in sets).

-Andrew-

Very interesting. http://www.mercenary.com/sto2microphone.html They look
like an inexpensive alternative to Earthworks. But these mics have about 10
dB more self noise than typical. Although there is no sensitivity spec, I
would assume that these are noisier than typical mikes. Also, they're
electrets, not AT back electrets, but real electrets, with the greater noise
that implies. So the technology is similar to what's found in a Behringer
measurement mike, http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG,

though the capsule is undoubtedly better. Ever make a comparison?

soundhaspriority wrote:

You may want to consider getting some Avenson Audio STO-2s.

They look
like an inexpensive alternative to Earthworks. But these mics have about 10
dB more self noise than typical.

The orignal Earthworks measurement style mics are a little on the noisy
side. They made better (quieter) models later. It comes with the
territory when you have a small diaphragm - not a lot of output for a
given SPL, so for the same voltage out of the microphone you get more
noise.

Also, they're
electrets, not AT back electrets, but real electrets, with the greater noise
that implies.

An electret is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet.
They're all real, and they're all "back." Back when manufacturers first
started to make inexpensive mics, they used electrets to save the cost
of providing a DC polarizing voltage, and at the time, all of the
electret mic capsules were cheap and crummy. There's no reason why an
electret mic capsule can't be good, it's just that the only market for
electrets at the time were in cheap mics. The Shure SM-81, which has
been around for over 25 years, has an electret capsule and it sounds
fine and is reasonably quiet for mics of that period. New ones are even
quieter.

Don't perpetuate rumors about the technology based on when product
demand was for cheap electrets.

Mike Rivers wrote:


The orignal Earthworks measurement style mics are a little on the noisy
side. They made better (quieter) models later.

I had an SR 78 which was unusable as a spot mic in classical recordings
- simply too noisy for the purpose, where you'd not place it all that
close to the source. Sold it to a studio, they seem to be happy with it.
Sure it works well in front of a guitar amp.


Daniel

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:

You may want to consider getting some Avenson Audio STO-2s.

They look
like an inexpensive alternative to Earthworks. But these mics have about
10
dB more self noise than typical.

The orignal Earthworks measurement style mics are a little on the noisy
side. They made better (quieter) models later. It comes with the
territory when you have a small diaphragm - not a lot of output for a
given SPL, so for the same voltage out of the microphone you get more
noise.

Also, they're
electrets, not AT back electrets, but real electrets, with the greater
noise
that implies.

An electret is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet.
They're all real, and they're all "back." Back when manufacturers first
started to make inexpensive mics, they used electrets to save the cost
of providing a DC polarizing voltage, and at the time, all of the
electret mic capsules were cheap and crummy. There's no reason why an
electret mic capsule can't be good, it's just that the only market for
electrets at the time were in cheap mics. The Shure SM-81, which has
been around for over 25 years, has an electret capsule and it sounds
fine and is reasonably quiet for mics of that period. New ones are even
quieter.

Don't perpetuate rumors about the technology based on when product
demand was for cheap electrets.

I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However, your assertion
that equally good microphones are made by either method is not supported by
this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone I quote:
Though electret mics were once considered low-cost and low quality, the best
ones can now rival capacitor mics in every respect apart from low noise..."
The article says that electrets can be made that are the equal... but also,
ARE NOT made that are the equal in terms of noise. The article does not
explain why quiet electrets cannot be made, but it quite unequivocally
states that they are not.

Noise in a condenser microphone is due to three factors:
1. Brownian motion (size of diaphram)
2. Noise figure of the FET amplifier
3. Strength of the polarization field.

The obvious candidate for the difference in noise between the best available
electrets versus the best available condenser microphones would be with
respect to factor 3.

Therefore, this is not a rumor; it is a fact that in choice of an electret,
one gives up some noise.

soundhaspriority wrote:

I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However, your assertion
that equally good microphones are made by either method is not supported by
this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone

You can believe anything you choose to believe. You have incomplete
information. Do with it as you see fit.

