Listen for Yourself: Microphone Comparison Test

[watchnerd]

One of the things that constantly surprises me is how few audio enthusiasts are aware of how much microphone choice effects the sound of a recording (they're transducers, after all) and how this fact makes the capture and reproduction of live sound a fundamentally tainted event from the minute sound waves hit a mic diaphragm.

Microphone shootouts and comparisons are fairly common in the professional / recording world, but Audio Technica makes listening comparison samples available for their various 40 series microphones on a single page with samples for:

-Female vocals
-Male vocals
-Acoustic guitar

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/94191e1fd14f6418/

Take a listen and tell us what you think!

 

[fas42]

Are we certain that these samples were recorded simultaneously?

 

[watchnerd]

Are we certain that these samples were recorded simultaneously?

I don't know their specific methodology. You can write them and ask them if you think knowing it is massively important.

 

[fas42]

I don't know their specific methodology. You can write them and ask them if you think knowing it is massively important.

It's important to understand what the variations in the situation are - I could listen carefully and try to pick if I hear different takes, but that's taking my energy away from the point of the exercise, largely. By far the smartest thing would have been a rack of all the mics running in parallel, on a single take.

 

[watchnerd]

It's important to understand what the variations in the situation are - I could listen carefully and try to pick if I hear different takes, but that's taking my energy away from the point of the exercise, largely. By far the smartest thing would have been a rack of all the mics running in parallel, on a single take.

I don't think you'll need to listen carefully. It's pretty obvious what the differences are.

Just try it.

 

[Frank Dernie]

It's important to understand what the variations in the situation are - I could listen carefully and try to pick if I hear different takes, but that's taking my energy away from the point of the exercise, largely. By far the smartest thing would have been a rack of all the mics running in parallel, on a single take.

IME as an amateur recordist for about 55 years now is that it is not only the microphone but also critically its exact position relative to the source which strongly effects the sound, so a rack of mics would give false results since it will be impossible to get more than 2 in the right position at the same time IME.
I am strongly of the opinion that when modern recordings are criticised for sounding "digital" it has nothing to do with digital recording and everything to do with microphone choice and position.
It makes post recording dicking about easier (/possible) to have loads of spot mics close to each instrument but IMO the sound one gets is never as good as using a stereo pair of mics carefully positioned. After all we never listen to a violin with one ear 8" from the violin and slightly above it, so I am not surprised this location gives an aggressive un-natural sound.
I suppose people who a much greater experience and knowledge of loads of mics have a solution for this dilemma, but I always get my best recordings with a stereo pair with balance achieved by moving them about, not electronically, at the expense of more background noise.

 

[watchnerd]

I suppose people who a much greater experience and knowledge of loads of mics have a solution for this dilemma, but I always get my best recordings with a stereo pair with balance achieved by moving them about, not electronically, at the expense of more background noise.

I own about 12 different mics with different radiation patterns, sounds, technologies used and.... there is no solution to that dilemma, only compromises and trade-offs.

 

[Sal1950]

I own about 12 different mics with different radiation patterns, sounds, technologies used and.... there is no solution to that dilemma, only compromises and trade-offs.

More or less just a personal preference do to taste at both ends isn't it?
Just like all the audiophiles claiming a dedication to fidelity, they chose between a unknown number of different successful speaker systems and insist "their" rig is accurate.
Truth is in the end it's much more like food or wine than any absolute sound though we all wish it was much less so.

 

[watchnerd]

More or less just a personal preference do to taste at both ends isn't it?

Right.

This is getting at the heart of the matter and why I posted the links to the microphone samples -- so people can hear how different they sound.

From the moment the recording engineer picks a performance microphone to use, taste and subjectivity have already entered the picture. Recordings are works of art, with many subjective decision points -- starting with which microphone and, as @Frank Dernie is saying, where to put it/them.

Also, there is no absolute sound. That's a myth, an ideal created by Harry Pearson and J. Gordon Holt.

 

[Sal1950]

Also, there is no absolute sound. That's a myth, an ideal created by Harry Pearson and J. Gordon Holt.

