Topic: Best ever microphone review?

[guyburns]

I am in the market for a couple of mikes, but after a few dozen hours searching the net have not come across what I would consider a technically-proficient comparison review of microphones. Okay, there are reviews by magazines, by Amazon and B&H purchasers, by inhabitants of audio forums, but none have struck me as being anywhere close to the competence of the Mammoth Microphone Review (http://www.mediafire.com/?5xdivf95pgb57), by Angus McKenzie (http://www.stereophile.com/news/011705mckenzie).

I have clear recollections of wandering around Devonport (Tasmania) in 1981, just having purchased the 144 Portastudio and on the lookout for magazine articles about microphones. In the newstand I flicked through a copy of the April edition of Hi-Fi News & Record Review, a UK publication. Inside was a review of microphones. Well, I purchased the magazine, and within a day or so decided the Calrec 652D (£54) was the mike for me. Still have it and still use it. A microphone that fluked (I suspect) superb quality. To quote from the review:

The response on close and distant speech was extremely smooth and actually preferred to that of the Neumann KM84 reference. Background hiss was totally inaudible. Harpsichord reproduced extremely smoothly, and the sound seemed more open than the Neumann… Double bass was very much liked, although the Neumann seemed marginally warmer… Quite clearly, this was easily the best mike apart from the professional reference model.

The review, being 30 years old and reviewing only budget microphones, is of little use for present-day microphone purchasers, except as a model for how a review should be undertaken. Costs would preclude such reviews today.

I have contacted the present editor of Hi-Fi News, but he said they don't do reviews like that anymore, and couldn't suggest anyone who did. Pity.

My question is: are there any microphone reviews undertaken today that are in the same league as the Mammoth review?

[yousef]

Can't help with the reviews but have to say that this: http://www.stereophile.com/news/011705mckenzie is genuinely inspiring... I don't think I'd heard of him before, thanks for the link.

[DSatz]

Angus McKenzie had a column for years in "Studio Sound" magazine (U.K.) which was always a worthwhile read. Somewhere I have the image files I scanned from a comparative microphone review that he did in the 1970s, which I would gladly post, except that those microphones aren't available any more today. Still, if anyone's interested just in seeing how it could be done, I'll dig them up. (Edited later to add: Found the article, uploaded it here, and realized that it was co-written with Tony Faulkner--whose work is definitely worth looking up as well.)

But even the best reviews or comparisons can only be suggestive in value. You have to understand the characteristics of your microphones on an intuitive level to use them to the best advantage, because every setup is a guess based on whatever prior experience you have, and whatever kind of result you hope to get.

An experience that I recommend to everyone: Take a recording that you admire and find out what equipment it was made with. Try to get the same sound yourself using the same equipment in the same venue on similar-sounding music. I think you'll find that it's surprisingly hard to duplicate someone else's results--because a lot comes down to that last foot or two of distance for mike placement, the last five or six degrees of angle between the mikes, etc., and that's something that the other person decided from their own prior experience and their own expectations and wishes. I did that a number of times in the first few years that I worked as a recording engineer. My recordings pretty much sounded like my recordings while David Griesinger's recordings pretty much sounded like his, and Peter Storkerson's sounded like his, etc., no matter whose equipment we were using.

Moral of the story is that the microphones need to be good enough, for sure, and the smoother and more transparent sounding they are, the more adaptable they'll be to the largest number of situations. But in the end it comes down to the way you listen and the way you actively relate subsequent choices to what you've heard.

--best regards

P.S.: A fellow named Ty Ford has also posted some useful microphone reviews on line in more recent years--maybe you can find those?

[runonce]

So microphone reviews are kind of like microphone pornography?

[fguidry]

So microphone reviews are kind of like microphone pornography?

Most of the ones I read are exactly that.

I fell victim to a wide variety of internet mic reviews (not to mention preamp and converter discussions) and have way more mics than I need. Like many folks today I felt the urge to "contribute" by reviewing mics and doing comparisons. And darned if I didn't hear just what I was "supposed" to hear - this one was clean and neutral, that was shrieky, the other dull and lifeless.