Therefore, this is not a rumor; it is a fact that in choice of an electret,
one gives up some noise.

Whatever. I can find you externally polarized condenser mics that are
noisier than electret mics. Either it's a good mic or it's a poor mic.
If you design and builid your own, you can start out with whatever
capsule design you want, but while you still have to purcahse a mic,
look at the actual performance before you rule out a technology. But
then you were the one who wanted a tube mic or preamp, weren't you,
because you thought it must be better?

soundhaspriority wrote:
I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However, your assertion
that equally good microphones are made by either method is not supported by
this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone I quote:
Though electret mics were once considered low-cost and low quality, the best
ones can now rival capacitor mics in every respect apart from low noise..."

They ARE capacitor mikes.

The article says that electrets can be made that are the equal... but also,
ARE NOT made that are the equal in terms of noise. The article does not
explain why quiet electrets cannot be made, but it quite unequivocally
states that they are not.

They are. The DPA 4006 is one of the quietest things around, and it is
an electret although it doesn't advertise so on the box.

Wikipedia is... well... not really very accurate about most things.

Noise in a condenser microphone is due to three factors:
1. Brownian motion (size of diaphram)
2. Noise figure of the FET amplifier
3. Strength of the polarization field.

The obvious candidate for the difference in noise between the best available
electrets versus the best available condenser microphones would be with
respect to factor 3.

No, not at all.
You can build VERY strong electrets today.

Most electret capsules out there, and the ones that you see in the Avenson
and the older Earthworks are among them, have most of their noise coming
from the FET amplifier, because they use a nifty scheme that adds a diode
to the surface of the FET to provide a leakage path for bias. That diode
is noisy, but it makes it possible to include cheap integral amplifier stages
in the capsules.

Therefore, this is not a rumor; it is a fact that in choice of an electret,
one gives up some noise.

Not at all. Try actually listening to some mikes. Start with electret
designs like the Shure KSM-series mikes and the DPA mikes....
--scott

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

soundhaspriority wrote:

I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However, your assertion
that equally good microphones are made by either method is not supported by
this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone I quote:
Though electret mics were once considered low-cost and low quality, the best
ones can now rival capacitor mics in every respect apart from low noise..."
The article says that electrets can be made that are the equal... but also,
ARE NOT made that are the equal in terms of noise. The article does not
explain why quiet electrets cannot be made, but it quite unequivocally
states that they are not.

You obviously didn't read the item very well. It says under electrets " While
few electret microphones rival the best DC-polarized units in terms of noise
level, this is not due to any inherent limitation of the electret "

Note *few* btw. Many electrets are economy mics not designed for ultimate
performance.

Graham

soundhaspriority wrote:

I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However, your assertion
that equally good microphones are made by either method is not supported
by this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone I
quote: Though electret mics were once considered low-cost and low quality,
the best ones can now rival capacitor mics in every respect apart from low
noise..." The article says that electrets can be made that are the
equal... but also, ARE NOT made that are the equal in terms of noise. The
article does not explain why quiet electrets cannot be made, but it quite
unequivocally states that they are not.

Do you understand that ANYBODY can write ANYTHING in Wiki? It a good
starting point for further research, but it's NOT the final word on ANY
subject.

No wonder they kicked your ass out of college.

soundhaspriority wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...
soundhaspriority wrote:

You may want to consider getting some Avenson Audio STO-2s.
They look
like an inexpensive alternative to Earthworks. But these mics have about
10
dB more self noise than typical.
The orignal Earthworks measurement style mics are a little on the noisy
side. They made better (quieter) models later. It comes with the
territory when you have a small diaphragm - not a lot of output for a
given SPL, so for the same voltage out of the microphone you get more
noise.

Also, they're
electrets, not AT back electrets, but real electrets, with the greater
noise
that implies.
An electret is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet.
They're all real, and they're all "back." Back when manufacturers first
started to make inexpensive mics, they used electrets to save the cost
of providing a DC polarizing voltage, and at the time, all of the
electret mic capsules were cheap and crummy. There's no reason why an
electret mic capsule can't be good, it's just that the only market for
electrets at the time were in cheap mics. The Shure SM-81, which has
been around for over 25 years, has an electret capsule and it sounds
fine and is reasonably quiet for mics of that period. New ones are even
quieter.

