Never heard of it. Don't know anything about it. Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

can you post a link to the article?

It's likely a matter of microphone design, not something you can do yourself.

bouldersound, post: 406513 wrote: It's likely a matter of microphone design, not something you can do yourself.

I'm new to all this but seemingly, Shure does it externally with the SM7B and Electro-Voice does it internally with the RE20, 27, 320 and perhaps more.

dortego, post: 406527 wrote: I'm new to all this but seemingly, Shure does it externally with the SM7B and Electro-Voice does it internally with the RE20, 27, 320 and perhaps more.

Assuming you're referring to the pop filters, they are there to diffuse blasts of air that would cause pops, not to tune the frequency response.

bouldersound, post: 406528 wrote: Assuming you're referring to the pop filters, they are there to diffuse blasts of air that would cause pops, not to tune the frequency response.

Yes, I understand that although when I read the OP's post it seems to me that it's referring to something other than circuitry. Oh well, what do I know.

I agree that a link or reference would be nice. I'm unfamiliar with any use of the term in English in the context quoted. I agree that it could be used in microphone construction and I wouldn't expect to be aware of it. But even there, I'd be surprised at its use. My top of the head guess is that it is a bad translation. And the quote just seems strange. My first reaction at the title was that it was referring to pop filters - but that doesn't seem to match up with the quote.

dortego, post: 406529 wrote: Yes, I understand that although when I read the OP's post it seems to me that it's referring to something other than circuitry. Oh well, what do I know.

Probably there are mechanical and acoustic ways of damping specific frequency ranges to even out frequency response. So I think you're right that it's not electronic.

The same thing is true of speaker drivers. If they didn't damp them to even out the response they would have higher output but sound bad. Unfortunately a lot of energy sent to the speaker is effectively thrown away as heat to make them sound better. Dynamic mics are just tiny speakers operating in reverse and likely have similar need for frequency response smoothing.

BobRogers, post: 406530 wrote: I'm unfamiliar with any use of the term in English in the context quoted.

I think "damping" would be the better word in English.

Whenever anyone starts using the term "muff" in a sentence, I get excited...LOL!!!!!!!
Does the OP mean "padding" , as in inserting a , say, a -20dB pad into the circuit?

why don't you link us to the article so we have some context? However, after decades of working with mics I will say this is not a concept I have ever heard about before. We were talking about some slight edgy distortion tube mics can get at times, but I think that was after this post was made.

I believe what we are writing of is the design of the headbasket and other corollary parts that either enhance or detract from a given response. In many chinese LDC's for instance the headbasket is multilayer and the "weave" of the layers is such that it acerbates the brittleness of said microphones. In the case of SDC one can easily apply the same principles. Take the KM140 and the MXL 603. They are similar in concept but the design varies significantly with regards the capsule and circuitry which is why they sound completely different. Mike Joly talks about the differences in depth at his website.