Topic: Best affordable true presssure omnis?

[RebelRebel]

( a pet peeve of mine is to see *absolute* statements, possibly steering one person or other away from equipment that may(or may not) have a profound impact. There are no absolutes.)

I'm a bit mystified here - You quote me and say you don't like *absolute* statements - but there was not an *absolute* statement in anything I wrote 

And I wasn't steering anyone away from anything - did you actually read what I wrote? 

But they are in no way comparable to the others mentioned.

that sounds pretty absolute to me, Mr. Willett..at any rate,no matter.  If ive offended you in any way, my apologies.

[John Willett]

  If ive offended you in any way, my apologies.

No offence taken, just a bit mystified, that's all.

I thought what I wrote was very fair.

I find the Røde NT5 a microphone that is excellent value for money and produce nice results, it can take the omni head of the NT55 and give a nice pair of mics that, for the price, are excellent value.

Comparing it to the likes of the MKH 20 or 40 are like chalk and cheese - and I have listened.  I am certainly not knocking them, but just putting it all in perspective.

I'm just mystified why you are getting upset.  Sorry.

[RebelRebel]

  If ive offended you in any way, my apologies.

No offence taken, just a bit mystified, that's all.

I thought what I wrote was very fair.

I find the Røde NT5 a microphone that is excellent value for money and produce nice results, it can take the omni head of the NT55 and give a nice pair of mics that, for the price, are excellent value.

Comparing it to the likes of the MKH 20 or 40 are like chalk and cheese - and I have listened.  I am certainly not knocking them, but just putting it all in perspective.

I'm just mystified why you are getting upset.  Sorry.

Again, I am not upset, but microphones are matters of taste. As such, when a person comes on and says "brand A is "better" than brand b, I have issues. There are too many variables, too many different pairs of ears ..just way too many unknowns to declare something like that with any authority. anyway, maybe it is a matter of semantics, but I would rather see people post something along the lines of "I enjoyed brand a's sound over that of brand b, but YMMV.."and not "brand A is supreme to any brand B" one is sort of open-ended, one is an authoritative statement You are experienced, have clout etc..so a lot of people that read posts of yours(or some anyway) may purchase based solely on what youve posted. Am I making sense? If not, im not surprised. I suck at the written/typed medium. one of the things ive learned that really stuck with me is that there are no absolutes, just one persons preferences vs another. Yes, that is a given, but for those that are impressionable(like I was when I was first seeking advice), not always.
/ramblin!

[boojum]

There are plenty of abosultes.  Right and wrong are one.  Honest and dishonest are another.  To say that one brand of mic is better than another can be true.  White is an absolute.  Black is an absolute.  Black is all color, white is none.  Need I go on?    As usual, YMMV   

[RebelRebel]

There are plenty of abosultes.  Right and wrong are one.  Honest and dishonest are another.  To say that one brand of mic is better than another can be true.  White is an absolute.  Black is an absolute.  Black is all color, white is none.  Need I go on?    As usual, YMMV   

Well, we arent talking about morality or ethics here, this is a audio-related forum, so obviously I was referring to absolutes in audio..
as for your statement..That is impossible.. One can say that a certain mic SPECS better than another, but that means nothing really. Sound is all that matters. People love tape, tubes...but on paper those certainly arent as good as the digital and transistor counterparts.  You could go by specs alone and buy those "better" mics, but anyone that does that is a damned fool.

[DSatz]

Teddy, beware the lure of a false dichotomy. Specs can be extremely helpful if they're clear and credible (which from most of the major manufacturers, they tend to be)--but no one here has said that specs are enough on their own, so please don't argue with a "straw man," OK?

I mean, I've used microphones that I would consider quite crapulent today, but at the time they were a step forward for me. I started out in around 1970 using Advent (= bottom-end Beyer Dynamic) microphones, and my next step was a pair of Sony ECM-22P. To my ears now, the recordings I made with those Sony mikes can practically cut glass, they're so hard-edged (and they were also very noisy). But at least they had some output above 6 kHz. So I'm not one to say that "trash" microphones have no value.

