Topic: Best affordable true presssure omnis?

[John Willett]

..you cant hear a specification(I dont think, anyway).

Actually you *can* - you can hear if a microphone has lower self-noise and lower distortion.  You can hear there things.

Is a microphone automatically *better* because it specs well?

Well, yes it *is* better - but what I am saying is that being "better" does not necessarily mean "most suitable".

Better - is a technical thing and can be measured.
Most suitable - is different and is a subjective decision as to what is most suitable for the job.

I am just trying to separate the technical quality of a mic. away from what is the best mic for the job, which are different things.

Maybe my comparson was a bit extreme, but I hope you see what I am getting at.

[RebelRebel]

I dont agree with that. Sound is part of the overall picture I think, and some may prefer a microphone that doesnt spec as well.  To those folks, the mic that is "worse on paper." may be better. is the TLM50 a better microphone than the m50? I know several that would say no.  If you dont include how a microphone sounds(and again, some prefer microphones with higher distortion figures, self noise, less than perfect polar patterns, etc because they SOUND good.) , you are missing the most important aspect. Lower distortion, self noise, etc...it isnt a given that people will prefer a pair with perfect specs over a pair with less than perfect specs for *any* job.


definition of better according to Princeton:  comparative of `good') superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability;

..you cant hear a specification(I dont think, anyway).

Actually you *can* - you can hear if a microphone has lower self-noise and lower distortion.  You can hear there things.

Is a microphone automatically *better* because it specs well?

Well, yes it *is* better - but what I am saying is that being "better" does not necessarily mean "most suitable".

Better - is a technical thing and can be measured.
Most suitable - is different and is a subjective decision as to what is most suitable for the job.

I am just trying to separate the technical quality of a mic. away from what is the best mic for the job, which are different things.

Maybe my comparson was a bit extreme, but I hope you see what I am getting at.

[Church-Audio]

..you cant hear a specification(I dont think, anyway).

Actually you *can* - you can hear if a microphone has lower self-noise and lower distortion.  You can hear there things.

Is a microphone automatically *better* because it specs well?

Well, yes it *is* better - but what I am saying is that being "better" does not necessarily mean "most suitable".

Better - is a technical thing and can be measured.
Most suitable - is different and is a subjective decision as to what is most suitable for the job.

I am just trying to separate the technical quality of a mic. away from what is the best mic for the job, which are different things.

Maybe my comparson was a bit extreme, but I hope you see what I am getting at.

I guess we see things differently see I see better as "better" for my application, and specs dont figure into that. Because I know as many of us know already that specs dont add up to shit if the mic reproduces the sound you want or desire..

Now you can say that one mic has better specs but that does not translate into a better mic. For example setting aside the noise spec lets compair a DPA 4007 To an earthworks M-50 Now for my ears the DPA 4007 blows the living shit out of the earthworks for any type of application where you need extremely accurate reproduction of a source + the room. When I listen to an earthworks M-50 it feels flat and lifeless to me. Now on paper it would seem that the earthworks mic has the edge due to its extended high frequency response  So for me I leave the spec sheet in the box and use the mic in the field. If it sounds good there then its a good mic. My first concern is sound not specs. Some of the best sounding vocal mics or studio mics in the world have pretty shitty specs. I have heard mics with "great specs'" the main problem is with specs is....

#1 when it comes to measuring a microphone * not a speaker * for frequency response for example there is no industry standard test. So how can one rely on specs?

#2 When it comes to polar response we do have a way of accurately measuring this spec but again there is no industry standard being employed here as well. So again how can we rely on polar pattern specs?

#3 When it comes to self noise we have a standard test but even this seems to be not widely used in the industry.

There are absolutes that we can measure with say a car stereo we can take a measurement mic that is nist traceable and measure the stereo for performance in the acoustic environment that the stereo is used in. That is an absolute test. We can also measure current draw and we can measure distortion.. But again when it comes to measuring mics there is no globally adopted standard source for use in testing a microphone nor is there any methods that are globally accepted.

Each microphone manufacturer uses his or her own methods to produce spec sheets.. Some of them keep there finger on the old plotter pen when the frequency response graphs are being printed * that's an old saying * amongst mic guys.. When you look at the lack of standards how can you therefor trust the spec sheets?

There are company's like DPA that have based there methods on a more scientific and traceable method and imo accurate method. This is why out of all of the companies out there there is only maybe two companies I trust the spec sheet on. One of them is DPA. But again there are mics with lesser specs then say the dpa 4060 that just sound better to most peoples ears.

So again I think there is a real danger saying just because the spec sheet says the mic is better it is better. I think when you live your life by spec sheets your bound to be disappointed.  In the end the best spec sheet is your ears IMO.