Ribbons and dynamics with slowest transient response for snare recording

[recorder2]

A poster mentioned last week having problems with snare sounds and drum sounds in general being too transient heavy and that in the digital world the transients needed for great sounding tape recordings can be overbearing.

I thought about this and considered what microphones' pickup elements could potentially offer the slowest inherent transient response. Obviously all quality microphones pickup a great deal of transients, but some do of course less than others due to physical design principles, okay here we go--

Condensers are out. Even though the U47fet for instance apparently has a low slew rate from its circuitry, giving the sense of a slower transient response -- I believe the circuitry is basically just smearing the high transient response of the diaphragm.

Ribbons -- the bigger the better I assume. All RCA/AEA mics use the same size large ribbons, is that correct? Whereas Beyerdynamic, Coles, and Royers are using ribbons not as large if I'm not mistaken. Even the Coles 4040 I believe does not have a ribbon as large as the RCA/AEA ones. Unsure about Cloud mics and unsure about that BK-5 reissue from Silvia Mics called the SC-5C but I think the BK-5 was not a large ribbon in the traditional sense. Same as RCA/AEA? In any event am I wrong in thinking that the bigger the ribbon the slower the transient response? [Ribbon tension and corrugation pattern is relevant too I think.]

Dynamics -- also the bigger the better, right? Heil PR30, PR31, PR35, PR48 are the same very large dynamic diaphragm, biggest I think exist. Though I associate Heils with clarity, not low transient response...but the sheer size of the diaphragm is just so...big.

[David Spearritt]

It's very simple. The frequency response magnitude and phase specification gives you all the information you need about "speed" and "slew rate", these ambiguous terms that get bandied about here way too often.

A lower high frequency limit on the FR will imply a softer transient response. Look the the FR plot with confidence.

I can recommend this paper to assist with understanding this topic.
******//www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14050

[binarymilton]

Irrespective of the technicalities/specifics or their ribbon size etc, in practice, Beyerdynamic mics such as the M260N are dark and chocolate-fudge sounding and if you're looking for a dark snare sound they're a good place to go. A Coles 4038 on snare, depending on the snare, will certainly be dark enough for you, possibly too much.

Heil's mics don't roll off bass nearly so much as other dynamics.

The Kel Audio HM-2D is a mic I'd really like to try. It may be a condenser, but the sound samples on their site (on acoustic guitar, bass, vocals) are definitely in dynamic-mic world. Suspect it would do exactly what you're looking for.

But do your find your snare(s) to be hellishly bright? You can always dampen them.

[andychamp]

There is no direct correlation between sensitivity to transients and HF detail.
Ribbon mics have transient response rivaling that of SDCs, yet are notoriously HF-shy in comparison.
So, if you're looking for softened transients AND dark tone, transformer-equipped moving-coil dynamics are your best bet.

[recorder2]

Really? I quite honestly have believed for the longest time that ribbons, especially larger ribboned ribbons, have a somewhat lower transient response, and alright, to hear that they can be on par with SDCs is quite amazing to me.

Alright then.

Well the truth is I am seeking low transient response as well as a bright tone!

I had thought that if large ribboned ribbon mics were in fact slower on transients, that the AEA R92 might be an excellent solution, or the active version of the R84.

I'm rethinking my analysis now of how this all works.


Forgetting the ability of transformers to soften transients, is there anything about a certain transducer design that itself imparts a lessened transient response? Because I had truly thought that the ribbon design, or specifically the large ribbon classic RCA design, was the slowest transient response mic design around. You're saying it has a response on par with ... small diaphragm condensers? Amazing to hear.

[andychamp]

Ok, I may have overstated the similarity of SDCs and especially *large* ribbons in that respect. The bigger ribbons might really be a bit slower, makes sense. But these ribbons are still much lighter and more easily moved than a standard dynamic's membrane. So that's still where I'd look, transformer or not.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by andychamp

There is no direct correlation between sensitivity to transients and HF detail.

Hi, you use non standard terms but if I understand what you are trying to say it seems you are wrong. There is a direct relation between the frequency response and transient respsonse.


