Different microphones

[kc2ifr]

I ran across this site. I think the site has been posted here before but this section is new.
U can listen to the sound of different mics and hear the difference. I found it VERY interesting. Although some of the mics we am'ers use are not demonstrated, some are.
http://www.coutant.org/allmics/index.html

Bill

[K6IC]

Hi Bill,

WOW !  This has been a great site without the sound clips of each mic,  but now it is amazin' !

Had thought from time-to-time,  that the AM Fone  site could use a Microphone Topic,  with some general info from those who know much more than I about the subject of mic selection.

Thanks a lot for the link.   This guy has spent a lotta time on his site.
73  Happy Fourth.    Vic

[kc2ifr]

Yup......its amazing to hear the difference between mics....

Thanks,
Bill

[W1FRM]

Great Site Bill! Thanks for posting it.

[W1AEX]

Nice find Bill! I love the sound of the Shure 55 Unidyne. It seemed like every school I worked in used some variation of those for their morning announcements over the school-wide PA system. When some poor kid got called to the office, it always sounded like a thundering summons from the Spanish Inquisition.

I didn't see the Radio Shack $2.79 electret element in the coutant.org archives. Must be just a temporary oversight!

[w1vtp]

Great site, Bill.  My EV Re15 compares favorably with the 20, 27.  I'll have to put it on the air soon.  I like the 27's presence.  Didn't notice any Heil mics

Al

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

You'll learn far more about how these mics will sounds on the air by taking your compuker EQ setting and cutting off everything about about 4 kHz and below 80-100 Hz. Add in some white noise to complete the effect.

[kc2ifr]

Steve,
Not sure what u want to prove..............
U obviously are trying to make  something that fits your opinions.........has NOTHING to do with the raw sounds of the mics.
The sounds of the mics  speak for themselves........they dont need any help from the MSDS folks.

Bill

Steve..............
Your advise is fine..........BUT............before u eq the shit out of your audio.......the audio must have the qualities needed to support the eq settings.


Steve....I see your email is hidden.........hmmmmmm
I would love to talk to u about this..........
I dont hide anything about me...............
Call me at 518.798 1214 if u have the balls......

[W1FRM]

You'll learn far more about how these mics will sounds on the air by taking your compuker EQ setting and cutting off everything about about 4 kHz and below 80-100 Hz. Add in some white noise to complete the effect.

Steve:  What you say is indeed correct, but in my opinion misses the point entirely.  Whoever built this wonderful web site purposely made the recording and playback as transparent as he possibly could.  He did this to demonstrate the differences of among the microphones ONLY!  In this, I believe that the creator of this data was both successful and thorough.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would critiicize such an effort.

73 ......... W1FRM

[kc2ifr]

Steve........Im waiting for a phone call.......



Bill

[kc2ifr]

Im still waiting to talk to Steve............
But I am sure that the MSDS folks will delete this post.

[flintstone mop]

Peace, love and understanding.

Nice mircrophone site Bill. For us Ham folks a nice response that brightens up the mids and highs help for those rough conditions. My favorite was the AKG 200D.

It's not always arm chair copy.

Fred

[WA3VJB]

I enjoyed some of the old magazine advertisements.

The Electro-Voice 635A has been around for 40 years now and it's still one of the most popular mics for voice material. I bought my first one 30+ years ago brand new from a broadcast supply house. The case is all beat-to-szht but it still sounds great.

[kb3ouk]

Fred, what kind of mic do you use during your show on WBCQ? I always thought it had a really good bass to it.
Shelby KB3OUK

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

No criticism. My point is that on the air we only have a limited bandwidth. Most of the mics on that site will differ only in the frequency extremes, not in the portion of the spectrum we use on the air.

It's a great resource for studio/home recording but not necessarily for picking a mic to use on the air.

You'll learn far more about how these mics will sounds on the air by taking your compuker EQ setting and cutting off everything about about 4 kHz and below 80-100 Hz. Add in some white noise to complete the effect.

Steve:  What you say is indeed correct, but in my opinion misses the point entirely.  Whoever built this wonderful web site purposely made the recording and playback as transparent as he possibly could.  He did this to demonstrate the differences of among the microphones ONLY!  In this, I believe that the creator of this data was both successful and thorough.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would critiicize such an effort.

