Topic: Microphone rating graph

[boojum]

Here is one group of experts opinions summed to a graph on many popular mics.  I found it interesting to see how they are spread and how their place in the graph may explain why they are liked, what they are appropriate for and why some folks prefer one model over another. 

[dean]

Is there a link to where this came from?   Accompanying article or something?  Very interesting - thanks for posting!

[boojum]

Link to graph:  http://www.studioreviews.com/

Link to testing folks: www.thelisteningsessions.com

One test is worth a thousand opinions.

[dean]

Link to graph:  http://www.studioreviews.com/

Link to testing folks: www.thelisteningsessions.com

One test is worth a thousand opinions.

Cool - thanks!  Here's a link to their graph on mic preamps: http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/micpregraph.htm

[DSatz]

These graphs seem in some cases to confuse marketing themes with actual performance. Also certain brands and models are listed as data points (e.g. "Schoeps" or "AKG C 451") although in reality they include different capsules with widely differing sonic characteristics. And what does it mean to call a microphone "dark" sounding (as several mikes are on this chart) when in fact it has very flat frequency response and low distortion? Seems as if maybe someone's ears are used to recordings that are brighter than music actually sounds. That may be a typical producer's preference, but it's not the way musicians or the general public tend to hear things.

Over all I'd have to say that these graphs don't have a very good signal-to-noise ratio. But then again, crap is often more convenient to deal with than real information. As H.L. Mencken said, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."

--best regards

[dean]

These graphs seem in some cases to confuse marketing themes with actual performance. Also certain brands and models are listed as data points (e.g. "Schoeps" or "AKG C 451") although in reality they include different capsules with widely differing sonic characteristics. And what does it mean to call a microphone "dark" sounding (as several mikes are on this chart) when in fact it has very flat frequency response and low distortion? Seems as if maybe someone's ears are used to recordings that are brighter than music actually sounds. That may be a typical producer's preference, but it's not the way musicians or the general public tend to hear things.

Over all I'd have to say that these graphs don't have a very good signal-to-noise ratio. But then again, crap is often more convenient to deal with than real information. As H.L. Mencken said, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."

--best regards

As usual, you're right.  However, I think they're interesting tools for directional information and comparison points.  Naturally, if people take these charts as "the word" on the topic, they'll lose.  But I like stuff like this because it gives me things to listen for when auditing a certain mic or preamp, and allows me to agree or not, but form my own opinions based on those of others...

[muj]

it's a silly graph really....

[DSatz]

deanlambrecht, I'm convinced that knowing what other people think is a huge hazard in this business. Half the time, people hear what they think they should hear, instead of what they actually do hear.

I will admit: On those "preamp shootout" CDs I can't hear any difference among the preamps that I can put my finger on. Nor am I sure that things sound the same, either. Each track just sounds to me the way it sounds, and I honestly can't tell what's different or the same, or better or worse.

Other people listen to those same CDs and they think, "Wow, that's great, this makes everything so clear for the first time." Which of us is right? Damned if I know.

Look, as far as bright and dark are concerned, that's pretty much a matter of frequency response and distortion, and most professional microphones have low enough distortion that it's not going to make them sound bright if they're not bright sounding to begin with. So that axis of the graph, if it's accurate (which it's not), at least makes some fundamental sense as a design choice.

But brightness and darkness are both deviations from neutral (flat) frequency response, specifically in the upper midrange and high frequencies. Is "coloration" vs. neutrality really an independent variable, then? I don't see how it can be. So right away, the whole structure of the graph makes no sense to me. You can graph a person's height as a function of their age, and chart their growth or shrinkage, or you can graph the distribution, say, of people 6 feet or taller in various ZIP codes. But these two axes aren't "orthogonal"--they're really different ways of expressing one thing that has more than one aspect to it, rather than being two independent quantities or one quantity that depends on the other. It's just a goofy design.

--best regards

[Jammin72]

I will ignore any group that claims the AKG414 microphone is one of the brightest mics surveyed (of course which one would need to be discussed).  Still, a fun look and and interesting way to categorize.

[DSatz]

Moke, it certainly sounds like a tragedy to me, if DPA spent the time and trouble to design all their different models, but all of them have the same sonic characteristics regardless.

--best regards