Looking to devise a repeatable microphone comparison test.

**Littlefish** · 05-16-2012, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Boswell

I know both Remy and I have been a bit frivolous in our suggestions, but what were were trying to emphasise is repeatability. You can't begin to make meaningful measurements of differences between microphones unless everything else is exactly the same. This means not only using the same cables, pre-amps and converters, but also placing each mic under test in exactly the same place in the room and giving it a repeat of exactly the same sound source to listen to. You can't do it by putting two mics side-by-side, as they not in the same place. Believe me, a couple of inches matters, even in a mic test.

The other point is that numerical measurements of microphones describe only one aspect of their differences. What matters more is how they sound, and no-one has devised a laboratory or studio test that reliably correlates with how listeners rate individual mics. That day may come, but it's not here yet.

You would also run into problems if your sound source is a reproduced recording. Although precisely repeatable, a reproduced sound is already coloured in a way that could easily mask differences between microphones. Hearing something like a fairground organ may sound like a reproduction, but its punched card input is only an early example of programmed control of a sound source in the way that MIDI is the programming instruction language for a solenoid-driven piano. The sound itself is absolutely live and does not have the hidden artifacts of a recording and reproduction chain incorporated into it.

Many years ago, when I first got 96KHz/24-bit recording capability, I did some tests under studio conditions using a mechanical Hammer to operate the mallet on a crash cymbal. I was amazed how much of the high-frequency (>20KHz) and low-amplitude (<90dBFS) effects were removed by processing the recording down to the CD standard of 44.1KHz/16-bit. The human ear can perceive differences in transients at both high-frequencies and low amplitudes that are not shown up by steady-state audiometric frequency tests. It's performance in this sort of area that sorts out really great mics from the simply good ones.

This is helpful.

**Littlefish** · 05-16-2012, 12:32 AM

The most difficult thing for me will be a repeatable vocal take. We are talking over a hundred mics over a span of 12 months. Male and female vocalists.

**Littlefish** · 05-16-2012, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Toothgrinder

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.

This is what I hope to dispell somewhat.

**Littlefish** · 05-16-2012, 12:43 AM

I think I will be doing a recording of male, female vocals, our baby grand, acoustic bass, drums and a few others though our KHE VM1a AND Earthworks QTC40 into Earthworks 1022 mic pre, into Avid HDX 16x16. Will then remike Genelec 8050
Also will record DI'd guitar and bass, to then reamp and mike.
If this method doesn't feel like it is adequately reproducing meaningful RELATIVE differences between microphones than we will quit.

**Littlefish** · 05-16-2012, 12:50 AM

I might argue that pre-1998 music is simply missing this level of polish. Or....
Not only are the loudness wars winning, but this is the region where it is taking place.
This has been an aesthetic choice in a lot of the mixing I see.