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 21st May 2019
  #91
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
If this worked, wouldn't tutorials about it be Audio 101? Wouldn't it be a sticky on the Newbie forum? Wouldn't the suggested EQ curves for "U87" and "251" and "C800g" be printed right on the box of every SM57?

Unless... you are the very first person to think of this idea?
Everyone knows you can not do it. The question is have you ever tried it? and did you get any USABLE experiences out of it. More positive intellectual people might say that 'yea I copy the high end of a so and so when I am at a loss for nailing this weird vocalist' and yes I got a few good results.
Old 21st May 2019
  #92
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Does this count as a Granelli its the best i could do... I only have one left... I guess you have to use a 57? but it sounds better than the WWll cone of silence mic.
Attached Thumbnails
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaa-ab-mic-broken-sm58.jpeg   Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaa-ab-mic-broken-sm58.jpeg   Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaaa-broken-sm-mic.jpg   Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaaaww2-mic-gas-mask.jpg  
Old 22nd May 2019
  #93
Lives for gear
 

Perfect "get up" to sing a cover of The Hollies, "The Air That I Breathe". Or simply, for normal every day use in L.A .
Chris
Old 22nd May 2019
  #94
Lives for gear
It's not worth it. The value of the better mic's is the transient and dynamic reponce for each frequency. Can't recover that with a bit of EQ. If you have very good transient responce, then you can get close with EQ to sounding like another mic. But you have to start with a good one, like an LDC.
Old 22nd May 2019
  #95
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Everyone knows you can not do it. The question is have you ever tried it?
have I ever applied EQ to an unsatisfactory microphone signal?
My EQs have the ability to boost or cut any frequency by whatever amount with a staggering number of possible curves. I have two things on the sides of my head that guide me into what knobs to turn and how far to turn them. It frankly would never occur to me to seek such a narrow, oddly specific crutch for this process.

Even when I am using a world-class mic, EQ is usually applied if the track needs it to fit into the mix.

Quote:
and did you get any USABLE experiences out of it.
again, if anyone had, don't you think it would already be a "thing"?

Quote:
More positive intellectual people might say that 'yea I copy the high end of a so and so when I am at a loss for nailing this weird vocalist' and yes I got a few good results.
? Just because someone doesn't give you an answer in the affirmative that you seem to be demanding, doesn't mean they are "negative" - much less 'unintellectual'.

Take a tip from this Negative Dumb Guy: Not everyone who tells you what you want to hear is your "friend".

Last edited by joeq; 22nd May 2019 at 03:31 AM..
Old 22nd May 2019
  #96
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
have I ever applied EQ to an unsatisfactory microphone signal?
My EQs have the ability to boost or cut any frequency by whatever amount with a staggering number of possible curves. I have two things on the sides of my head that guide me into what knobs to turn and how far to turn them. It frankly would never occur to me to seek such a narrow, oddly specific crutch for this process.

Even when I am using a world-class mic, EQ is usually applied if the track needs it to fit into the mix.


again, if anyone had, don't you think it would already be a "thing"?


? Just because someone doesn't give you an answer in the affirmative that you seem to be demanding, doesn't mean they are "negative" - much less 'unintellectual'.

Take a tip from this Negative Dumb Guy: Not everyone who tells you what you want to hear is your "friend".
You seem to jump on threads of questions YOU don't like, so its obvious you want to troll some. Seen it from you many times. I have no need to prove who I am... I looks like you do. I hope you feel better... tc gl
Old 25th May 2019
  #97
I'd say don't focus on getting the sound of whatever famous mic unless you're buying it or a clone of it, but rather EQ to get the sound you want. Let's assume you record into a Behringer B2 Pro. You can cut the highs to make it flat to try to get a U87 sound (I'm saying this because it uses a K67 capsule), but then you might also want to EQ that new sound as well. So rather than doing that, EQ to get the right sound for your project from the get go.
Old 25th May 2019
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post

Mostly for stage use...

RE510
PR35
RE10
AE3300
AKG C5
Heil Classic


...then:

Kel HM-7u
Kel HM-1
MXL v69g
Stedman N-90

Not industry standards so much as a wide collection of colors....



-tINY

It's been a while since I've owned the V67G (I think it's been almost a year and a half), so I'm gonna ask what voices it suits well. Also what voices do the Kels suit?
Old 25th May 2019
  #99
Gear Nut
 
georgehenderson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
It's not worth it. The value of the better mic's is the transient and dynamic reponce for each frequency.
Exactly...the frequency response is (if not extremely distorted) less important.
A very good mic is defined by its transient and dynamic response and not by its frequency response.