73 ......... W1FRM

[Ralph W3GL]

Hey, there's my American "DR332" I use daily.  Also have an American "D8" (50 ohm output).

[flintstone mop]

Shelby
You would be shocked if I told you that it's one of those $99 Marshall "condenser" mics.
The EQ of WBCQ is set for a real muddy bass and another boost around 4khz......to make a cassette tape sound like a million dollars.
Sooo, I counter the EQ settings at home with something that looks like an ant hill. (gentle slopes)  I cut almost -15dB everything under 80hz and everything around 4 khz and very little compression. It sounds like music now. The TX audio is louder because I'm not hitting their limiters with my hi-fi, heavily processed, rock music.
The songs have an ending (they fade out)
Sorry for the rant, I'm just an old P&M type.

Now back to Bill's microphone thread.

Steve is right, though. The differences were very subtle. Kinda like the personality of people.

Fred

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

That's a cool mic Ralph. Yours is the only one I've heard.

Hey, there's my American "DR332" I use daily.  Also have an American "D8" (50 ohm output).

[kc2ifr]

It's a great resource for studio/home recording but not necessarily for picking a mic to use on the air.

Steve,
I will say it again, in general frequency response is only PART of story. Just because a mic might be flat from  20 to 20K doesnt mean you will use that bandwidth on the air. The portion of the response one is interested it is just as important.........
Anyone who listens to the mics tested Im sure can hear the difference in the "coloration" that some mics introduce to the human voice. This is true for any mic no mater what it is being used for.
Im surprised at your post also.............
Its funny how some folks can make a mountain out of a mole hill............I think it might be a case of "trying to rain on someones parade"............

Having worked in the recording industry and having to select a particular mic for a specific task......at least half the time frequency response had nothing to do with it.

Bill
 

[David, K3TUE]

Now, I feel bad.  I've known about this site for a while and never shared it because I just figured everyone already knew about it.

[kc2ifr]

BTW Steve,
I would love to talk to u on the fone about this......
Im still waiting for that fone call.......

Bill

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

My point is that when you consider the small frequency range we use on the air, almost any good mic is going to sound good and +/- a small amount of eq will sound the same. I've used 4-5 different mics over the past few years without making any announcements. No one ever noticed. That's my experience and my opinion. Just because it's different than yours Bill does not mean I'm raining on your parade. Only you choose to look at it that way. I choose to look at it as a discussion - the very purpose of this board. Take it or leave it.

[kc2ifr]

I choose to look at it as a discussion - the very purpose of this board. Take it or leave it.

Your correct Steve,
I guess sometimes one has to take the good and the bad

[steve_qix]

A few comments:  First, I found the site very interesting, and the recording was interesting as well.  I could predict some of the mic's sounds - for instance, the difference between the RE20 and the RE27 was as expected, etc.  Some of the mics really had some noticable peaks... others were quite "transparent".

As for us AMers, scant few stations actually have a flat enough phase response, frequency response and sufficiently low distortion for subtle microphone differences to be noticable on the air....

_HOWEVER_

A few do.  There are a number of stations with frequency response flat from single numbers to 10kHz - and with low distortion.  With these stations, if you have an equally good receiver as is the transmitter and audio system, small changes in the audio quality or response from what is "normal" for the particular station and operator are noticable.

The "beauty", in this case is in the EARS of the beholder.... what is put in front of your ears - the ability to properly reproduce what is transmitted is, of course, up to the individual.

But, suffice to say, at least at my operating position, the difference between, say, an RE16 and an RE20 would be rather noticable, as is the difference between a B1 and an RE20....when transmitted using high quality equipment.  Your actual mileage may vary... Now, if we could just get the "ear bleed net" to do something about THEIR audio.. wouldn't THAT be nice?   

In any event, that mic site is a good find!  Hope he adds more mics like the B1, etc.

[kc2ifr]

Tnx for the response Steve........
My reason for the post was to let folks hear what different mics sound like without any eq or without any restrictions imposed by the users transmitter. Not all AMers restrict there audio to 300 to 3kc or whatever as u well know. Again if u know what the audio sounds like at the output of the mic.......u can do what u want it. If u like it.......fine. Some mics on the site sound terrible and no amount of eq will help. My other point is that I know of no other place or url where one can hear these comparisons.
I quess at least on this BB the road to hell is paved with good intentions