The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?
Old 25th April 2019
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post

I am certain that, on axis, the SR-20 is flatter than anything else I have that outputs or records an acoustic signal... Then there's the problem of not having an anechoic chamber.....



-tINY

Ha ha, I know ones needed but I haven’t researched enough to understand the details behind it all. I have a pallet of other stuff I’ve been focusing on. Who records in an anechoic chamber anyways? It would be interesting to know if checking responses in the room you record in may shed more light into the usefulness of the mic for that room. That may also be why we see such varying opinions on mics sometimes. The recording room and the playback room. Good for thought.
Old 25th April 2019
  #32
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
I haven't used r20 drool...
Old 26th April 2019
  #33
Gear Guru
I tried buying an AT3035 as a neutral mic and coloring it. Wonderful mic but I much preferred Oktavas and gave it to an acoustic player since I wasn't really using it...... Get a mic you like the sound of and don't overthink it.....
Old 27th April 2019
  #34
Lives for gear
 

I have two close friends (who live out of my area), when they come to visit me I'm giving them one microphone each (they both have done/do VO projects).

Both mics will be very nice and helpful to them, and both are "boring to me".
It's a "win win"! (AKG 200 Perception and MXL V87-two solid LDC's)
Chris
Old 28th April 2019
  #35
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 View Post
I have two close friends (who live out of my area), when they come to visit me I'm giving them one microphone each (they both have done/do VO projects).

Both mics will be very nice and helpful to them, and both are "boring to me".
It's a "win win"! (AKG 200 Perception and MXL V87-two solid LDC's)
Chris
I like the almost dead flat lower range of Se 2200. nice spl nice clarity... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOJcVfrAZk good job josh.

here is the spec.. home recording done simply and nice... a great mic to imitate other mics... on a budget...?
Attached Thumbnails
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-se-microphine-specs.jpg  
Old 28th April 2019
  #36
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

this doesn't work. Eq curve is not what makes a mic sound good. The quality of the components makes it sound good. Think of it this way. A great mic has a great timbre. A great quality guitar has a great timbre. A great vocalist with a great voice has a great timbre. You can't eq a Sears and roebucks Les Paul to make it sound like a real 59 burst, just like you can't EQ kirk cobane's voice and make him sound like a good singer with good tone ala Freddie Mercury. It doesn't work like that. Eq curve does not matter. The quality of the components in the mic matter. You can have two singers or 2 mics or 2 A/D converter with the same exact frequency response, it doesn't mean they are respectively going to sound the same, or good for that matter.


A u47 has the same eq curve as a u47 FET but they sound very different.
Old 28th April 2019
  #37
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
this doesn't work. Eq curve is not what makes a mic sound good. The quality of the components makes itsound good. Think of it this way. A great mic has a great timbre. A great quality guitar has a great timbre. A great vocalist with a great voice has a great timbre. You can't eq a Sears and robucks Les Paul to make it sound like a real 59 burst, just like you can't EQ kirk cobane's voice and make him sound like a good singer with good tone ala Freddie Mercury. It doesn't work like that. Eq curve does not matter. The quality of the components in the mic matter. You can have two singers or 2 mics or 2 A/D converter with the same exact frequency response. It doesn't mean they are respectively going to sound the same or good for that matter.


A u47 has the same eq curve as a u47 FET but they sound very different
This is an interesting area for discussion... does one u47 have the exact eq curve as another u47? (I tend to disagree here I have used 2 identical model mics that have non exact replication eq curve) There is theoretical eq curve and actual actual eq curve (IMO) Better companies seem to have more consistent tolerances. I believe that certain specific eq curves can be less flattering to certain 'types' pf voices. I have heard a terrible voice on a terrible mic sound unbelievably good. I find it interesting to randomly throw on a 'soft' random eq on any mic. What comes up can be quite good or tell you to go into a different direction. I am currently distorting vocal sound signals through purposely failing cables.

