Ribbons really better on digital recording?

[recordinghopkins]

We're talking with generalizations here, so I will ignore the philosophical debate of one mic being "best" for anything.

For me, it's all about transient response. Ribbons' slower response in comparison to condensers is not unlike the transient response of analog tape (or your ear for that matter), and it's smooth roll off of the short wavelengths is preferred by me over additional processing when I want to de-emphasize the high end, and along with it, the high frequency phase shift that happens with digital conversion. Sometimes I want hyper accurate recording, and I use a condenser. When I'm looking for a natural, more pleasing aesthetic, I reach for the ribbons.

[vernier]

Hard to lump ribbons as one category ...old, new, large, small, etc ..all sound different.
.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVrEObgiPkw

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

My ribbons work extremely well when tracking to tape. Guitar/bass cabs, acoustic instruments, vocals all love the ribbon/tape combo.

where exactly did I write that ribbons didn't work extremely well? or ribbons and tape?
I simply made an observation and implication that ribbons may work better with digital...possibly. recently in the last 10 or so ribbons have become extremely over popular. 10 years ago what were there? 3 brands of ribbons? m160 4038 and and 77 and 44s from RCA? now everyone makes them it is not a coincidence it has become popular to smooth out in the era of digital harshness. For the record I am not saying ribbons were never popular I am saying they were never this popular. I realize Les Paul Jimmy Page and many other greats used ribbons in the studio consistently, but back in the 70s and 80s not a lot of smaller studios used them.

Originally Posted by Trakworx

A properly calibrated tape machine is not so dark that I'd change mic choice over it, and a properly placed ribbon mic is not so dark that I'd change recording format over it.

I said ribbons are dark, not tape machines. What I was implying is that bright condensers are more 'forgiven' on analog.

Originally Posted by Trakworx

My MX-80 24 track is only -0.5dB at 20kHz running at 15 IPS. I think the impression that tape is always dark comes from use of improperly aligned machines, worn/dirty heads, old tape, hearsay, etc.

but tape compression makes thing smoother and darker, when people refer to 'dark' it is not always frequency response it is often texture of sorts, a loaded word I know

Originally Posted by Trakworx

extreme proximity effect.

agreed ribbons are after all really dynamics

Originally Posted by Trakworx

condensers and dynamics are just as useful on analog as they are on digital recording.

I never said they were not
you completely misunderstood me

no big deal

[ofajen]

Originally Posted by Unknown soldier

Does the frequency response of ribbons really help get that warmth and softer high end when recording to digital? Especially on guitar as I'm using the usual 57/421 combo and find it a bit harsh at times no matter what I do...

I humbly offer the following resource...

http://www.neumann.eu/download.php?d...d=docu0002.PDF

It's a handy primer on the basics of the various kinds of microphones. I find especially helpful to folks needing to learn microphone basics is the chart on page 27 showing the various types, how they respond, where they are tuned (and thus resonant) and how the different transducers work.

To their credit, while the authors were both at Neumann at the time, they reference excellent examples from other makers with roughly equal frequency.

It's a bit of an oversimplification to say that ribbons have slower transient response. They may be comparable to condensers and superior to other dynamics. They are low-tuned and don't have midrange or HF resonances, and they have low mass so they aren't prone to overshoot. It's that lack of resonance in the audio band that is the source of their natural sound, and why they take EQ so well.

The HF roll-off (at least in the horizontal plane) has mostly to do with the geometry of the structure supporting the ribbon, and isn't an intrinsic part of the ribbon's response to sound waves. That lack of audio band resonance also contrasts them with other dynamics and gradient condensers that do have such resonances (properly damped, one hopes) in the audio band.

Cheers,

Otto

[audiogeek]

Originally Posted by ofajen

I humbly offer the following resource...

http://www.neumann.eu/download.php?d...d=docu0002.PDF

...
Cheers,

Otto

Interesting read, and great food for thought. Thanks for sharing!

