| Mini massive M7 and K47 test [message #340623] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 11:10  |
 |
 Martin Kantola
Messages: 234
Registered: June 2005 |
Active Member |
|
|
Thought I'd do a little test at some point with the following capsules on the same body and grille, and then share the sound files with you people:
- Neumann Berlin PVC M7
- Gefell PVC M7
- Thiersch rebuilt PVC M7
- Thiersch built PE M7
- Dale Ulan built PE M7
- Wagner rebuilt PE M7
- Thiersch rebuilt K47
- Neumann K47
Please let me know if you have any suggestions for the test. Any ideas welcome. Might not have time before June to do this, but wanted to ask for some input now.
Martin
This message may have been edited by the moderator without my knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mini massive M7 and K47 test [message #340651 is a reply to message #340640 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 12:32  |
 |
Klaus Heyne
Messages: 2027
Registered: April 2004 |
Platinum Member |
|
|
Suggestions for the test?
Listen and let us know what you hear!
I am sceptical towards sound files, unless they are full-resolution, loss-less and uncompressed 44.1/16 or 24.
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks
www.GermanMasterworks.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mini massive M7 and K47 test [message #340728 is a reply to message #340623 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 16:29 |
hopsing
Messages: 12
Registered: November 2007 |
Member |
|
|
Hi
I always find it really difficult to hear subtle differences in microphones with a not 100 percent repeatable sound source. But the voice (And I think it is not sufficient to mike a speaker, where you could repeat the same phrase over and over), even with a trained singer, always changes a bit from take to take, and that masks a lot of differences.
It is interesting, that it seems to be easier for me to hear those subtle differences under a headphone while I speak myself into a microphone. I can immediatly relate to the way the mic reacts to my voice and that is something I can remember, even if it takes a little time before I can test another mic or a circuit change in the same mic. It is impossible for me to do the same thing with a recorded file, because I can hear only the differences in sound and not in the reaction to my voice. And that means there are simply to much variables.
The solution for me is, if I want to record the test files, that I put up a second microphone next to the one I am testing and that way I can always listen to the sound in relation to a mic where nothing changes. So I have a relative difference with much less variables.
Tobias
|
|
|
| Re: Mini massive M7 and K47 test [message #340752 is a reply to message #340623 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 17:14 |
kats
Messages: 598
Registered: September 2005 |
Gold Member |
|
|
My suggestion is to do a/b tests where it is the same performance on 2 mics.
First off use the best PVC M7 as the M7 standard (lets assume it's Geffel as the Neuman would probably be considerable older.
For example
Neumann Berlin PVC M7 VS. Gefell PVC M7
And then do a:
Thiersch rebuilt PVC M7 VS. a Gefell PVC M7
And forgo the Thiersch VS Neumann because there will already be a good inference and we can connect the dots. So basically you can do 1/3 the work and we can get something better out of it than separate performances. IME there is usually more difference in sound due to performance than otherwise when dealing with similar capsules.
Then you can do similar a/b tests using one capsule as the standard for the rest so we have some sort of reference point. the reference point is key IMO.
Tony Katsabanis
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mini massive M7 and K47 test [message #341117 is a reply to message #340772 ] |
Tue, 13 May 2008 18:53 |
Markus Sauschlager
Messages: 124
Registered: April 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria |
Active Member |
|
|
| Martin Kantola wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 18:10 |
Please let me know if you have any suggestions for the test. Any ideas welcome. Might not have time before June to do this, but wanted to ask for some input now.
Martin
|
I usually start a mic comparison by speaking into or/and playing acoustic guitar through the mic while monitoring through headphones. Almost always those first impressions remain valid.
However, I never trust myself initially as I fear that certain expectations could possibly bias my findings. So I record music played back through a speaker, maintaining always the same capsule position. For that test I found it very revealing to use music of many different styles and instrumentation (only high quality recordings of course).
After matching levels and exactly aligning the takes I can really A/B them. I found that very helpful to objectively compare how different frequency ranges and transients are processed as I always hear the identical sound source through each mic. Additionally you could do the same again but with the sound coming from a certain direction off axis. Although recording a speaker really is a compromise, this method usually gives me a quite good idea about the real world behaviour of a mic.
Recording a shaker (I use one of those cheap coloured plastic egg-shaped shakers) can also reveal impressive differences. I think it tells quite a bit about the phase response (some cheaper mics/capsules giving horrible results here)
Altough the recorded sound is more or less deteriorated, the big advantage is that one can listen to it again any time with fresh ears.
However I've only done comparisons for me personally and never to post them somewhere, so they are perfectly valid only for me as I know the room, instruments and signal chain.
It might be useful here to include a neutral high quality reference mic were the tolerances are usually very tight and which is well known, e.g. a Schoeps Colette series mic with MK4.
If you record a musician, s/he should always hear the reference mic in the phones while performing as the performance interacts with the sound of the mic (which in this case would be misleading). I would also use a very neutral signal chain with fast and true transient response.
I can't wait to hear the results!
Markus
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mini massive M7 and K47 test [message #341287 is a reply to message #340623 ] |
Wed, 14 May 2008 08:52 |
Huntlabs
Messages: 11
Registered: March 2008 |
Member |
|
|
Here is what I use for microphone preamp tests that I do. It is 100% repeatable.
I use my monitors as the sound source. I pick a stereo audio track, the one I use most is Jerry Douglas playing Hey Joe... Something with volume change, clarity, accents, vocals.... Use a comfortable volume level, mark it down / record the level.
I place the mics at the level of the tweeters at 72" / six feet away from the speakers. I direct the diaphragm, of each mic, at the speaker. For mono just keep it consistent. The point is to make it repeatable every time.
I play the original track, mute the recoded track, and record it by pressing play and leaving the room. In protools I note the mic / pattern / preamp I'm using.
The source is 100% repeatable and gives a base for comparing mics and preamps. I just spent an evening doing this with my Hamptone U47 mics and preamps, Great River, Hamptone JFET, Hamptone Tube etc.
When I get done I can push mute / un mute to bounce between tracks. Same performance, just different electronics. Takes out that element of not knowing if it was the electronics or the performance I like better!
John Huntsman
Portland, OR
|
|
|
| Re: Mini massive M7 and K47 test [message #341338 is a reply to message #341287 ] |
Wed, 14 May 2008 10:24 |
 |
Arf! Mastering
Messages: 775
Registered: June 2004
Location: New York City |
Gold Member |
|
|
In any test, repeatability is certainly important. Of greater importance, is a test signal whose content has the ability to demonstrate differences in the receiver. Using a speaker as a source can be flawed in that that coloration of the speaker will work for or against the coloration in the mic. Custom drivers are used as calibration sources in mic testing but, IMO, are not as valuable in making subjective judgements. Another big problem in subjective mic testing is level matching. Varying resonances in capsules or mic designs make perfect level matching nearly impossible. With all the variables that surround mic testing - bodies, capsules, positioning, performance differences, and how the pickup responds at the mixing stage, it seems that mic evaluation is more an art than a science.
"Large signals can actually be counterproductive. If I scream at you over the phone, you don’t hear me better. If I shine a bright light in your eyes, you don’t see better.”
Dr. C.T. Rubin, biomechanical engineer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording Engineering & Production: The nuts and bolts of making records better, not just louder and cheaper. Some of the brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio discuss the elements of audio production that interest you most.
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