Nonetheless there are some microphones which have much lower noise and distortion than other microphones, and there are some microphones which have smoother, more extended frequency response and maintain their polar pattern across a far wider range of frequencies than other microphones, and those things are very important sonically. There are some microphones which are far more reliable than others--about half of my microphones are more than 25 years old and I have one pair that I've probably recorded 1,500 concerts and recitals with, which never failed in all that time. These criteria may not be what everyone cares about consciously all the time--a mediocre mike in a good place can sometimes outdo a great mike that's poorly placed. But I have no qualms about saying that some microphones really are better--sometimes much better--than others.

The microphone in my telephone handset just isn't as good a microphone as the microphones I used this evening to record an opera performance. There, I've said it; now tell me I'm wrong, that I could just as well have used a pair of the microphones from my telephone handset, because there are NO ABSOLUTES (an extremely absolutist statement in itself).

--best regards

[Church-Audio]

The microphone in my telephone handset just isn't as good a microphone as the microphones I used this evening to record an opera performance. There, I've said it; now tell me I'm wrong, that I could just as well have used a pair of the microphones from my telephone handset, because there are NO ABSOLUTES (an extremely absolutist statement in itself).

--best regards

Well all I want to say is I have a new phone mod for your cell phone that will make it sound as good or better then the 4007 DPA mic. So you can then tell people you have the best sounding phone around 

Just kidding.. Well maybe..

I think in the end the right mic for the right application + the knowledge on how to place it and use it = a good sound and sound it self is very subjective.

Now for some people that brand x for others its brand z. I think that in my 20 years of being in the audio mixing field I have heard some pretty shitty mics sound pretty dam good.

[RebelRebel]

a good sound and sound it self is very subjective.

..and that is all there is to say really. That sums it up, Chris.

and those things are very important sonically.

Sure they are, to you and others, but David, I guarantee you that there are people that dont give half a damn about those things.

But I have no qualms about saying that some microphones really are better--sometimes much better--than others.

ok, sure..that is fine as applies to you, but "better" goes out the window when you have other people's tastes to consider. I do not , nor will I ever; accept any declarative statements(such as "a is better than b") as truth.

The microphone in my telephone handset just isn't as good a microphone as the microphones I used this evening to record an opera performance. There, I've said it; now tell me I'm wrong.

What I think about your microphones doesnt matter. There is no way to quantify taste, period. I dont know how many times ive read in Tape OP or some other rag where some engineer or other preferred to use some "crap" microphone over some vintage this or that, because *gasp* he preferred the sound, specs be damned. . I have Audio technica 4050s that I much prefer over my "top shelf"(another peeve, but not gonna go there) microphones frequently. That shouldnt make any sense, but it does to me...and really that is all that matters. Your truthtaste is yours alone, as is mine , ad infinitum.... I believe that profoundly, and no amount of debate will change my mind.anyway..  I am screwing up Mr. Norman's thread with this pointless debate, so that is all for me. 

My apologies to James.

[John Willett]

I do not , nor will I ever; accept any declarative statements(such as "a is better than b") as truth.

It is very easy to say that mic. A is "better" than mic. B - you can compare them, you can measure the distortion, you can measure the self-noise, you can measure polar pattern, etc.  and can state categorically that one is better than the other.

Having said this - *you* may find that you prefer the worse one to the better one for your recording, precisely because of the deficiencies in the microphone and what it does to your music.

You can measure quality - but suitability for a specific recording can come down to colour - and colour comes mainly from the "deficiencies" in the microphone.  Some of these may be designed in specifically to give that colour, others just a by-product of the design.

There *is* a difference between "best" and "most suitable for a particular use".

It's very easy to say that one is better than the other - but not so easy to say which may be more suitable as this comes down to personal choice.

Someone once came to me and said he used an SM58 on a bass drum which I thought to be a very bad choice as there are a lot better mics to use for this - he then said that it gave him the exact sound he wanted.  My reply was that it was the correct mic. to use - it was certainly not the best mic., but it was certainly the most suitable mic.

I hope I'm getting this across OK.

DSatz is putting it pretty well, I think.

[John Willett]

I think I owe Teddy an apology,

I had a good talk with Tony Faulkner on microphones - and he did actually find the omni capsule of the Røde 55 better than the DPA and Schoeps - it was extremely quiet, a good omni polar pattern and he was surprised how good it was.

It surprised me too.  I knew they were good value for money, but .....