And while yes, it's perhaps an oversimplification to state that ribbons have a slower transient response than that of condensers, this is afterall GS and most here only speak in and understand oversimplified terms.

I'll stand by the generalization, with the caveat that there are always exceptions to every rule... But I look forward to reading the text from Neumann, and see if it can convince me otherwise. Thanks again!

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

you completely misunderstood me

no big deal

OK, fair enough.

Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,

J~

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by audiogeek

I'll stand by the generalization

Pair a high end ribbon mic with a really fast preamp like an RPQ and you might step away from the generalization. The transients are definitely there, they just require the right kind of amplification to come through

Best,

J~

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Steffmo

I really don't think anyone who has made a career of 2" tape thinks of tape as dark....I never did. But some engineers did feel that a certain amount of high end information has lost after 200 or so plays. A lot of producers, if they had the resources, would try to preserve the high end on the original tracks by doing the overdubs on a slave reel and only running the master to transfer the overdubs.

Similarly I worked with a few guys that would print the high end a tad....just a pinch....realizing that some was going to be lost.

It is dark, it doesn't sound at all like the source. Yes we did stuff like tweek up 20k hz to anticipate the oxides ending up on the Q-tips.

Even with modified recorders the top end is soft. Some stuff like bell trees won't even record. The playback after the first pass was always a dissappointment to me, especially after hearing the take live through a hot-rodded analog console first. Playback was an exercize in losses.

I do understand the complaints over digital high end frequencies, I hear that problem on every modern pop/rock release. Ribbon mics and low pass filters will not change that problem, just mask it some. Avoiding systems that create it in the first place is the way around that problem.

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by ofajen

I humbly offer the following resource...

www.neumann.eu/download.php?download=docu0002.PDF

It's a handy primer on the basics of the various kinds of microphones. I find especially helpful to folks needing to learn microphone basics is the chart on page 27 showing the various types, how they respond, where they are tuned (and thus resonant) and how the different transducers work.

To their credit, while the authors were both at Neumann at the time, they reference excellent examples from other makers with roughly equal frequency.

It's a bit of an oversimplification to say that ribbons have slower transient response. They may be comparable to condensers and superior to other dynamics. They are low-tuned and don't have midrange or HF resonances, and they have low mass so they aren't prone to overshoot. It's that lack of resonance in the audio band that is the source of their natural sound, and why they take EQ so well.

The HF roll-off (at least in the horizontal plane) has mostly to do with the geometry of the structure supporting the ribbon, and isn't an intrinsic part of the ribbon's response to sound waves. That lack of audio band resonance also contrasts them with other dynamics and gradient condensers that do have such resonances (properly damped, one hopes) in the audio band.

Cheers,

Otto

Excellent post and link!

I think it's important to remember that ribbon mics respond to air particle velocity, not pressure.

Not recognizing that distinction tends to lead to some of the generalizations/simplifications that are so prevalent.

Ribbons are a different animal and require different thinking when evaluating.

J~

[recordinghopkins]

Perhaps using the word "speed" when referring to ribbon transient response isn't quite accurate when trying to describe it's reaction to sudden changes in amplitude. The difference we hear is really more likely "smearing" of transients, as good ribbons can have initial response times that rival an sdc.

A google images search returned this comparison, which shows how long it takes the ribbon to return to a resting state. So yes, speed is relevant, but not so much how fast it responds as much as how long it responds.

Feel free to challenge my assessment of this.

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

Perhaps using the word "speed" when referring to ribbon transient response isn't quite accurate when trying to describe it's reaction to sudden changes in amplitude. The difference we hear is really more likely "smearing" of transients, as good ribbons can have initial response times that rival an sdc.

A google images search returned this comparison, which shows how long it takes the ribbon to return to a resting state. So yes, speed is relevant, but not so much how fast it responds as much as how long it responds.

Feel free to challenge my assessment of this.

Interesting. What I see in that image is a low frequency "trail" after the initial peak. The high freq. content appears to be fairly similar to the SM58, no?

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

Interesting. What I see in that image is a low frequency "trail" after the initial peak. The high freq. content appears to be fairly similar to the SM58, no?

Indeed, there is a clear difference shown between the dynamics and condenser mics. I didn't make this image, so it's also possible that some of the difference we see is related to the fact that the two non-ribbons are cardioids, and don't have a rear lobe picking up additional sound in the room... but the principle is the same. Condensers return to a resting state more quickly than dynamics, and ribbons capture transients differently than a moving coil. I'd love to hear some other speculation on the audible effects of the mechanics of a ribbon, like air leakage around the element or decrease in magnetic field strength as the element moves farther away from "zero"...

[ofajen]

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

Perhaps using the word "speed" when referring to ribbon transient response isn't quite accurate when trying to describe it's reaction to sudden changes in amplitude. The difference we hear is really more likely "smearing" of transients, as good ribbons can have initial response times that rival an sdc.

A google images search returned this comparison, which shows how long it takes the ribbon to return to a resting state. So yes, speed is relevant, but not so much how fast it responds as much as how long it responds.

Feel free to challenge my assessment of this.

Yeah, I saw that graph from "hometracked.com", too. Three simple time plots of three mikes under relatively uncontrolled conditions, as far as I know. The ribbon is fairly low end (Apex 205) and has a variety of possible performance issues.

I'd be more interested in a similar test done under controlled conditions with a ribbon that comes closer to the performance of my M130s, and I'd like to see a waterfall plot to show the relaxation times of HF resonances in the condenser, which you can hear, versus that big low end flop you see from the cheap ribbon, which is easily filtered in most cases.

I expect that a better implemented comparison would show that a high-functioning ribbon is remarkably well-behaved in the midrange and high end, while condensers will show varying degrees of resonance and ringing up there, depending on how well the manufacturer has controlled production and ensured proper resistive damping of those resonances.

Cheers,

Otto

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by Unknown soldier

Does the frequency response of ribbons really help get that warmth and softer high end when recording to digital? Especially on guitar as I'm using the usual 57/421 combo and find it a bit harsh at times no matter what I do...

yes. some dynamics also exhibit similar coolness in the HF.

LDCs, by design, emphasize the HF unnaturally. back in the old days that was super cool. these days it is still great but certainly not as easy to deal with as it was when analog tape and speakers with inferior HF tended to magically soften everything you played back.

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by audiogeek

And while yes, it's perhaps an oversimplification to state that ribbons have a slower transient response than that of condensers, this is afterall GS and most here only speak in and understand oversimplified terms.

I'll stand by the generalization, with the caveat that there are always exceptions to every rule... But I look forward to reading the text from Neumann, and see if it can convince me otherwise. Thanks again!

but the generalization is incorrect. ribbon mics, just like ribbon tweeters, have exceptional transient response. dynamic mics have the poorest and it's very likely the transient response in ribbon mics is equal to that of small diaphragm condensors.

Certainly that's what I learned at university studying this stuff, and I doubt physics has changed in the past 20 years...

edit: that chart doesn't show any flaw in transient response - that would be a problem of ramp-up time. what it does show is the mic either has a ring (quite possible wtih a cheap stock apex 205, I love 'em but I fully acknowledge they're cheap and can improve with simple mods), the ribbon is fig-8 and may have some room sound (as someone suggested), and the transient response is fine with it.

how about a proper test with listed configuration and accounting for pickup pattern differences with studio staples like royers and earth works or neumans and an sm7 or re/20?

[Unknown soldier]

Well, after all this, I picked up a beyer M160. Me likes. Nice, natural sound with the top end smoothed out. Kinda like putting a warm, thin wet blanket over the top of the sound. Not enough to muffle but just smooth it out.

I'm paring it with a 57 for a little bite mixed in.

I will say it does work well with digital recording. Now I want to get another ribbon - what would be a good contrast to the M160?