Just look at the Brauner microphones for example, they are SO bright, when I first heard the Phantom Classic my ears just fell off.
But the transient response was really good and that was the point.

You can improve the transient response with a transient shaping plug-in but you never will reach the quality of a very good mic.
Old 25th May 2019
  #100
Lives for gear
 

In other words...
The microphone with good transient response,
will never bum you out.
Chris
Old 25th May 2019
  #101
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgehenderson View Post
Exactly...the frequency response is (if not extremely distorted) less important.
A very good mic is defined by its transient and dynamic response and not by its frequency response.

Just look at the Brauner microphones for example, they are SO bright, when I first heard the Phantom Classic my ears just fell off.
But the transient response was really good and that was the point.

You can improve the transient response with a transient shaping plug-in but you never will reach the quality of a very good mic.
Except a microphone's transient response is defined by its frequency response. I've seen this noted, and then summarily ignored on GS plenty of times. So I am sure it will be mostly ignored again. Just worth sticking in here so somebody might see it.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #102
Lives for gear
 
s wave'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

I have never used a SR-20 --- very flat response... is that a very small diaphragm (relatively)? and is that what really helps with the neutrality of the response? thx
Old 2 weeks ago
  #103
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
I have never used a SR-20 --- very flat response... is that a very small diaphragm (relatively)? and is that what really helps with the neutrality of the response? thx
Very flat, diaphragm is 9mm apparently, which is tiny. I don't think that in itself has anything to do with the frequency response.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #104
Gear Guru
Keep in mind transient response can work for or against you. Some of the smooth classic mics have a great way of rounding them off. A mic is like an instrument so it's a very personal choice. You can't work with what you don't have and that is an absolute.....

Great singers will work the mic so if they can't hear what it's doing on a certain level they can't sing into it. It's tough with a mic. I'll go to a store and play every guitar I can get my hands on to see what clicks. GS can be very helpful to point you in the right direction but in my experience, intellectualizing a theory to fit a gear choice never really works. You spend to much time justifying why you "thought" you were right.....
Old 2 weeks ago
  #105
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dohreetoh View Post
Very flat, diaphragm is 9mm apparently, which is tiny. I don't think that in itself has anything to do with the frequency response.
Thanks much -
Old 1 week ago
  #106
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
I have never used a SR-20 --- very flat response... is that a very small diaphragm (relatively)? and is that what really helps with the neutrality of the response? thx
I have an Earthworks SR-20. It is a very nice microphone. They claim it has a reduced proximity effect which it does. They also claim it provides much closer to a perfect cardioid pattern which it may. The proximity effect seems to start further away, and actually never turns into a low end boost. Right on top of it you get maybe flat response or close in the low end. So from a bit away like a foot it can sound a bit lean vs most cards. From say 500 hz down. Keep that in mind however and it does sound very nice, and clear and accurate. It is terrific for female vocals.
Attached Thumbnails
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-earthworks-sr20-response.png   Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-earthworks-sr20-impulse-polar.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #107
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
Except a microphone's transient response is defined by its frequency response. I've seen this noted, and then summarily ignored on GS plenty of times. So I am sure it will be mostly ignored again. Just worth sticking in here so somebody might see it.


You've touched on part of the problem. There are some issues.

1) The full frequency response does tell you (mostly) what the transient response is. But, most people don't know how to interpret the phase curve - if it's given at all.

2) There are parts of the microphone response which are not minimum-phase phenomena. So, while they are linear and repeatable, these are not well defined by a gain/phase Bode plot.

3) Non-linearities of the response are not described at all by a small-signal analysis. In fact, the IMD that adds something special to a lot of those LDC mics is nearly impossible to measure well.



-tINY

Old 1 week ago
  #108
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
I have never used a SR-20 --- very flat response... is that a very small diaphragm (relatively)? and is that what really helps with the neutrality of the response? thx

Yes. Small, tight transducers typically have more neutral responses... You do get a bit more noise. And, sometimes, the sample area is so small that bass response is reduced a bit.

Where EW mics are particularly good is the acoustic design of the mic body.



-tINY

Old 1 week ago
  #109
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
I have an Earthworks SR-20. It is a very nice microphone. They claim it has a reduced proximity effect which it does. They also claim it provides much closer to a perfect cardioid pattern which it may. The proximity effect seems to start further away, and actually never turns into a low end boost. Right on top of it you get maybe flat response or close in the low end. So from a bit away like a foot it can sound a bit lean vs most cards. From say 500 hz down. Keep that in mind however and it does sound very nice, and clear and accurate. It is terrific for female vocals.
Thanks much - enlightening.
Old 1 week ago
  #110
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post


You've touched on part of the problem. There are some issues.