You may not think this but I do - "Certain mics can copy eq curves better than other mics. I am not saying that one mic can copy a u47 exactly... but then again a u47 cannot copy a cheaper mic. ALTHOUGH the better mic does generally stand a better chance of copying a cheaper than the other way around. Have you heard Cobains 'And I love her' cover... on cheap mic in the backyard outside. To me simply amazing and would not sound right on a high $ tube condenser... same goes for IZs lobby recording 'over the rainbow' just special some how breaking all the 'correct' recording rules. Ol Jimi sounded soooo good on a cheap guitar... like Satchmo said - if you like it its good. and I agree
Old 28th April 2019
  #38
Lives for gear
 

It seems to me like you've made up your mind on this already.
Old 28th April 2019
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
this doesn't work. Eq curve is not what makes a mic sound good. The quality of the components makes itsound good. Think of it this way. A great mic has a great timbre. A great quality guitar has a great timbre. A great vocalist with a great voice has a great timbre. You can't eq a Sears and robucks Les Paul to make it sound like a real 59 burst, just like you can't EQ kirk cobane's voice and make him sound like a good singer with good tone ala Freddie Mercury. It doesn't work like that. Eq curve does not matter. The quality of the components in the mic matter. You can have two singers or 2 mics or 2 A/D converter with the same exact frequency response. It doesn't mean they are respectively going to sound the same or good for that matter.


A u47 has the same eq curve as a u47 FET but they sound very different
This. Very well said btw. And the use of “timbre” is what set it apart. I now how to express what I’ve learned in my experience. I “upgrade” my gear more than I “mod” it. A channel in my console that’s been “upgraded” with better parts reproduces the recorded signal more accurately than one that has not been “upgraded”, however’ if I run tones through each channel and compare how the frequency response is reflected on the VU’s it’s identical. I use mics as a form of EQ at the source more now than ever. Especially after reading Al Schmidt’s book and starting the thread referenced in this thread.

If this theory was true for mics then you should be able to buy a cheap compressor and EQ it into an 1176, but you can’t. What’s in the gear matters.
Old 29th April 2019
  #40
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
We got a little off track here... I was saying that the eq CURVE of a mic can make a mic good, better, or worse... I was just surprised that nobody agreed with me. You can change the eq curve of a u47 to make it sound unusable or not work in a situation. And you can (to a lesser degree take an inferior mic to a higher level in certain situations.) Similar to overdriving an amp you can overdrive a mic, and especially in this situation get something quite new... that you could never do with a u47... no one in their right mind would risk it...lol.
Old 29th April 2019
  #41
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
I am currently distorting vocal sound signals through purposely failing cables.
What? What “failing” in a cable would cause what kind of distortion in a vocal? And by “purposely” do you mean that you are deliberately causing some failure in a cable to create some useful sound? Can you explain?
Old 29th April 2019
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
We got a little off track here... I was saying that the eq CURVE of a mic can make a mic good, better, or worse... I was just surprised that nobody agreed with me.
When you write "of a mic" it sounds like you're talking about the frequency response of a mic, which itself is more or less set. And it seems as if what you said originally was that perhaps an EQ on a recorded signal could 'make up for' a mic being cheap by mimicing an expensive mics frequency response.

I think pretty much everyone here is saying that 'no', just EQing a recorded signal from a cheap mic won't make it sound like an expensive mic, because if that's how it worked we'd all be using cheap mics an good EQs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
You can change the eq curve of a u47 to make it sound unusable or not work in a situation. And you can (to a lesser degree take an inferior mic to a higher level in certain situations.) Similar to overdriving an amp you can overdrive a mic, and especially in this situation get something quite new... that you could never do with a u47... no one in their right mind would risk it...lol.
Of course you can EQ any mic to sound terrible. And of course you can take a bad recording using a cheap mic and EQ it so it's less bad than before. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Old 29th April 2019
  #43
Lives for gear
 

I got a copy of Antares Mic Modeling plugin for $10 many years ago.
I knew it wouldn't be able to make a crap mic sound like a quality mic but thought maybe it might be useful the other way around, making a high quality mic sound like some of the popular lower end mics.

