Thread: Looking to devise a repeatable microphone comparison test.

Boswell, I guess we are alone on this? Of course, great minds think alike and so do the other kinds.

There is such a beautiful blend of harmonics from a piano that would present a much more broad evaluation capability from its program repeatability. I like the idea of that solenoid operated mallet. What you did was sort of equivalent to the early MOOG synthesizer that was not polyphonic. Most people could not remember back that far because they weren't born yet. Everybody takes for granted polyphonic capabilities today. I know I'm getting ear fatigue and so, I don't use monitors that cause me much of that. Some of these newer monitors, no matter how good they are, I have found give me greater ear fatigue. But the marketing hype and the manufacturers will tell you otherwise because they're trying to sell you new product. So only you can determine what's best for you. We sit and monitor for hours on end. And when you need to, you take a break. Then you go back, lather, rinse and repeat. And your hair will look great. All of those hairs in your inner ear. How else do you think that real professional engineers do it? Back in the day, even folks like George Massenburg utilized JBL L 100's which were the prettier looking version of the 4310/4311/4312's and some of us still like those like myself. Sure, I've used plenty of others and like plenty of others like Meyer HD-1's. Some of these newer fangled speakers sound good initially.

Your Henry Ford approach would still not be consistent because you are changing the position of the actual sound source in relationship to the room's acoustic environment. Nodal differences would then negate any consistency. You know some of us aren't really idiots even if I seem to be. Although I'm also quite competent at being a professional idiot when I want to be. It's fun to be idiotic at times. We need a laugh once in a while.

Maybe I should try recording a Model T?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Maybe it comes down to a long time in the profession? I think anyone who has actually had the experience of doing this sort of testing will automatically relate to the emphasis on the exact consistency of the acoustic factors. It could be that the need to use repeatable live sounds and not reproduced sounds is more a personal taste, but in my case at least I know I get better results with live.

"Your Henry Ford approach would still not be consistent because you are changing the position of the actual sound source in relationship to the room's acoustic environment." - RemyRAD

Actually, Remy, I was talking about fixing some kind of rotating platform in front of the sound source so that the only thing changing would be which microphone was in position during a given iteration of the test. Kind of a crude design I realize, but I don't think it would change the modal relationships significantly. All mics would be present (although in a different position on the wheel) in every iteration, so any acoustic contribution from the mics themselves (negligible) or the mechanical device would be replicated in each test.

I am from a scientific background: Acoustics and now dentistry, which masquerades as a science!

I would suggest finding a technician or intern or something to mix up the results for you, try to replicate a double-blind situation. That way you can say, "I like the fifth one best!" and you have no clue that it's the cheapest one, or whatever.

Just eliminates bias. Yes, I am a nerd! Good luck with your project.

P.S. You are all intelligent people, which is why I'm here! This thread has my mind going, which is nice for a change. Have sort of closeted the brain for dental school (not required, lol.)

Even putting your microphones on a rotating belt would require that the microphones be the right incisor you would be on the bi cusp of Mo large microphone bodies, verses smaller microphones which could dog tooth your efforts, biting you in the ass? You wouldn't want your sound source too loud because at night rouse the neighbors. Being courteous to your neighbors for such tests would prevent an explosion like a nova, caning your relationships with them.

I hope we see I to I on this?
Mx. Remy Ann David

This is the part I "Like"

Simply sitting and listening to one hit after another would be too subjective, and fatigue would naturally bias the listener: hit 2 would inevitably sound quieter, not as good as hit 1, and hit 3 < hit 2 and so on. The ears adjust to stimulus. Muscles contract in the middle ear and sensitivities change. Psychologically, too, you'd get "bored" after maybe ten hits or so. If hit 11 was really great you might think (subconsciously), "Oh, great, another hit."

Do any of you guys trust mic comparisons on forums? I don't. I like them from an entertainment POV, but I would never make a purchase based on the sound I hear, its way to subjective. Before I even take it serious I want to see stellar converters and no Pro Tools because both those two things effect the detail I am searching for.
I do however, put way more value in the opinion of the person doing the comparison over what I hear online. Whats good for one song sucks for another.
It takes years to build a reputation on what a mic or particular product is best suited for.

example, I check out a few comparisons on gearslutz, watch the rally on how the followers trust some guys comparisons using a generic Pro Tools system as the bench mark for his capture. Yet I hear that squeeeeeeeeezy sound in Pro tools all the time so how can this be representing the sweetness of any mic etc?

Chris, I don't understand your reluctance towards Pro Tools if processing is not involved? When it comes to record and playback of uncompressed .wav files, it really shouldn't matter whose software is being utilized. I'm certainly not a big fan of ProTools but for straight record and playback purposes it shouldn't matter. Nothing else should come into play with that other than you playing back.

I certainly don't trust microphone comparisons on forums. I can only trust what I utilize and hear for myself. But it is something that can whet the appetite.

Now I'm hungry again. I've gained 15 pounds since September OMG! Too many trips to the Chinese trough a.k.a. buffet. It's all this talk about audio equipment that gets me salivating. I feel like a dog waiting for my milk bone.

ARF!
Mx. Remy Ann David

Remy,

the AD sound of that system has any ugly around 6k to 10k. Looking back on this last 7 years ( well 1998 to 2012), it will be obvious to those that are conditioned to it. Note I said generic pro tools system and generic is what most people have.

I also can't get around thinking it's quite possible that there might be a "toy bias" in mic preferences anyway. If I go to the store and buy Nikes I'm going to think Nike's are the bee's knees and better than Adidas. Some other guy might do the reverse with Adidas, and now we have contradictory biases based on nothing more than I like what I bought (or at least want to justify the purchase to myself somehow.)

Fact is Nike's are great shoes. Adidas are great shoes.

Same applies to mics, I think. And cars, and tools.

As part of my systems design/installation career I found guys would walk around with DeWalt strapped to their belts like a revolver. Is DeWalt a good screwdriver? Well, sure, but at the same time there is a macho factor in one's decision to buy one. I spec 'EM out and buy the one with the torque I need, and the voltage I need on the battery, and I end up with what I end up with, you know?

And then I'm thinking Mikita is a superior screwdriver based simply on the fact that I bought one.

I'm not saying this accounts for all preferential differences in microphones, but certainly it's a factor. And it's justifiable, too, if you know your client is aware of the "wow factor" of a really nice mic. They see RODE or Neumann coming at them and that's impressive. That's a selling point for you.

For a dentist it's more of an educational gap with materials. Patients don't know from composite! Buy a cheap on if it works, and increase production. Pocket the difference, baby.

Business and perception, marketing, psychology all interact on these products. Quality and performance, reliability is a given for a lot of them, like Ford or Chevy. They're both pretty good cars, you know? They're not Lambo's or Aston Martins, though.