1) The full frequency response does tell you (mostly) what the transient response is. But, most people don't know how to interpret the phase curve - if it's given at all.

2) There are parts of the microphone response which are not minimum-phase phenomena. So, while they are linear and repeatable, these are not well defined by a gain/phase Bode plot.

3) Non-linearities of the response are not described at all by a small-signal analysis. In fact, the IMD that adds something special to a lot of those LDC mics is nearly impossible to measure well.



-tINY

Are you saying that the tests - and the 'evaluation' of tests are very good in certain areas but not good in others. (repeatable vs non repeatable maybe) (2d graph vs 3d graph maybe) - Moving on... I am struggling a bit when they say "transfer functions with right half plane singularities" could you shed any light on what this means (this is not making sense to me)
Is this the microphone or the testing system stability or overall stability of useful results... - any insight would greatly help thx
Old 1 week ago
  #111
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post

Yes. Small, tight transducers typically have more neutral responses... You do get a bit more noise. And, sometimes, the sample area is so small that bass response is reduced a bit.

Where EW mics are particularly good is the acoustic design of the mic body.



-tINY

So the 'basic' trade off for for getting better neutrality (vs color) is a small amount of noise... do you think this etched in stone? thx
Old 1 week ago
  #112
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
... I am struggling a bit when they say "transfer functions with right half plane singularities" could you shed any light on what this means (this is not making sense to me)
http://pilot.cnxproject.org/content/.../m10556/latest

Start here. If the idea of Z-transforms is intimidating, think of it in terms of real current/voltage on the x-axis and energy stored in capacitors and inductors on the y-axis.....

Good luck - I never got to a place where these things are intuitive to me.



-tINY

Old 1 week ago
  #113
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
So the 'basic' trade off for for getting better neutrality (vs color) is a small amount of noise... do you think this etched in stone? thx

It's physics....

Noise is pretty constant for a given bandwidth and impedance. The issue with the small diaphragm is that you get less signal. So, the signal-to-noise ratio is worse.



-tINY

Old 1 week ago
  #114
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post
http://pilot.cnxproject.org/content/.../m10556/latest

Start here. If the idea of Z-transforms is intimidating, think of it in terms of real current/voltage on the x-axis and energy stored in capacitors and inductors on the y-axis.....

Good luck - I never got to a place where these things are intuitive to me.



-tINY

THATS what I am talking about - YOU need to write a book or something... I understand that... all of it.. If a 'layman can explain a difficult theory - that's paydirt.. thank you for your time and thank you more for the great answer!!
Old 1 week ago
  #115
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post



3) Non-linearities of the response are not described at all by a small-signal analysis. In fact, the IMD that adds something special to a lot of those LDC mics is nearly impossible to measure well.



-tINY

So are you saying some revered LDC mics are liked for their IMD qualities, as in an additive coloration? OR a preferred sort of mojo?

Or are you saying instead the really good LDC's don't have much in the way of IMD?
Old 1 week ago
  #116
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
So are you saying some revered LDC mics are liked for their IMD qualities, as in an additive coloration? OR a preferred sort of mojo?

Or are you saying instead the really good LDC's don't have much in the way of IMD?

I believe the "air" on some of the favored LDCs comes from IMD in the upper register - especially on transients.




-tINY

Old 1 week ago
  #117
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post

I believe the "air" on some of the favored LDCs comes from IMD in the upper register - especially on transients.




-tINY

Do you think that some of the revered LDCs create this through (some kind of 'phasing out') of dissonance/distorion or amping/boosting the 'good supportive' transients (IMD sounds). [man language is tuff here] and do you think it was originally engineered or found by trial an error, This is most interesting.
Old 1 week ago
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
IMD being “itermodulation distortion”, correct?

Been following and can’t find where ya’ll define IMD.

Simple yes or no is all that’s needed.
Old 1 week ago
  #119

IMD is, indeed, Intermodulation distortion.

This happens in both vacuum tubes and FETs.



-tINY

Old 1 week ago
  #120
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post

IMD is, indeed, Intermodulation distortion.

This happens in both vacuum tubes and FETs.


-tINY

I’m familiar with it. How about inductors? I have some inductor graphic EQ’s that add a silkiness to the upper registers. Say 8k and up.
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