/Peter

[recorder2]

Originally Posted by andychamp

Ok, I may have overstated the similarity of SDCs and especially *large* ribbons in that respect. The bigger ribbons might really be a bit slower, makes sense. But these ribbons are still much lighter and more easily moved than a standard dynamic's membrane. So that's still where I'd look, transformer or not.

I apologize for the generalizing but this is an area I don't know enough about to be more precise -- are you saying that every dynamic diaphragm will be slower in transient response than every ribbon?

And among dynamic diaphragms, is size related to transient response, with larger being slower as I would imagine?

If this is true then mechanically speaking is the Heil PR30/31/35/48 diaphragm the best available way to record high transient material when seeking to capture more of the body of the sound and less of the transient?

[recorder2]

so everyone hates this topic, thats cool

all i can gather is that mics that have a HF roll off have lowered transient response



except for U87s which are that way because of german broadcast regs from the 50s...


none of this makes any sense

[u b k]

Just to be clear, the difference between the size of the transients coming off a fast sdc and a slow ribbon is verrrrry small compared to the difference in the size of the transients of a drum tracked to digital vs. a drum slammed to tape.

If you record drums thru the slowest ribbon to digital, you will still have very large transients that need to be carefully managed. Conversely, if you record those same drums thru the fastest sdc and you whack 456 calibrated at +6/180, you will have very soft, very easy to manage transients coming off the repro head.

In other words, given the problem you're proposing, your solution is in the wrong ballpark altogether.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[julian.david]

Originally Posted by recorder2

Ribbons -- the bigger the better I assume. All RCA/AEA mics use the same size large ribbons, is that correct? Whereas Beyerdynamic, Coles, and Royers are using ribbons not as large if I'm not mistaken. Even the Coles 4040 I believe does not have a ribbon as large as the RCA/AEA ones. Unsure about Cloud mics and unsure about that BK-5 reissue from Silvia Mics called the SC-5C but I think the BK-5 was not a large ribbon in the traditional sense. Same as RCA/AEA? In any event am I wrong in thinking that the bigger the ribbon the slower the transient response? [Ribbon tension and corrugation pattern is relevant too I think.]

You're right in that the length, tension, and corrugation pattern are important with respect to the transient response of a ribbon, but there are many more parameters. Most importantly, the mass of the ribbon, which will determine the inertia of the ribbon and thus how quick it will start to move. For a given force, the higher the mass, the lower the acceleration. The much greater mass of moving coil mics is mostly what makes them inferior in terms of transient response. Obviously the mass of the ribbon is the product of the area (i.e. length x width), thickness and material density, so there are a lot more differences between the ribbon microphones you mentioned than you might think. The thickness of commonly used ribbons can vary between 0.6 micrometer and 4 micrometer, so just parameter itself can be quite different. There may be other acoustically active elements that will damp the ribbon vibration (and affect its transient response) depending on the acoustic design. This is particularly true for non-bidirectional ribbons.

Moving-coil dynamic mics usually need some kind of resonators to improve high frequency response. While this may improve the initial transient, it will most likely negatively affect the overshoot and the settling time of the transient response at the same time. Finally, you also have to take the electrical elements into consideration. What does the transformer do (if there is one), and so forth?

Transducer transient response is quite a complex matter and studying technical papers and literature is generally a good idea. A lot of people like what ribbons do on drum signals. If possible, try if you can demo a bunch of different mics and let your ears make the final decision. The differences between a measurement and how your ears and brain perceive an audible event can be shockingly big!!

My 2 cents,
Julian

[recorder2]

Ah, Gregory and Julian, thank you both very much, those were just the kind of answers I was looking for. I appreciate that you share your knowledge of these things!

[julian.david]

Originally Posted by recorder2

I had thought that if large ribboned ribbon mics were in fact slower on transients, that the AEA R92 might be an excellent solution, or the active version of the R84.

I'm rethinking my analysis now of how this all works.