The plugin lets you choose the input mic you're actually using, and select output mic you want to convert to.
Its also got things like Mic proximity adjustments and mic preamp gain.

The preamp gain and its crossover between dry and colored is kind of neat, but that's about it.
The mic converter is totally useless. It changes the EQ curves but the results are NOT what you'd expect.

It took me awhile to logically figure out why it failed, then it made total sense.
You see it doesn't matter what mic you use for vocals, the voice is extremely flexible and the singer is always going to attempt to get the best tones from the mic by altering the coloration of his voice to minimize mad tones while emphasizing good tones. The reason the mic modeling fails is the voice is already attempting to fix the tones produced by the mic. Blindly changing the fixed frequency response curve after the track is recorded isn't the same thing as changing it before you record.

After you record a track the only thing that "Works" Is the prudent use of EQ to minimize the bad and optimize the good. You don't EQ using some other mics EQ response either. That's a complete act of futility that doesn't get you any closer to having the best tone possible. When you sang that track you already shaped that mics response. you have to learn how to use your ears to do the rest.

Maybe, If you recorded and instrument with a fixed tone that the performer couldn't change through his playing or by tweaking, maybe record a Keyboard direct then add a mic curve to it, plus the ambiance, reflection, compression etc a specific mic produces, you might be able to model a mic that way.

I've done work where I've recorded a player's amp with a mic and also recorded a direct signal from the instrument as a backup. I had a part of the song blow out where the amp was crapping out and crackling so I took the direct signal from the guitar and shaped it to sound like it was the mic being used. I had to match what a miced cab sounded like. It wasn't just the mic coloration that needed to be mimicked. If it was only that it would have been simple. I had to match the speaker coloration, mic coloration, plus the drive and compression of the various gain stages, in the same order and amounts actual circuits produce, plus add or subtract whatever the differences were.

In short is was a friggin nightmare which took many laborious hours of hard work. Normally its far simpler to simply have the player come back and redo his part. A 5 minute song takes 5 minutes to actually track, in comparison to faking it which took 6+ hours of tweaking to get right using a frequency analyzer.

I do suggest you give your idea a shot however. You can tell people what an act of futility is and even give them step by step instructions as to why it fails, but there's something about the hands on that educates a person in the fine details you simply cant ignore. If you have one mic with a bad frequency response curve and want to superimpose another mics frequency response over it, what makes you think that response is a match for the music? Other peoples opinions on a mic or something the music really needs? You've probably heard there are No magic EQ curves designed to fit all music - the reason is the musical pitch and instruments used are never the same so how can a fixed EQ curve be of any value when mixing. And like I said, a singer adapts his voice to get the best tones no matter what mic they use which shoots holes through any response curve swapping you may have.

All you need to do is to tune the drums differently and everything you did mixing is useless.
Old 29th April 2019
  #44
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
Are you able to test frequency response. Even if it’s a poor man’s version I’d like to hear about it. I’ll put a mic up to my monitor and set 1k hz to 0 VU on my console and then sweep through the tones. The mic goes through a Jim Williams modded Symetrix SX202. I know there’s a lot of variables in there like the frequency response of the speaker, frequency response of the console I’m playing back through as well as the Motu converters and analog stage, but it’s all I have.
You can do comparative frequency response. The issue is always what is your reference.

An inexpensive measurement microphone is the Umik-1. It is a USB omni microphone. Comes with a calibration file. Less than $100.

https://www.parts-express.com/minids...phone--230-332

You can pay a few dollars more for one individually calibrated.
http://cross-spectrum.com/measuremen...ated_umik.html

Then get the free Room EQ Wizard software.
https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

It will do many things including sweeps. And using the calibration files for the Umik 1.

So do a sweep with a loudspeaker using the UMIK 1, and then do one with the microphone to test and see how they differ.