This *does* only apply to the 55 omni, though, and not across the range.

It will teach me not to jump to conclusions.

Sorry Teddy.

[Church-Audio]

I do not , nor will I ever; accept any declarative statements(such as "a is better than b") as truth.

It is very easy to say that mic. A is "better" than mic. B - you can compare them, you can measure the distortion, you can measure the self-noise, you can measure polar pattern, etc.  and can state categorically that one is better than the other.

Having said this - *you* may find that you prefer the worse one to the better one for your recording, precisely because of the deficiencies in the microphone and what it does to your music.

You can measure quality - but suitability for a specific recording can come down to colour - and colour comes mainly from the "deficiencies" in the microphone.  Some of these may be designed in specifically to give that colour, others just a by-product of the design.

There *is* a difference between "best" and "most suitable for a particular use".

It's very easy to say that one is better than the other - but not so easy to say which may be more suitable as this comes down to personal choice.

Someone once came to me and said he used an SM58 on a bass drum which I thought to be a very bad choice as there are a lot better mics to use for this - he then said that it gave him the exact sound he wanted.  My reply was that it was the correct mic. to use - it was certainly not the best mic., but it was certainly the most suitable mic.

I hope I'm getting this across OK.

DSatz is putting it pretty well, I think.

Just because   a mic has better distortion or a better polar pattern more uniform or there is less self noise does not mean its a better mic. In the end depending upon the source these things might not matter. And again sound is subjective and it really does depend on the application specs are not everything, if they were we would all be using the same microphones. But we aren't why because we all hear things differently and a great mics with great specs might not suit the application at hand. For example I hate SM 57's as a tom mic. But in situations where I need a tight polar pattern they work great for drummers with lots of toms close together. The tight pattern helps with phasing issues. But that same tight pattern does not make them a great mic for vocals. But some have used the 57 for vocals and got great sounds from it. There is no one mic that will work for everything. So basing a argument on this mic or that mic being better simply because of specs is misleading and imo wrong.

[RebelRebel]

No problem, Mr. Willett,


We're all friends here, for the most part. (outside of the political zone anyway). 

I think I owe Teddy an apology,

I had a good talk with Tony Faulkner on microphones - and he did actually find the omni capsule of the Røde 55 better than the DPA and Schoeps - it was extremely quiet, a good omni polar pattern and he was surprised how good it was.

It surprised me too.  I knew they were good value for money, but .....

This *does* only apply to the 55 omni, though, and not across the range.

It will teach me not to jump to conclusions.

Sorry Teddy.

[John Willett]

So basing a argument on this mic or that mic being better simply because of specs is misleading and imo wrong.

Not really.

But "better" does not necessarily mean the most suitable for purpose - this is a different thing.

EG: The MKH 40 is a better mic. than the SM58 - but for stage vocals the SM58 is most suitable for purpose.

[RebelRebel]

I think that the best anyone can say is that it is up to the end user to determine what is "better"(and I think that in a situation where one person is choosing a microphone, how he or she prefers the *sound* of that microphone is important when deciding which one is"better"..in the end, it all boils down to sound anyway..you cant hear a specification(I dont think, anyway).

Is a microphone automatically *better* because it specs well? I don't think it is. What we hear is much more important. Wound anyone choose one microphone over the other based on technical data alone? Why do people enjoy u47s, ribbons, m50s, rca 44dx, u67, tape machines, tubes, transformers(there are certainly devices that spec out much better)?? I bet there are scores of people who will say that solid state technology is inferior to vaccum tube technology. 

[Church-Audio]

So basing a argument on this mic or that mic being better simply because of specs is misleading and imo wrong.

Not really.

But "better" does not necessarily mean the most suitable for purpose - this is a different thing.

EG: The MKH 40 is a better mic. than the SM58 - but for stage vocals the SM58 is most suitable for purpose.

By trying to compair a dynamic mic with a condenser your trying to compair apples to oranges. That comparison is also misleading. I am talking about mics with similar physical and dimensional and electrical characteristics. That is where the line between specs is unimportant. What is important and often gets lost is the "sound" of the microphone, too many people get sucked into "specs" they dont tell the whole story. If they did like I have said before we would all be using the same  microphones sound is subjective and therefore specs alone can never be a determining factor in selection of a microphone.