Here is a question:
Of course, most pro recordings use condensers. Condensers are great, but they also have some "issues", relative to dynamic mics. First, dynamics are more robust, and many condensers are relatively fragile. Second, with condensers, one needs to be careful regarding mechanical motion of the cables (such as tapping on the cable), to avoid "thump" sounds. That is because a cable has capacitance, and when charged to 48VDC, you tap it, the capacitance changes for a moment, which generates a voltage "spike".
The above weaknesses seem to me to be more of an issue for portable applications, while dynamics offer robust operation with fewer issues. Yes, of course the condenser yields more output, and very often better response, but there are a few dynamics out there that are pretty nice. So is the majority using condensers? That would be my guess, but I do not really know.
Regards
Dan Lavry
Dan:
I think you are correct on the "more output, and very often better response" observation. Although, I have seen some good recordings made with dynamics.
When I stepped into this hobby I took a completely non-technical approach to my choice in mics. I listened to a bunch of recordings made with many different mics, and picked out something that sounded good to my ears. I think that's the way a lot of people here choose gear. Over several decades I think this community has gravitated to certain brands/models because they've heard great recordings made with them. Simple as that. If it sounds good, it is good...and we'll lug a bigger battery around for phantom to get that sound we're looking for.
Shock mounts go a long way towards reducing the thumps that you mentioned. I've had drunks grab my mic stand to catch their balance and never heard it on play back (Sabra's SSM-1).
--Michael
Am not "for" or "against" condensers. dynamic or ribbons. My post was an inquiry of what is being most used in portable settings. The more "stationary" applications is almost completely based on condensers, and I suspect that the main reason for it (not the only reason) is the higher output level. Of course it does not come "free", because the condenser requires an energy source (other then the sound air vibrations) . The dynamic and ribbon mics do not, so I thought it possible that people will use dynamic mics more often for portable applications. The ribbon yields the weakest output, yet it has been getting a bit more popular lately, especially for solo piano, acoustic guitar...
Yes, a lot of people use their ears, and I am all for it. I am a musician (I play piano and accordion), and I use my ears. After all, music is for the ears :-)
In my opinion, there is too much of a gap between "ear people" and "technical people". The ear people insist that the ear is all that matters. So very often I see someone listening to something and mistakingly expanding their conclusions with far overreaching generalizations. I see technical people look at specs, not realizing that one can have an inaudible 1% distortion and an irritating .01% distortion...
On one side of the equation, one can not do everything by ear. A designer can, and should verify how a product sounds. But getting to an end result that sounds great is not done by ear. It is done by engineering. Say you have a disturbing 7KHz tone. The ear can hear it, but it can not tell you if it is due to radio interference, power supply noise, circuit oscillations, aliasing of high frequency energy, intermediation... The ear is no substitute for an ohm meter, scope, audio test system...
On the other side, the designer should be very aware of the ear, and that is not at all an easy task. The ear is NOT an FFT, the ear is NOT an oscilloscope, though it does share some "elements" of an FFT and a scope.
The "difficult part" happens when people have different SUBJECTIVE tastes. When I started designing for audio I realized very quickly that I need to separate the objective from the subjective. I decided to stay with what is OBJECTIVLY good, and get as far as I can from what is SUBJECTIVE. In order to do it, I separated all the audio gear (generically) into 2 lists:
1. Gear that needs to be transparent.
2. Gear that is designed to alter the sound.
We do not want our speaker wires to do EQ. We do not want the amplifiers to compress the sound. We do not want the power amplifier to yield reverb... In fact, ideally, we would be doing great if we can have a perfect reproduction of the acoustic performance, and for that, one needs all the elements in the chain to be as transparent as possible.
At the same time, the music production person (recording, mixing, mastering...) may choose to alter the sound, and for that we have equipment such as EQ, compressors, reverb, limiters...
If the micpre, converters, amplifiers, mixers, speakers and more color the sound, there is no good way to take the coloration out. The music production person is being controlled by the gear. However, if the gear is as transparent as possible, one can alter it as they wish with tools designed for alteration. One may like the coloration of some gear, but the same coloration over and over? I like salt in my soup but not on my desert. One may enjoy seeing the world through pink tinted glasses, but there are times that blue tint works better, or no tint at all. The first real life test of my first Lavry Engineering AD (AD122) was to record YoYo Ma. I did not want to alter his Stradivarius cello sound... One may love tubes, but you leave YoYo alone... At minimum you want to record it as accurately as you can, and alter it later...
So now you know what I think :-)
Regards
Dan Lavry