I've personally used the R92 on snare drum as an engineer and liked it a lot. It will not be as bright as a SDC, but it has other qualities that many people like including what it does to transients. The active R84 won't have an advantage for drums since they are typically pretty loud. Unless you want to use the mic for other, very quiet sources, I would stick to a passive ribbon.

Where are you located?

We have a national demo program going on with AEA dealers in the U.S. that will let you demo our mics. Check out our list of dealers at www.ribbonmics.com
If you're local in the LA area, you can just come by ;-)

Cheers,
Julian

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by u b k

Just to be clear, the difference between the size of the transients coming off a fast sdc and a slow ribbon is verrrrry small compared to the difference in the size of the transients of a drum tracked to digital vs. a drum slammed to tape.

If you record drums thru the slowest ribbon to digital, you will still have very large transients that need to be carefully managed. Conversely, if you record those same drums thru the fastest sdc and you whack 456 calibrated at +6/180, you will have very soft, very easy to manage transients coming off the repro head.

In other words, given the problem you're proposing, your solution is in the wrong ballpark altogether.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Bang on, as ever. This is a weird, theoretical proposition/goosechase/misconception.

[gouge]

other than tape, what is the best chance of getting there.

preamps, compressors?

very keen to understand more.

[frans]

If you don't like your transients the size of Texas, feed your mic into a good tube preamp. Not every circuit is the same, even with tubes ;-) but there are preamps out there who can eat your peaks for lunch and make it sound good. This is called distortion - but with certain tube boxes this is managed mostly with k2 (one octave up-sounding "sweet") and k3 (look it up). So every circuit can gnaw away at peaks but only a certain class do it smooth and sweet. I could name some brands and models. Prepare to drop more than small change on this. The upside is, with your gainstaging right you will need less (if any) compression later.

Also there are certain tube mics that actually sound good eating peaks. Depends on their circuits. A lot of all-tube models do, some that have a tube followed by a (qualitiy!) integrated circuit for the output stage with some headroom built in also do.

There's even the odd FET condenser that overloads nice. The mid-70s 451c comes to mind. (but is difficult to get the gainstaging right if your drummer doesn't feel like playing in exactly the right dynamic range) Still not half as good as the right tube mic. Correct me if that isn't a FET in there.. I didn't study the circuit, being the bigmouth I am I just assumed it is because it sounds like one to me. Still, tubes do that job best. Transistors got a bad name because circuit designers mostly run them with lots of negative feedback which (while making them sound more linear over a wider dynamic range, right?) has the downside of resulting in less sweet overload spectral content. To the noobs I may come across as if I actually knew what I'm talking about, but I just gathered a few hints here and there from the people who really know.

[recorder2]

Alright, so if I have this correct, the 3 Ts will eat transients if used correctly -- tubes, transformers, tape.

And if this can be generalized, dynamic diaphragms have marginally slower transient responses than ribbons. Due to design differences is it true that all dynamics trace transients slower than all ribbons? Would it be true that the very large diaphragms in Heil PR30/31/35/48 would be the slowest dynamic diaphragms (while obviously sounding excellent), since this is (AFAIK) the largest diameter diaphragm? Or is it more a mass question, not diameter?

I apologize if I sound a bit pedantic with some of this but I'm genuinely curious to understand the principles by which all these things interrelate and operate. Searching for a way to physically visualize and understand how and why things sound the way they sound.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by julian.david

Most importantly, the mass of the ribbon, which will determine the inertia of the ribbon and thus how quick it will start to move.

Not how quickly it start to move but how much it will move with a certain input. Meaning the effect is on sensitivity, not on the lowpass behaviour.

Increasing mass will also lower the fundamental resonance frequency and thereby extend the low range.

The middle and upper end respons stays the same but with less efficient transformation of acoustic energy to electrical energy.


/Peter

[Marik]

Originally Posted by Audiop

There is a direct relation between the frequency response and transient respsonse.

Hi Peter,

So if we EQ the frequency response for the flat one it will mean the mic transient response will become a "good" one?

Originally Posted by Audiop

Increasing mass will also lower the fundamental resonance frequency and thereby extend the low range.

