Colouration is really a very important factor for me. Thanks for pointing t=
hat out, David.
It=E2=80=99s what makes me =E2=80=9Clike=E2=80=9D certain high end mics and=
dislike certain others. I will not name brands as it=E2=80=99s such a subj=
ective thing.
And it is why the key to this conversation about microphones is and always =
will be, what do they sound like to YOUR ears.
On 19 Jun 2014, at 11:37, [naturerecordists] <naturerec=
> wrote:
> > As time progresses though, and you jump over that 500 hurdle, you will =
realise that the difference in price (luckily) brings a noticeable differen=
ce to your ears as well. For me personally, it was hearing the world throug=
h a Neumann for the first time, and then recently through a Sanken. I don=
=EF=BF=BDt know how to describe it other than that it recalibrates your ear=
s. A good microphone will do that, regardless of the cost.
>
> Peter,
>
> A reason I would suggest for this is that mic specs are only a guide to o=
nly
> some of the mic characteristics. A spec is essentially part of the sales=
> system and it only gives a partial account of quality.
>
> Characteristics not covered in mic specs include colouration, pulse
> response, enharmonic distortion and off-axis responses. It is difficult t=
o
> quote these in figures in a reliable and consistent way, but out ears det=
ect
> them.
>
> Colouration, for instance, does not feature on frequency responses. It is=
> standard practice to smooth the frequency response, and a common way to d=
o
> this is to use a warble tone to measure a response curve.
>
> Hopefully what you get by adding a zero to the cost is a cleaner sound, b=
ut
> there are no standards for this, only comparisons with trained ears, and =
you
> can't sell that.
>
> David Brinicombe
>
>
>
|