How good are today's microphones at capturing air pushed by the music?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Very, very good. The caveat is that a mic collection is like a set of Golf clubs. There's one that will do the job better than another and that one in turn can be used in an infinite number of ways. There's a funny saying about the value of golf equipment vis-a-vis players. "It's the Indian that matters, not the Arrows". I think the same can be said for mics and recordists and for that matter things like cameras and lenses for photographers, etc. etc.
They are quite brilliant, in my opinion. And that goes for all mics, stretching right back to the dawn of recording history. I am continually amazed at how much information was picked up by even the earliest examples, they are and were much, much better at doing this than systems are at reproducing it, at the moment. Which means that people will have a real feast of all this good capture of air movement down the track, when really decent playback is finally sorted out ...
Frank
Frank
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
I don't think we have a problem with today's mics. Like Jack said, you just need to choose the right one for the job and ALSO the matching mic-pre. The problem with mic pres is that by the time you've reached the proper gain for the recording, the noise floor starts creeping in.
Thanks, Bruce. I am completely ignorant of the recording chain. Can you please explain what the mic-pre is and how the noise floor starts creeping in?
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Think of the microphone as a phono cartridge. You need a phono preamp to increase the gain enough so a preamp can handle the signal. The same goes for a microphone. It needs a preamp to step up the voltage so you have enough gain to record. Dynamics and expecially ribbons have such low output, you need a mic pre with at least 70dB gain. If your mic pre doesn't have enough gain, it's own noise starts showing up in the signal path.
Happy to oblige, caesar. This is not generally welcome news around here, but the majority of systems fail by a very significant margin to reproduce anywhere near as good as they're capable of. I have referred to this many, many times in numerous posts but the feedback (that word again!) is that most are relatively uninterested, or disbelieving of such things.
A very few have achieved this quality level, and the quite marvellous thing that occurs is that even nominally very poor recordings can be played at high, correct for the musical event, volume levels without fatigue or unease, and all sorts of fine detail that normally is missed, is revealed to have been captured very, very clearly. A remarkable example is Nellie Melba, recorded around 1912, there is a piano accompanying her way in the background: that piano tone is spot on, sounds better than audiophile recordings I have, and the acoustic of the space around that piano is perfectly revealed. Considering the technology of the day, it's quite amazing ...
Frank
I don't see how anyone can say mikes are good when it's commonly accepted that they lose 20-25 pct of the information. Not to mention all the tradeoffs that exist between size of the diaghram, etc.
Bruce hit the nail on the head when he said you have to pick and choose the right mike for the right situation eg. vocals, drums, cymbals, etc.
Bruce hit the nail on the head when he said you have to pick and choose the right mike for the right situation eg. vocals, drums, cymbals, etc.
Was it the mic or the associated equipment? I make my statement based on the fact that as the equipment gets better we keep discovering more and more info on those old records.. YMMV
Mikes
One good book that I found on microphones that highly recommend:
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=bartlett+microphones+book&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1040&bih=892&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=12865690774422061641&sa=X&ei=zcCUTszALYbx0gGVufjfBw&ved=0CF4Q8wIwAA
This one's not too shabby either
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=bartlett+microphones+book&hl=en&cid=297588431079784781&ei=-cCUTpvSNY3AMpXr1I4B&ved=0CB8QrRI
That's equivalent to saying they suffer from 25% distortion. Is that what the books are really stating?
Frank
What are we talking about then? Distortion means that the output doesn't match the input in some fashion, so are you saying that some aspects of the sound doesn't even get to the input, the mic's diaphragm?
Frank
I'm still confused. Is it because of what Greg said, that the sound is at right angles to the diaphragm say, or is there some sort of gating process going on, that below a certain pressure level the mics don't pick up, a sort of inverse clipping?
Frank