Not exactly. In the ribbon microphones the fundamental resonance frequency is set by ribbons tuning (i.e. mostly depends on the corrugation (spring) and ribbon length). Either lighter, or heavier ribbons can be tuned in a wide range.

Originally Posted by Audiop

The middle and upper end respons stays the same but with less efficient transformation of acoustic energy to electrical energy.

Not really. The heavier the mass the more resonant modes the ribbon has. The later needs more effective damping, which significantly affects the response.

Best, M

[julian.david]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Not how quickly it start to move but how much it will move with a certain input. Meaning the effect is on sensitivity, not on the lowpass behaviour.
/Peter

According to Newton:
F(t) = m a(t) = m dv/dt

This leads to the equations for the mechanical impedance of a mass and so forth for sinusoidal quantities.

Could you please explain how you come to a different conclusion?

[julian.david]

Originally Posted by Marik

Not exactly. In the ribbon microphones the fundamental resonance frequency is set by ribbons tuning (i.e. mostly depends on the corrugation (spring) and ribbon length). Either lighter, or heavier ribbons can be tuned in a wide range.
Best, M

I agree!

Julian

[julian.david]

Originally Posted by recorder2

And if this can be generalized, dynamic diaphragms have marginally slower transient responses than ribbons. Due to design differences is it true that all dynamics trace transients slower than all ribbons? Would it be true that the very large diaphragms in Heil PR30/31/35/48 would be the slowest dynamic diaphragms (while obviously sounding excellent), since this is (AFAIK) the largest diameter diaphragm? Or is it more a mass question, not diameter?

I apologize if I sound a bit pedantic with some of this but I'm genuinely curious to understand the principles by which all these things interrelate and operate. Searching for a way to physically visualize and understand how and why things sound the way they sound.

I'm not familiar enough with the Heil microphones you mention, so I don't want to comment on those particular types. I definitely would think it's more a question of mass than diameter. I understand that you want to grasp the principles and I applaud you for that, but it may be beyond the scope of what can be communicated on an internet forum. There are chapters on this topic some standard literature, such as Harry Olson's "Acoustical Engineering" and as fundamental as Blauert/Xiang's "Acoustics of Engineers". Even so, I personally feel that there is some potential for additional research.

Here's a fun experiment:
I'm assuming that you already have a couple of microphones and preamps. Get yourself an instrument that can do really fast transients such as a snare drum, clave, glockenspiel or similar, setup a bunch of mics side by side preferably going through the same (type of) preamp into the same converters and record a couple of hard hits. It's not going to be an ideal transient, but you can still look at the waveforms in your DAW and see if you can spot any differences!

Julian

[camerondye]

What about a transient designer...they work pretty well for stuff like this.
cam

[Michiel H]

Quote:
Originally Posted by julian david

I've personally used the R92 on snare drum as an engineer and liked it a lot. It will not be as bright as a SDC, but it has other qualities that many people like including what it does to transients. The active R84 won't have an advantage for drums since they are typically pretty loud. Unless you want to use the mic for other, very quiet sources, I would stick to a passive ribbon.

Where are you located?

We have a national demo program going on with AEA dealers in the U.S. that will let you demo our mics. Check out our list of dealers at www.ribbonmics.com
If you're local in the LA area, you can just come by ;-)

Cheers,
Julian


Yes R92 works great on snare - not too much proximity neither, sounds fat and solid.

On the topic of slowing transients down, you may want to look at Dave Hill Designs Europa 1 pre which features a dedicated 'speed' control exactly for this purpose. It can subtly slow down the sounds or really take all the highs out of transients depending on the settings.

Michiel
Joystick Audio

[Marik]

Originally Posted by recorder2

And if this can be generalized, dynamic diaphragms have marginally slower transient responses than ribbons. Due to design differences is it true that all dynamics trace transients slower than all ribbons?

The good transient response is not only about "good" and fast rise time, but also about how the impulse settles and if there are any oscillations or ringing.