Then I learned about the importance of same performance, level matched comparisons. And when I started making more careful comparisons the differences grew smaller and smaller and smaller.

Here are four mics recording a solo acoustic guitar. They are a Shure KSM44, Shure KSM141, Schoeps CMC64, and CAD M179. Two LDs, two SDs, one that cost $150, one that cost over $1500.

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-G.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-H.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-I.wav

Based on what I've read on the internet, the differences between these mics should be huge, instantly obvious, and profound. And I should easily be able to recognize the signature LD sound vs SD. And certainly a Schoeps CMC64 will stand out in the crowd.

Out of hundreds of comments about two people have identified the four mics correctly.

Some of the posts on my Homebrewed Music blog deal with setting up a comparison like this. Reviews that compare mics based on different performances with minimal level matching and wide time spacing ... it's funny to me how often the findings match exactly the "expected" result.

I have this idea that a poorly executed comparison is worse than none at all, because of the human tendency to attach to any information, good or bad. A bad comparison will cause us to firmly believe bad information.

What I find informative is a description of the use of a mic for a particular recording goal. Why and how an omni pair was used in this space, with this result, when to use a figure 8 pattern and why, what the included angle means to the stereo stage with different pickup patterns.

Fran

[DSatz]

?? How is anyone supposed to identify which microphone was used to make a certain recording if they weren't there, don't know the space the recording was made in, don't know where or how the mikes were placed, and don't know what the original performance sounded like? That's a completely false expectation in my opinion.

Haven't you ever lent a pair of your mikes to someone else, let them make a recording when you're not there, and then listened to the result? If you'd taken the same pair of mikes to the same performance, given people's different ways of using microphones there's very little doubt that the result would have sounded different--possibly very different.

Why does anyone assume that a certain microphone -> a certain identifiable sound quality on a recording?

P.S.: I've just uploaded and attached the entire Angus McKenzie/Tony Faulkner/Studio Sound review to my earlier message above. In my browser it look as if it would work best to download the files rather than to expand them in place, unless you have a very high-resolution monitor.

[guyburns]

Thanks, Fran, for your comments. But you didn't mention the main problem with almost all microphone reviews: they record something in an unspecified environment, then comment on how it sounds to them on playback on their system, also in an unspecified environment. How are they playing back? On iPod headphones? Tiny speakers attached to their computers? All microphones will tend to sound the same if the playback is not done on superb equipment, because the speakers will level the playing field making all mikes sound mediocre. It's like trying to compare the image quality of digital cameras, and viewing the images on an uncalibrated, 640 x 480, circa 1995 monitor picked up at a garage sale for $15. Under those viewing conditions, the $50 point-and-shoot will look at good as the latest top-of-the-range Nikon.

I don't think it is possible to review microphones properly unless you have a specialised sound environment for the listening tests. Further, to remove subjectivity, you need to rely on test equipment as the arbiter, not ears. Unless, of course, you have calibrated ears.

The beauty of the Angus McKenzie approach – and remember he was blind and thus probably had a more highly developed sense of hearing than sighted people – was that his listening tests were done in an anechoic chamber using, what I assume, were top-quality reference speakers.

A microphone review can only be as good as the speakers and the environment in which the listening tests were performed.

[fguidry]

?? How is anyone supposed to identify which microphone was used to make a certain recording if they weren't there, don't know the space the recording was made in, don't know where or how the mikes were placed, and don't know what the original performance sounded like? That's a completely false expectation in my opinion.

Haven't you ever lent a pair of your mikes to someone else, let them make a recording when you're not there, and then listened to the result? If you'd taken the same pair of mikes to the same performance, given people's different ways of using microphones there's very little doubt that the result would have sounded different--possibly very different.

Why does anyone assume that a certain microphone -> a certain identifiable sound quality on a recording?

...