I believe Gordon had something slightly different in mind. In his (and my) early days we were much further away from true accuracy in our playback rigs than we have reached today. Also his fav music was in the main classical, which has a much bigger minimalist miked base. I know he much lamented the direction high end audio had taken in the later years.

 

[watchnerd]

I believe Gordon had something slightly different in mind. In his (and my) early days we were much further away from true accuracy in our playback rigs than we have reached today. Also his fav music was in the main classical, which has a much bigger minimalist miked base. I know he much lamented the direction high end audio had taken in the later years.

Fair point. I shouldn't have lumped JGH in with Pearson.

He was much more intellectually honest and not trying to set himself up as a guru, unlike Pearson and his shrine at Seacliff.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Fair point. I shouldn't have lumped JGH in with Pearson.

He was much more intellectually honest and not trying to set himself up as a guru, unlike Pearson and his shrine at Seacliff.

I agree, and I was always a JGH fan. HP probably did more to promote the whole movement toward uncontrolled, egomaniacal, chip on your shoulder subjectivism in audio reviewing than anyone. That has grown disproportionately ever since TAS first appeared in the 70's, sadly and unfortunately.

But, there is at least one thing HP did that was good, IMHO. That was to discover the importance of and to emphasize spatial presentation and imaging as key characteristics in the evaluation of audio reproduction.

 

[fas42]

Also, there is no absolute sound. That's a myth, an ideal created by Harry Pearson and J. Gordon Holt.

Luckily, that's not the case. People have bumped into this over and over again, over the decades, but it still hasn't been studied yet - it's too hard getting it in the first place! The equipment is steadily improving in some key areas, to make this easier to do these days - so, at some point it will be an accepted standard which everyone will able to experience, at a reasonable cost.

 

[watchnerd]

Luckily, that's not the case. People have bumped into this over and over again, over the decades, but it still hasn't been studied yet - it's too hard getting it in the first place! The equipment is steadily improving in some key areas, to make this easier to do these days - so, at some point it will be an accepted standard which everyone will able to experience, at a reasonable cost.

We already have a thread for that topic.

Did you listen to the microphone samples yet?

 

[fas42]

No, will be downloading today.

 

[watchnerd]

No, will be downloading today.

You don't need to download...they play in your web browser.

 

[fas42]

Better playback on my preferred media player - and have just tried most of them. And this points out the difference in how we listen to recordings - to me, these are essentially identical, because I don't hear any flaws in the sound - I just hear the voice of the person singing. The subtleties you worry about are meaningless to me, because I don't relate to, or find them interesting.

 

[watchnerd]

Better playback on my preferred media player - and have just tried most of them. And this points out the difference in how we listen to recordings - to me, these are essentially identical, because I don't hear any flaws in the sound - I just hear the voice of the person singing. The subtleties you worry about are meaningless to me, because I don't relate to, or find them interesting.

You're not listening for flaws, just differences.

A lot of the differences are in the top end, in the "air" and breathiness of the female voice. It might be past your hearing range.

 

[fas42]

Luckily, my hearing is still pretty good - a couple of years ago I did some experiments using a test CD, tracks with pure sine waves, over speakers with not particularly good treble response. And my right ear could still register 18k signal; the left somewhere around 15k.

I might do some analysis of the waveforms, see what that tells me - again, differences aren't what I register when listening - it's when the system fails to reproduce correctly that I'm sensitive to.

 

[watchnerd]

Luckily, my hearing is still pretty good - a couple of years ago I did some experiments using a test CD, tracks with pure sine waves, over speakers with not particularly good treble response. And my right ear could still register 18k signal; the left somewhere around 15k.

I might do some analysis of the waveforms, see what that tells me - again, differences aren't what I register when listening - it's when the system fails to reproduce correctly that I'm sensitive to.

Interesting...

I find the differences fairly obvious. Not flaws, just differences.

Obviously Audio Technica expects the differences to be audible, too -- hence the reason for the page.