Indeed, in many cases in the linear system the impulse and frequency responses can be correlated. However, it is important to understand how a flat response has been achieved in any specific design. In many cases acoustical chambers or resonators can add ringing (esp. with insufficient damping) and in this case the frequency response may be (relatively) linear, but the impulse plot reveals series of oscillations. On the other hand, a rolled off top in the ribbon microphone in many cases is just a unique property of acoustical cancellation, and the microphone can have minimum delay, perfect rise time, and be free of oscillating ripples.

I would think some good dynamic (meaning moving coil) microphones with a proper damping can (probably) have a better transient response than a poorly designed and implemented ribbon microphone, with thick and poorly corrugated/installed ribbon, and improper damping. So we need to be careful with generalizations like "all ribbons", or "all moving coils"...

Best, M

[recorder2]

That's a good point...that not only does the signal path need to be direct with minimal negative feedback for a pristine sound but that resonance inside the mic can't be used to manipulate the frequency response.

'In theory'...

And not that there aren't plenty of wonderful mics using heavy negative feedback and designed with resonance.


Out of curiosity though, what are some microphones that don't have heavy negative feedback, aren't using resonance tricks to adjust frequency response, and aren't otherwise using 'tricks' to achieve their [more linear than otherwise] sound?

Offhand now that it's mentioned I know the KU3A used some kind of ... honeycombed resonator to force a unidirectional polar pattern? I saw it in an AEA video online from AES.

[julian.david]

Originally Posted by recorder2

That's a good point...that not only does the signal path need to be direct with minimal negative feedback for a pristine sound but that resonance inside the mic can't be used to manipulate the frequency response.

'In theory'...

And not that there aren't plenty of wonderful mics using heavy negative feedback and designed with resonance.


Out of curiosity though, what are some microphones that don't have heavy negative feedback, aren't using resonance tricks to adjust frequency response, and aren't otherwise using 'tricks' to achieve their [more linear than otherwise] sound?

The AEA R88 has no puffshields, resonators or anything like that for example. Very minimal wind protection by means of an acoustically transparent silk. It's as bare-bones of a ribbon you can get. You can easily see the exposed ribbon when you hold the mic against the light.

Originally Posted by recorder2

Offhand now that it's mentioned I know the KU3A used some kind of ... honeycombed resonator to force a unidirectional polar pattern? I saw it in an AEA video online from AES.

No, that is not quite true. What you are referring to is the labyrinth of the KU4 (AEA's interpretation of the KU3A), which sits underneath the ribbon motor and is essentially a damped folded tube that is acoustically coupled to the back of the ribbon. It's specifically not supposed to resonate! In fact, I can tell you that would sound quite horrible tutt

[recorder2]

Oh okay, I see. Yes that was what it was, the labyrinth it was called, right.

[chavernac]

If you want to compare the sound of ribbons, you should check this video series out.
Fab is using only royer microphones and Mojave microphones in order to record a full band.

Gearfest 2011: Tracking 1/6 Bass Drum - PUREMIX
Gearfest 2011: Tracking 2/6 Overheads, Hihat - PUREMIX
Gearfest 2011: Tracking 3/6 Preamp Choices - PUREMIX (this one discusses preamp choices)
Gearfest 2011: Tracking 4/6 Vocal + Guitar - PUREMIX (this one shows an amazing A/B test btw UA4-710 vs UA610)
Gearfest 2011: Tracking 5/6 Violin, Upright - PUREMIX
Gearfest 2011: Tracking 6/6 The Whole Band - PUREMIX

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by recorder2

That's a good point...that not only does the signal path need to be direct with minimal negative feedback for a pristine sound but that resonance inside the mic can't be used to manipulate the frequency response.

'In theory'...

And not that there aren't plenty of wonderful mics using heavy negative feedback and designed with resonance.

Hi!

The claim which I "bolded" above can easily be shown to be false by blindfold people listening to highly linear high negative loop feedback circuits.

You may hear distortion in feedback circuits which has to little open loop gain to start with but that is a question of poor component quality (or wrong component in the application) or poor circuit design and should not be blamed on feedback as such.


/Peter