The reason one might believe that they could identify these mics would be the amount of verbiage on the internet describing various mics as having obvious distinct characteristics. I've read countless times that "LD mics are warm" and "SD mics are clear" and my comparison is offered as a demonstration that this verbiage is not based in reality.

David, you probably don't and have never gotten your ideas about microphones from the internet. You learned about mics the old fashioned way, by trial and error and mentoring. But I "learned" by reading Gearslutz <grin>. So nearly everything I learned was wrong!!! And it took me several years to realize how wrong. My comparison is intended to illustrate your point. Sorry my wording didn't make that clear.

Fran

[dream]

Why does anyone assume that a certain microphone -> a certain identifiable sound quality on a recording?

It's maybe not a 'certain' sound quality but sound quality in general with a bias here and there. The mic sound quality is a subset of all circumstances a recording is made. If this may be audible probably depends on how controlled the other circumstances are. Are you talking about something like a 'sonic footprint'?

[DSatz]

dream, a lot of people are so fixated on the gear itself that they don't/won't accept this, but the way microphones are used is at least as important (if not more so) than the differences among microphones themselves, at least where high-quality microphones are concerned.

Of course you do need to choose an appropriate kind of microphone, e.g. directional vs. non-directional, don't use a diffuse-field omni to do a free-field omni's job, be aware of microphones whose frequency response is tailored for speech or other special applications, etc. But if you're talking about the free-field omnis (apples vs. apples) or small cardioids (apples vs. apples again) from the top half dozen or so manufacturers, a good engineer should be able to make an equivalent quality recording with any of them--to the point where another good engineer might very well guess incorrectly as to which microphones were used.

But the truth is, I really don't know of any professional engineers even trying to play this kind of quiz game--its assumptions are just basically wrong.

A possible touch of EQ should also be considered as a factor; the professional recording world doesn't have the antipathy to EQ that self-styled puristic amateurs tend to have. To me the idea of spending $1500 or $2000 on an alternate pair of microphones because they have a 1-1/2 dB sparkle bump around 10 kHz, when you already have a pair of microphones with flat response at 10 kHz and a decent EQ feature in your sound editing program, is just humiliating to the person wasting the money in most cases. An equalizer can't compensate for a lousy polar pattern, but it can sure do a lot of other things that people never expect if they don't have any experience using it. In my experience 90+% of the objections to EQ come from people who have little or no skill or experience using it.

--best regards

[dream]

dream, a lot of people are so fixated on the gear itself that they don't/won't accept this, but the way microphones are used is at least as important (if not more so) than the differences among microphones themselves, at least where high-quality microphones are concerned.

Of course you do need to choose an appropriate kind of microphone, e.g. directional vs. non-directional, don't use a diffuse-field omni to do a free-field omni's job, be aware of microphones whose frequency response is tailored for speech or other special applications, etc. But if you're talking about the free-field omnis (apples vs. apples) or small cardioids (apples vs. apples again) from the top half dozen or so manufacturers, a good engineer should be able to make an equivalent quality recording with any of them--to the point where another good engineer might very well guess incorrectly as to which microphones were used.

But the truth is, I really don't know of any professional engineers even trying to play this kind of quiz game--its assumptions are just basically wrong.

A possible touch of EQ should also be considered as a factor; the professional recording world doesn't have the antipathy to EQ that self-styled puristic amateurs tend to have. To me the idea of spending $1500 or $2000 on an alternate pair of microphones because they have a 1-1/2 dB sparkle bump around 10 kHz, when you already have a pair of microphones with flat response at 10 kHz and a decent EQ feature in your sound editing program, is just humiliating to the person wasting the money in most cases. An equalizer can't compensate for a lousy polar pattern, but it can sure do a lot of other things that people never expect if they don't have any experience using it. In my experience 90+% of the objections to EQ come from people who have little or no skill or experience using it.

