Topic: Your recommendation on best Large diaphragm microphone under $1000

[gusbud1]

gusbud1, I promise not to argue with you, but would simply like to know what you imagine you will gain with large-diaphragm microphones. They work best when the predominant sound energy reaches them on axis (e.g. close-miking of soloists) since they don't--and physically, can't possibly--have similar frequency response off-axis as on-axis.

In live concert taping at anywhere near normal distances, more of the sound reaches the microphones from off-axis than on-axis. Thus very few professional recording engineers would (or, in fact, do) make such a choice. Perhaps you are very well aware of all these things; I really am asking the question out of curiosity.

--best regards

I primarily use the large-diaphragm in a 3 mic mix to bring a little warmth a little bass and a little openness to the mix.  I agree I am not going to get the same amount of detail taping from the SBD vs. miking something up close, but I have the earthworks to gather all the detail I need.  Plus, I was thinking it would be nice to have a pair of large diaphragm mics for the very reason you state, miking something up close if ever needed. 

[DSatz]

gusbud1, many thanks for your reply. I completely understand what you're saying, even though I would disagree about certain assumptions that you make. But the whole point of a hobby is to follow your own inclinations and see where they lead you. That's even a big part of stuff that isn't a hobby. More power to you, and may your cables always be just long enough.

--Javier, just to clarify, the things you've observed are more a function of single- vs. dual-diaphragm microphones than small vs. large. This is easy to confuse since most dual-diaphragm microphones are large (and most large condenser microphones are dual-diaphragm), while most single-diaphragm microphones are small (and most small condenser microphones are single-diaphragm). But there are a few exceptions which can let us see which factor is really making the difference.

In general, the pattern of a dual-diaphragm cardioid microphone typically spreads out at the lowest frequencies, becoming a wide cardioid--which is undoubtedly where the reputation of large microphones having "warmer" or "better" bass comes from. A larger diaphragm is no help in picking up longer sound wavelengths--though I gather some people think that it "naturally" or "obviously" should offer an advantage. (It doesn't, and there is no actual reason why it should.)

Getting back to reality, a single-diaphragm cardioid that is well designed can keep a real cardioid pattern down to 50 Hz or even below--and this characteristic isn't limited to small-diaphragm designs. In the attached picture file, the polar diagram on the left is for the low-frequency range of the Neumann TLM 103 (single-diaphragm cardioid), while on the right is the low-frequency range for the dual-diaphragm Neumann TLM 127 in its cardioid setting. As you can see, the TLM 127's pattern spreads out at the lowest frequencies in a way that the TLM 103's pattern hardly does at all.

These are both large-diaphragm microphones; in fact the design of the TLM 127's capsule was based on TLM 103's, and their overall dimensions are nearly identical, so this is a revealing comparison.

--best regards

[mmedley.]

In live concert taping at anywhere near normal distances, more of the sound reaches the microphones from off-axis than on-axis. Thus very few professional recording engineers would (or, in fact, do) make such a choice. Perhaps you are very well aware of all these things; I really am asking the question out of curiosity.

Pardon me for butting in, but what characteristics will a LD mic exhibit in higher vs. lower SPL environments at the same (not close) distance? Any noticeable differences? Just curious. Not planning on LD's, but was curious about your statements above vs. what I have listened to on recordings of rock shows with various mics such as Neumann u89's, usm69's, etc. Just coincidence?

[Jimna]

great thread, very interesting read.

[DSatz]

mmedley. asked:

> what characteristics will a LD mic exhibit in higher vs. lower SPL environments at the same (not close) distance? Any noticeable differences?

Are you asking what difference a large diaphragm makes at both extremes of the microphone's dynamic range? I'm not sure what your reference to recording distance means, since that's not really a factor in dynamic range (except in a boundary case where proximity effect might conceivably cause the electronics of a mike to overload).

--best regards

[Javier Cinakowski]

Thanks for the info about single vs double diaphram.  That makes sense... 

[DSatz]

mshilarious, I rather doubt that the whole difference in those two maximum SPL specifications is due to the difference in capsule size. For one thing, the larger Shure KSM microphones have what might be called mid-sized diaphragms (ca. 3/4" across) rather than what would normally be called "large" (ca. 1 inch diameter for the active area).

Do you know for a fact that their circuitry is absolutely identical? That would be a little unusual if so. But even then the real point is the capacitance of the capsules--which is proportional to area only when the spacing is the same--and again I'm not certain that we can assume identical spacing between the diaphragm and the backplate in two rather different capsule designs. The KSM 141 in particular has Shure's mechanically switchable two-pattern capsule--a rather unique invention if you discount the fact that Schoeps has been producing such capsules since the 1950s under their own patent ...

--best regards

[beanstalk]

busman has some LD's coming... I'm sure they'll be very affordable.