Just as an example attached is the result of measuring a sweep using the Umik-1, an Avantone CK-1 omni, and a CAD M179 in omni. I developed calibration files for the Avantone and CAD using published response curves. Once calibrated they matched relatively well. The Umik is the pink line, the Avantone is the green line and the CAD is the blue line. This is using 1/12th octave smoothing.

For those wondering, I've checked mics of the same model and brand some covering 10 years difference in age. They match almost perfectly. Better than the ones pictured here.

You could do some version of your own microphone modeling. Make your own calibration file to get your microphone flat with EQ. Then using the published response of your target microphone, make an inverse EQ curve and apply that to shape response to the target microphone. It will work best if you copy microphones with the same diaphragm size. Directivity differs less this way. Modeling a 1/2 inch instrument condenser using a large diaphragm 1.3 inch condenser probably won't turn out all that well.
Attached Thumbnails
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-umik1-cad-m179-ck1-omni.jpg  
Old 29th April 2019
  #45
Gear Guru
the Slate VMS is basically this but with a condenser......even has a 57 go figure.....
Old 29th April 2019
  #46
Gear Nut
 
MattiasSwe's Avatar
And people seem to fall for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
the Slate VMS is basically this but with a condenser......even has a 57 go figure.....
Old 30th April 2019
  #47
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman View Post
What? What “failing” in a cable would cause what kind of distortion in a vocal? And by “purposely” do you mean that you are deliberately causing some failure in a cable to create some useful sound? Can you explain?
I am always looking for a way to make my own controlled distortion, coming from a background of not having any high quality equipment. There are various ways of changing the EM field surround the cable that is delivering your audio signal. There are also paths to purposeful distortion on the (input) and out put of the signal from the cable (and its EM field). [i am a novice in this regards/but that doesn't stop me from trying and coming up with a great mistake or accident] I would love to make a rigid glass encased cable for one position mic recording thru glass into (converter adc or what ever) - I believe that might be the best and purest way to have the ultimate recording set up for vocals. The other side of this is creating the worst distorting cable on purpose. I am experimenting with changing the electromagnetic field by inserting a 'cold' or extremely 'hot' section (temperature) into the length of the cable field (as well as expanding and contracting fields (like compressing and un-compressing a slinky that is carrying the audio signal). Other experiments are using a changing chassis and its grounding in unbalanced cables - using the chassis as the distorter LOL this is what got me started in the first place. Having a mic that sounded so bad that I could not get a good recording out of it - that I gave up and distorted it more and found one distortion I loved and used. I am also starting to get involved with crystalline carrier like citrine that rapidly change with pressure or temp... I use the creed change the dynamic rate and change the results... and what is called 'characteristic impedance' and apply that to various areas of experimentation. Anyway that's what I am exploring in my spare spare time...

couple of links https://www.bestcaraudio.com/everyth...ortion-part-2/ https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/a...ex.mvp/id/2045

I TAKE NO LIABILITY TO WHAT I JUST SAID
Old 30th April 2019
  #48
Lives for gear
s wave,
Thanks for answering. I wouldn’t have understood Tesla, and I don’t understand your post. That’s not a judgement, just a report.
Old 30th April 2019
  #49
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
When you write "of a mic" it sounds like you're talking about the frequency response of a mic, which itself is more or less set. And it seems as if what you said originally was that perhaps an EQ on a recorded signal could 'make up for' a mic being cheap by mimicing an expensive mics frequency response.

I think pretty much everyone here is saying that 'no', just EQing a recorded signal from a cheap mic won't make it sound like an expensive mic, because if that's how it worked we'd all be using cheap mics an good EQs.



Of course you can EQ any mic to sound terrible. And of course you can take a bad recording using a cheap mic and EQ it so it's less bad than before. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Yes, I was trying to refer to the frequency EQ curve... of a mic. Quality mics tend to match the dynamic frequency chart much better with more consistency. And I was being devils advocate by re-iterating the opposite of good EQing; to try to better communicate what I was trying to say. ~
Old 30th April 2019
  #50
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrgkmc View Post
I got a copy of Antares Mic Modeling plugin for $10 many years ago.
I knew it wouldn't be able to make a crap mic sound like a quality mic but thought maybe it might be useful the other way around, making a high quality mic sound like some of the popular lower end mics.