Don't perpetuate rumors about the technology based on when product
demand was for cheap electrets.

I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However, your assertion
that equally good microphones are made by either method is not supported by
this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone I quote:
Though electret mics were once considered low-cost and low quality, the best
ones can now rival capacitor mics in every respect apart from low noise..."
The article says that electrets can be made that are the equal... but also,
ARE NOT made that are the equal in terms of noise. The article does not
explain why quiet electrets cannot be made, but it quite unequivocally
states that they are not.

You should edit that entry and correct it. External polarization can be a
noise source that electrets are free of and electrets have no extra
mechanism for creating noise.


Noise in a condenser microphone is due to three factors:
1. Brownian motion (size of diaphram)
2. Noise figure of the FET amplifier

Good to here.

3. Strength of the polarization field.

Doesn't affect SNR. Affects sensitivity. Sensitivity is a kind of gain
and that due to polarization is applied identically to both the signal and
to the self noise.

A third noise source that is seldom reported but that can be larger than
either of the others is the noise of the pressure equalization port in an
omni or the acoustic front to back resistance in a gradient mic. An
acoustic resistance is as much a source of noise as is the electrical
equivalent.

The obvious candidate for the difference in noise between the best available
electrets versus the best available condenser microphones would be with
respect to factor 3.

If it were correct.

Therefore, this is not a rumor; it is a fact that in choice of an electret,
one gives up some noise.

Wiki is very subject to inclusion of rumor. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:

You may want to consider getting some Avenson Audio
STO-2s.

They look
like an inexpensive alternative to Earthworks. But
these mics have about 10
dB more self noise than typical.

The orignal Earthworks measurement style mics are a
little on the noisy side. They made better (quieter)
models later. It comes with the territory when you have
a small diaphragm - not a lot of output for a given SPL,
so for the same voltage out of the microphone you get
more noise.
Also, they're
electrets, not AT back electrets, but real electrets,
with the greater noise
that implies.

An electret is the electrostatic equivalent of a
permanent magnet. They're all real, and they're all
"back." Back when manufacturers first started to make
inexpensive mics, they used electrets to save the cost
of providing a DC polarizing voltage, and at the time,
all of the electret mic capsules were cheap and crummy.
There's no reason why an electret mic capsule can't be
good, it's just that the only market for electrets at
the time were in cheap mics. The Shure SM-81, which has
been around for over 25 years, has an electret capsule
and it sounds fine and is reasonably quiet for mics of
that period. New ones are even quieter. Don't perpetuate rumors about
the technology based on
when product demand was for cheap electrets.

I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However,
your assertion that equally good microphones are made by
either method is not supported by this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone I quote: Though
electret mics were once considered low-cost and low
quality, the best ones can now rival capacitor mics in
every respect apart from low noise..." The article says
that electrets can be made that are the equal... but
also, ARE NOT made that are the equal in terms of noise.
The article does not explain why quiet electrets cannot
be made, but it quite unequivocally states that they are
not.
Noise in a condenser microphone is due to three factors:
1. Brownian motion (size of diaphram)
2. Noise figure of the FET amplifier
3. Strength of the polarization field.

The obvious candidate for the difference in noise between
the best available electrets versus the best available
condenser microphones would be with respect to factor 3.

Therefore, this is not a rumor; it is a fact that in
choice of an electret, one gives up some noise.

Where is it written in stone that electrets have a weak polarization field?

Hint: it isn't.

soundhaspriority wrote:

I stand corrected on the issue of the backplate. However, your assertion
that equally good microphones are made by either method is not supported by
this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone I quote:
Though electret mics were once considered low-cost and low quality, the best
ones can now rival capacitor mics in every respect apart from low noise..."
The article says that electrets can be made that are the equal... but also,
ARE NOT made that are the equal in terms of noise. The article does not
explain why quiet electrets cannot be made, but it quite unequivocally
states that they are not.