--best regards

Thank you Mr. Satz, you are a great source of rationality and I fully agree with you on the most parts, especially on what you wrote about the usage of EQ.
That's simply my practice for many years. Although I compare microphones directly - not doing a quiz, but sometimes as a learning exercise. Why not? i mount them as close
as possible, try to watch diffraction or just do in a row recordings from the same room point. And this tells me a lot. I know of other engineers doing this too. I would otherwise
not know how to judge a microphone. The problem is in my view, that only a few people have transparent enough preamps to compare microphones in a fair way.
I tried to match approximately somehow the output of a Neumann km133d with a DPA 4041SP and a Schoeps MK2 with EQ and adapted levels (in Nuendo with SSL X-EQ) to see if it is possible.
I was not able to do this (maybe my fault). All analog mics were recorded with a Grace Design m201/AD. I would go so far that all three microphones have a 'very' different sound (in perspective of course). But recently I could bring, to my own surprise, a km143D with EQ very close to a DPA 4015 (non-TL) or vice versa.
But as you stated in your first sentence: "the way microphones are used is at least as important (if not more so) than the differences among microphones themselves, at least where high-quality microphones are concerned." But that means microphone 'sound differences' can play a role when conditions 'allow'.

[Scooter123]

A few years ago, I got to sit in on a session recording of a major star and major studio side men and a major engineer and producer.  They spent close to 90 minutes "tuning" the drums and a couple other instruments before recording a single lick.  Rather than go to the EQ, they changed microphones and caps. 

Moral of the story?  Whats the best mike?  Whatever sounds better to your ears. 

[John Willett]

..... realized that it was co-written with Tony Faulkner--whose work is definitely worth looking up as well.)

Tony used to work for Angus Mackenzie before he became a recording engineer - shows how old this excellent article is.

[csmsss]

A few years ago, I got to sit in on a session recording of a major star and major studio side men and a major engineer and producer.  They spent close to 90 minutes "tuning" the drums and a couple other instruments before recording a single lick.  Rather than go to the EQ, they changed microphones and caps. 

This is extremely common.  In fact, it's quite common to see engineers/producers/drummers collaborating for hours prior to a session getting exactly the right combination dialed in.  It might seem counterintuitive, but recording percussion might just be the biggest challenge in the recording process.  It's a lot more involved than just swapping one mike out for another.

[Chuck]

Great discussion!

One thing I think needs to be pointed out. A lot of us record in situations we don't have precise control over. For example recording a PA system from the audience.
We can't often set-up in the most ideal spot. It makes it more difficult to get a great recording. That's when picking the right microphones really comes into play.

If you only have omnis and you are at the back of a shoe box room, you're screwed.

So, some of us try to find the mics that sound the best from where we typically have to set-up.

Anyway, carry on. I love this type of discussion.

[db]

A few years ago, I got to sit in on a session recording of a major star and major studio side men and a major engineer and producer.  They spent close to 90 minutes "tuning" the drums and a couple other instruments before recording a single lick.  Rather than go to the EQ, they changed microphones and caps. 

This is extremely common.  In fact, it's quite common to see engineers/producers/drummers collaborating for hours prior to a session getting exactly the right combination dialed in.  It might seem counterintuitive, but recording percussion might just be the biggest challenge in the recording process.  It's a lot more involved than just swapping one mike out for another.

yeah, eq-ing means there's a problem.  we once missed a g-ish ringing on a tom after the drummer, who was in a rush, left.  fortunately, the song was in g.

[csmsss]

Great discussion!

One thing I think needs to be pointed out. A lot of us record in situations we don't have precise control over. For example recording a PA system from the audience.
We can't often set-up in the most ideal spot. It makes it more difficult to get a great recording. That's when picking the right microphones really comes into play.

If you only have omnis and you are at the back of a shoe box room, you're screwed.

So, some of us try to find the mics that sound the best from where we typically have to set-up.

Anyway, carry on. I love this type of discussion.

That's an excellent point.  I typically have to face this as a double whammy because I'm also running video - so I've got to find a place in the back of the room where I'm out of the way and hopefully can get a clear view of the stage - or as clear a view as possible.  All too often I get my gear set up when out of the blue some brobdingnagian parks himself right in front of me and my previously clear sight path to the stage is immediately and permanently obscured.