The plugin lets you choose the input mic you're actually using, and select output mic you want to convert to.
Its also got things like Mic proximity adjustments and mic preamp gain.

The preamp gain and its crossover between dry and colored is kind of neat, but that's about it.
The mic converter is totally useless. It changes the EQ curves but the results are NOT what you'd expect.

It took me awhile to logically figure out why it failed, then it made total sense.
You see it doesn't matter what mic you use for vocals, the voice is extremely flexible and the singer is always going to attempt to get the best tones from the mic by altering the coloration of his voice to minimize mad tones while emphasizing good tones. The reason the mic modeling fails is the voice is already attempting to fix the tones produced by the mic. Blindly changing the fixed frequency response curve after the track is recorded isn't the same thing as changing it before you record.

After you record a track the only thing that "Works" Is the prudent use of EQ to minimize the bad and optimize the good. You don't EQ using some other mics EQ response either. That's a complete act of futility that doesn't get you any closer to having the best tone possible. When you sang that track you already shaped that mics response. you have to learn how to use your ears to do the rest.

Maybe, If you recorded and instrument with a fixed tone that the performer couldn't change through his playing or by tweaking, maybe record a Keyboard direct then add a mic curve to it, plus the ambiance, reflection, compression etc a specific mic produces, you might be able to model a mic that way.

I've done work where I've recorded a player's amp with a mic and also recorded a direct signal from the instrument as a backup. I had a part of the song blow out where the amp was crapping out and crackling so I took the direct signal from the guitar and shaped it to sound like it was the mic being used. I had to match what a miced cab sounded like. It wasn't just the mic coloration that needed to be mimicked. If it was only that it would have been simple. I had to match the speaker coloration, mic coloration, plus the drive and compression of the various gain stages, in the same order and amounts actual circuits produce, plus add or subtract whatever the differences were.

In short is was a friggin nightmare which took many laborious hours of hard work. Normally its far simpler to simply have the player come back and redo his part. A 5 minute song takes 5 minutes to actually track, in comparison to faking it which took 6+ hours of tweaking to get right using a frequency analyzer.

I do suggest you give your idea a shot however. You can tell people what an act of futility is and even give them step by step instructions as to why it fails, but there's something about the hands on that educates a person in the fine details you simply cant ignore. If you have one mic with a bad frequency response curve and want to superimpose another mics frequency response over it, what makes you think that response is a match for the music? Other peoples opinions on a mic or something the music really needs? You've probably heard there are No magic EQ curves designed to fit all music - the reason is the musical pitch and instruments used are never the same so how can a fixed EQ curve be of any value when mixing. And like I said, a singer adapts his voice to get the best tones no matter what mic they use which shoots holes through any response curve swapping you may have.