Wikipeida is one thing, and B&K and DPA mics are another. Seek a
top-shelf electret and ye shall find.

--
ha

soundhaspriority wrote:

Very interesting. http://www.mercenary.com/sto2microphone.html They look
like an inexpensive alternative to Earthworks. But these mics have about 10
dB more self noise than typical. Although there is no sensitivity spec, I
would assume that these are noisier than typical mikes.

No, they are actually quieter than the earlier Earthworks mikes. They use
very similar capsules although not the same ones.

You cannot compare self-noise numbers on the datasheets between manufactures
because there are a bunch of different standards for measuring noise. The
AES microphone standards guys are always trying to do something about this
but the manufacturers aren't cooperating.

Also, they're
electrets, not AT back electrets, but real electrets, with the greater noise
that implies.

No, they are back electrets. Front-electret capsules haven't been made
for twenty years or so, even for communications applications. And front
electret designs mainly have issues with high frequency response, due to
the high diaphragm mass, not with noise.

So the technology is similar to what's found in a Behringer
measurement mike, http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG,

It is. The Behringer uses a back-electret capsule which is a Chinese
clone of the Japanese capsule designs used in the Earthworks and Avenson
mikes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

You cannot compare self-noise numbers on the datasheets between manufactures
because there are a bunch of different standards for measuring noise. The
AES microphone standards guys are always trying to do something about this
but the manufacturers aren't cooperating.

I've read this board long enough, so now I know everything. I can read a
datasheet, and that's the only way to buy equipment - specs. I went to
college for a long time, too and clearly I'm smarter than any of you other
pro audio fools.

"soundhaspriority" is actually Robert Morein, a pest on
rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent sellers of various
misdeeds. He appears to be a pathological liar, with unknown motivations.

Morein is the owner of websites http://www.studentsandthelaw.com, which have
used fraudulent advertising in attempts to attract investors. Both have been
unsuccessful. Morein is known to associate with sexual predators and
pedophiles including Brian McCarty. Find "Brian McCarty" at this website:
http://tinyurl.com/bz2bh

Morein is an Israeli expatriate, originally from the Trenton area, where he
went to college for 12 years without any degree ever being conferred. He
then tried suing Drexel University for fraud, but the court rejected
Morein's arguments. As everyone with a lick of sense does.

Morien is currently living in his daddy's house in Dresher Pennsylvania,
where he manages to stalk a wide variety of people while swilling beer and
ogling the neighbors. He has no job. He never has. He never will.
His daddy's house is located at
1570 Arran Way
Dresher, PA

Morein lives at 1570 Arran Way, Dresher Pennsylvania,
a bit west of metropolitan Philadelphia.

Robert Morein can be contacted at

Forgery by Brian L. McCarty.

soundhaspriority wrote:

I've read this board long enough, so now I know everything. I can read a
datasheet, and that's the only way to buy equipment - specs.

The way to purchase pro gear is to use it and determine how it performs
on the road. Everything performs very well on the showroom floor. Lack
of real standardization in spec presentation leaves one without really
detailed clues to sound.

--
ha

soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote
You may want to consider getting some Avenson Audio STO-2s. They run
about $400 USD for a pair (they're only sold in sets).

though the capsule is undoubtedly better. Ever make a comparison?

Yes, I have. The Avenson is far the better microphone. The first
Behringer I had was so noisy to be unusable. Exchanged for another,
and it was the same.

I use the Avensons on many things, very nice response. Although I've
never seen them for $400, more like $500/pair.

You could also consider EV 635a if you can use dynamic omni.

Steve

soundhaspriority wrote:

Also, they're
electrets, not AT back electrets, but real electrets, with the greater noise
that implies.

About this you are incorrect. Electrets have _no_ inherent disadvantage
over externally biased capsules. In many regards, noise among them, they
have the advantage.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein