What can you tell me about condenser microphones?

[adama99]

Accuracy, avoiding noise, making one sound a certain way, they are all valid points of view.

Absolutely. It all depends on the goals of the musician/singer/speaker and their audio engineer.

Going back to headphones for a moment, some prefer a strong conformance to the Harman curve, while others prefer Diffuse Field or something closer to flat / neutral. That goal determines which headphones you might consider as a starting point.

It's similar with microphones. For instance, here's that same Warm Audio 47jr in Omni mode.

There's no bass roll-off below 100 Hz, and the response is much more flat through about 8 kHz. So if I were trying to mic a piano or acoustic guitar rather than a vocal, this would be a better starting point than cardioid mode (which has a boost centered around 4 kHz intended for vocals).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Maybe you're right on the first point. I don't know. I'd be cool if 3rd parties fact checked their specs though. I personally haven't seen people do that, but maybe I missed them?

As for the second point, I can understand why most people want the things they want. But maybe you can understand why it's frustrating when it feels like most people don't share my view (and so it's not a priority for mic makers). Accuracy, avoiding noise, making one sound a certain way, they are all valid points of view.

I think their basic specs are more reliable than most believe for microphones with the caveat they do use at least some smoothing.

I've taken a Umik-1, and measured a loudspeaker. Then replaced it with lots of different microphones putting the diaphragm in exactly the same position as close as I can. I used the published response graphs to create a correction curve. When I did that the results all lay very nearly right on top of each other when graphed out.

As to why they don't all go for flat there are plenty of reasons that make sense once you understand recordings are about creating a simulcrum of the real event or even creating a simulcrum of an unreal event. Not about recreating the actual event, not about accuracy. This was a big ah ha moment for me in doing recordings.

Somewhere over on gearspace.com they have dozens of different microphones where they recorded vocals and instruments and a mix. Sure enough some of the flatter microphones sound more real to you when listening to voice alone. However when listening to a mix of a few instruments and the voice the voice seems to get lost a little bit among all the sound. Vocal mics with the upper midrange bump which are said to cut thru the mix sound much better. In comparison listening the flat vocal mics sound off, and the mics that bump up the upper midrange sound much more like you think a voice sounds when it is part of a mix of instruments. Not a result you would have expected.

It is possibly true you could EQ the flat mic for the same needs, but historically in recording this aspect was adjusted by picking a non-flat mic that gave the result you wanted. In terms of workflow that is simpler and more reliable. As people's voice varies then various non-flat mics are suitable for different voices. So vocalists want to find a mic that works for their voice.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks for the input. What is bad about sdc capsules?
The Yeti is just a large microphone and its shock mount is even larger. Makes me want to get something new, and in a better color. Maybe AT2035, but it lacks omnidirectional mode. Lower self noise, but is the self noise on a Yeti audible? Now I want to check...

Probably high self noise. If you look at the Blue Yeti specs, they list everything except self noise. Makes me think it is rather high. Still may be fine for the use you have in mind. Also they are using 3 cardioid capsules to create combinations of the various patterns. At the price point they probably have to be using rather low end capsules I would think.

More info here:

Blue Microphones Yeti | RecordingHacks.com

Yeti, Multi-Pattern Condenser Stereo Microphone - detailed microphone profile, specifications, manuals, reviews, frequency-response graphs, self-noise data

recordinghacks.com

This is how the three cardioid capsules are arranged inside the Yeti.

 

[BoredErica]

Probably high self noise. If you look at the Blue Yeti specs, they list everything except self noise. Makes me think it is rather high. Still may be fine for the use you have in mind. Also they are using 3 cardioid capsules to create combinations of the various patterns. At the price point they probably have to be using rather low end capsules I would think.

More info here:

Blue Microphones Yeti | RecordingHacks.com

Yeti, Multi-Pattern Condenser Stereo Microphone - detailed microphone profile, specifications, manuals, reviews, frequency-response graphs, self-noise data

recordinghacks.com

This is how the three cardioid capsules are arranged inside the Yeti.

I suspect that a bit as well, hence my original comment about noise. I couldn't compare self noise of At2035 to Blue Yeti because I couldn't find self noise specs for the Blue Yeti.

 

[Robin L]

Maybe you're right on the first point. I don't know. I'd be cool if 3rd parties fact checked their specs though. I personally haven't seen people do that, but maybe I missed them?

As for the second point, I can understand why most people want the things they want. But maybe you can understand why it's frustrating when it feels like most people don't share my view (and so it's not a priority for mic makers). Accuracy, avoiding noise, making one sound a certain way, they are all valid points of view.

Fact is, just about anyone who hears their voice from a recording doesn't like the sound they hear. I'm simply speaking from personal experience.

 

[thefsb]

For me, it's only natural to want my speakers to play back music as accurately as possible. I also want my voice to sound as close to talking to me IRL as possible. I definitely don't want my voice to be deeper because it makes me sound 'professional' or something. I don't want to sound better than I actually sound, I want to sound like how I actually sound.

I understand exactly what you mean. For me the primary reason for seeking neutrality is simplicity and I would like to apply the same pragmatics to production. But I've accepted that it doesn't really work, not without investments and inconveniences (iso booths and calibrated mics etc.) I'm unwilling to make and that won't necessarily serve my ultimate purposes any better. So I'm resigned to the standard engineering practice of scientifically-informed trial-and-error.

If what you want is a mic to use for your spoken voice, a headset mic is worth considering. It allows you to move around a bit and you can get a much higher ratio of direct signal to reflected than a lavaliere. That's a huge win assuming you are in a typically reflective room. Then adjust the position of the mic carefully to get the best trade-offs of signal strength, pops, esses, and proximity effect. If you can eq the signal then you can compensate for the latter but doing so adds complexity to things like video conference software. I've used a Shure SM35 quite a lot and does a decent job for the $$s.

Listen to a several different specified microphones with male spoken voice in the first couple of minutes of "Phantomspeisung" von Felix Kubin.

Listen to my voice using the SM35 in conversation with Felix and Gavin in A Round of drinks with Felix Kubin, in which Felix us using a quality LDC in a treated studio, and Gavin is using a cheap headset and is sitting too close to the corner of the room in which his computer is located. I used eq, multi-band compression on my and Gav's voice and dynamic leveling across all three.

 

[thefsb]

As to why they don't all go for flat there are plenty of reasons that make sense once you understand recordings are about creating a simulcrum of the real event or even creating a simulcrum of an unreal event. Not about recreating the actual event, not about accuracy.

Recorded sound is artifice. And I believe we're better off accepting that as axiomatic.

 

[thefsb]

I remember seeing a video of a recording of Psappha, a composition for solo percussion by Xenakis. (There are plenty on the tubes of you but I didn't see the one I was thinking of.) The engineer had set up a huge array of different mics into a multi-track recorder. This allows selection of the mic after the performance. It also allowed the engineer to blend signals of multiple mics.

It's very interesting to consider philosophical questions around transparency and neutrality by comparing that recording to a purist, minimal two-track approach like that of Waterlily Acoustics.

EDIT: Actually the piece may have been one of the Rebonds, not Psappha.

 

[Lambda]

In every microphone thread there is always the one .... arguing "But a dynamic microphone pics up less Noise because its less sensitive"

Less output != more selective.

Ok do this thought experiment yourself.
Remove the magnet from a Dynamic microphone and the voltage from condenser microphone.
So they are no longer Dynamic or Condenser just a membrane Reacting to the sound pressure.
How the membrane Deflection is sensed has now influence on what makes the Membrane deflect.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Thanks for the input. What is bad about sdc capsules?

Aside from self-noise levels, the most common trait of cheap ones is weak low end, which is plainly obvious in the FR specs here (X/Y is reasonably flat, but all other patterns start dropping around 200 Hz, omni is even worse and graced with peaky treble to boot; cardioid is comparable to the AT2035 with lowcut engaged). Peculiar midrange colorations come as a bonus (note how all responses show a 1 kHz bump and 2 kHz dip), though those may partially be a result of the general design and not the capsules themselves.

It's kind of hard to fault the Yeti for what it is (a bazillion patterns and USB audio for a relatively modest price), but it is clearly a "Jack of all trades, master of none" type product. If a fixed cardioid in a phantom-powered mic for a single sound source is all you really need, you can do substantially better in the same price bracket.