All you need to do is to tune the drums differently and everything you did mixing is useless.
Agreed well said... I know that a mics EQ chart is a result of numerous things and much engineering and it is after all is a result of that mic. Why when I eq my poor mic to a Atr 301 megaphones chart it works almost perfect? .... it sounds just like the megaphone... JUST JOKING. it is true though.... lol I appreciate your informative answer. I generally like to talk about the theoretic side of mics as well as hearing what pitfalls people have run into while trying this. Once in a while... a certain section of copying a Eq curve chart works real well for a specific mic you are using. It kind of gives you an area to focus on. Because what I have found...is that the window on this (so small) is like finding a needle in a haystack. I have had times when I tried to record a vocal on cheap cheap mic and could not find anything usable for a long time ... to later find ONE small adjustment in one small area - changed the day around. There seem to be zillions of sweetspots on different components that some people will never find... and that is like treasure hunting...
Old 6th May 2019
  #51
It's a pipe dream brought on by the fever of "lack of money"
Old 6th May 2019
  #52
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by db9091 View Post
It's a pipe dream brought on by the fever of "lack of money"
Ole boy Teddy Roosevelt said - DO what you can -with WHAT you got - with where you are... Almost EVERY great accomplishment by mankind has been made in un-ideal and situations that were incredibly lacking... It is not always a bad thing to lack money... It makes one think create explore and do things that no-one ever thought of before... but if you have no faith... or 'want' you better get some money and make some homogenized run-of the mill sheep product... LOL tc. Reminds when the greatest internal combustion engineers in the world said it was PHYSICally impossible to make a V-8 engine and H. Ford said get me 4 guys that don't know that it can't be done... and tell em to build one... VOILA... ez. Not too many people have offered much help in the question of the thread... come on - one mic has to be better than another... ANYONE else try it? or at least have an off the wall theory of how it could be of use? thx
Old 6th May 2019
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Ole boy Teddy Roosevelt said - DO what you can -with WHAT you got - with where you are... Almost EVERY great accomplishment by mankind has been made in un-ideal and situations that were incredibly lacking... It is not always a bad thing to lack money... It makes one think create explore and do things that no-one ever thought of before... but if you have no faith... or 'want' you better get some money and make some homogenized run-of the mill sheep product... LOL tc. Reminds when the greatest internal combustion engineers in the world said it was PHYSICally impossible to make a V-8 engine and H. Ford said get me 4 guys that don't know that it can't be done... and tell em to build one... VOILA... ez. Not too many people have offered much help in the question of the thread... come on - one mic has to be better than another... ANYONE else try it? or at least have an off the wall theory of how it could be of use? thx
Soo true, right? The "4 minute mile" being a prime example.

I don't mean to diminish lack of funds as being unable to perform great creativity and results. There was a time that I though paying $300 for a guitar was an insane amount of money, working off my tape recorder's microphone.

I just, with the benefit of hindsight, would like to inform anyone starting out that:
1) you can't make a Les Paul out of anything but a Les Paul (i.e. trying to throw Gibson pickups in an Epiphone or similar)
2) you can't make a U87 out of anything but a U87. (WA87, Pelosi, etc. Not going to be it.)

Best thing is, try and trial what's available in your price range, pick the best you can get. But don't throw money in a pit.
Old 6th May 2019
  #54
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Stop focusing on the eq curve of a mic, it's irrelevant. Or rather, it's the only thing you actually CAN change after the fact. But it won't change one mic into another.
Old 6th May 2019
  #55
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Stop focusing on the eq curve of a mic, it's irrelevant. Or rather, it's the only thing you actually CAN change after the fact. But it won't change one mic into another.
Believe it or not I have had a good success by copy a cheap dynamic mic to that of a classic condenser eq curve - real nice sound - who would of thought? You know when you get lost for ideas (EQING) it isn't a bad thing to throw and idea against the wall... some of them work or at least point you in the right direction. especially up in the air or nearing infra.
Old 7th May 2019
  #56
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Believe it or not I have had a good success by copy a cheap dynamic mic to that of a classic condenser eq curve - real nice sound - who would of thought? You know when you get lost for ideas (EQING) it isn't a bad thing to throw and idea against the wall... some of them work or at least point you in the right direction. especially up in the air or nearing infra.
It's sort of two different questions:

1) Can you achieve something useful by mimicking the frequency response of a mic you like with EQ and a different mic? Quite possibly! It may well take you in the right direction and help you find the sound you're looking for.

2) Can you make a cheap mic sound like an expensive mic by using EQ? Probably not! There might be a few diamonds in the rough that punch well above their weight, but most cheap mics have poor off axis response and a host of other deficiencies that EQ can't change!
Old 7th May 2019
  #57
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Believe it or not I have had a good success by copy a cheap dynamic mic to that of a classic condenser eq curve - real nice sound - who would of thought? You know when you get lost for ideas (EQING) it isn't a bad thing to throw and idea against the wall... some of them work or at least point you in the right direction. especially up in the air or nearing infra.
My point is more to do with the previously mentioned off axis response of mics. If a mic has ****ty off axis phase response, a) it sounds awkward/less than natural to start and b) when you start eq-ing it things just fall apart into a phase mashup very quickly. When a mic has good off axis phase response you can eq around loads without it falling apart. Hence people talking about a mic 'taking eq well'.

Thing is, this is mostly to do with the qualities of the capsule, and therefore trying to eq a cheap mic into sounding like an expensive one is pretty much a deadborn cause, as the cheap mic will have a cheap capsule with ****ty off axis phase response.....

So, if you want a great condenser mic for little cash, your best bet is to get a decent one and then put a great capsule in it. Then it will take eq better at least and bending around on the tone won't make it fall apart as quick.
Old 8th May 2019
  #58
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
My point is more to do with the previously mentioned off axis response of mics. If a mic has ****ty off axis phase response, a) it sounds awkward/less than natural to start and b) when you start eq-ing it things just fall apart into a phase mashup very quickly. When a mic has good off axis phase response you can eq around loads without it falling apart. Hence people talking about a mic 'taking eq well'.

Thing is, this is mostly to do with the qualities of the capsule, and therefore trying to eq a cheap mic into sounding like an expensive one is pretty much a deadborn cause, as the cheap mic will have a cheap capsule with ****ty off axis phase response.....

So, if you want a great condenser mic for little cash, your best bet is to get a decent one and then put a great capsule in it. Then it will take eq better at least and bending around on the tone won't make it fall apart as quick.
Now we are getting somewhere good thx. (Is a sm57 capsule/motor considered bad off axis?- they are relatively cheap) What actually makes a good capsule a good capsule?

Theoretically, there would not be that much difference if the recordings were 'on-axis' ?

And for arguments sake, lets take reflections etc. out of the equation; like recording in a high quality sound booth /dry.

below is a 414 basic on/off axis response... there are huge differences in the EQ curve when off axis... is this a decent capsule because of the WAY the off axis relates to the on axis response? or is it other reasons SUCH as how the frequency response of its on axis 'sound' works with its off axis 'sound'?

So the 414 has is 'decent' off axis because it has good: phase response & sounds 'more natural' . Is this phase response due to the fact that when it is off axis there is a slight delay (the time it takes for the sound to hit the far side of the diaphragm as compared with the near side?) ...makes sense... AND the mic responds well to this phase delay.

So if I am understanding this - it is how the capsule responds to the phase not that the mic mixes the different phase responses in a pleasing way....

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniq...se-demystified
Attached Thumbnails
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-akg-414xlii-cardioid-frequency-plot-off-axis-measured.png  
Old 8th May 2019
  #59
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Now we are getting somewhere good thx. (Is a sm57 capsule/motor considered bad off axis?- they are relatively cheap) What actually makes a good capsule a good capsule?

Theoretically, there would not be that much difference if the recordings were 'on-axis' ?

And for arguments sake, lets take reflections etc. out of the equation; like recording in a high quality sound booth /dry.

below is a 414 basic on/off axis response... there are huge differences in the EQ curve when off axis... is this a decent capsule because of the WAY the off axis relates to the on axis response? or is it other reasons SUCH as how the frequency response of its on axis 'sound' works with its off axis 'sound'?

So the 414 has is 'decent' off axis because it has good: phase response & sounds 'more natural' . Is this phase response due to the fact that when it is off axis there is a slight delay (the time it takes for the sound to hit the far side of the diaphragm as compared with the near side?) ...makes sense... AND the mic responds well to this phase delay.

So if I am understanding this - it is how the capsule responds to the phase not that the mic mixes the different phase responses in a pleasing way....

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniq...se-demystified
The number one over-riding factor in this is diaphragm size. The physics dictate that to a large extent. There are other factors that can matter, but size is the 1st order effect. Which is why I said earlier emulating one mic for another correcting for EQ, it will work more often if the size of the capsules are the same or similar.

It will work most simply with omni patterns. It will be more variable with cardioid patterns though again using the same size for emulation puts you closer.
Old 8th May 2019
  #60
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
I hate to say it... it is the first time I heard size matters.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump