Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mic Reviews

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 6:52:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hey-

I've added a bunch of new microphones to my web page since I last
posted here and I could really use some help with reviews... I intend
the site to be a FREE and reliable resource for mic information...

http://www.microphone-review.com/

Help me out with a review if you can...
Thanks

More about : mic reviews

Anonymous
September 3, 2005 10:09:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zac Roberts" <zmroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125784321.583321.94260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hey-
>
> I've added a bunch of new microphones to my web page since I last
> posted here and I could really use some help with reviews... I intend
> the site to be a FREE and reliable resource for mic information...
>
> http://www.microphone-review.com/
>
> Help me out with a review if you can...
> Thanks

If you're taking reviews from people around here, better moderate them, and
let them know.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:20:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Cmon Now! I am the guy who runs the site. I don't work for zzounds
but...yes there is advertising that I get paid a TINY TINY amound for
and the purpose of that is to keep the site running and if I should
turn some sort of a profit... that would be great too! At the same
time... the only way to generate any traffic to the site is to have
some REAL, valuable content that is actually useful to people who use
microphones. It is not intended to be some lame site that says SM57
and when you get there a million popups launch out at you and your are
redirected to 10 different sites that sell SM57s. It is intended to be
a site that has useful content and if people searching for SM57s find a
good review and decide to click a link to zzounds and buy one... then I
say great! I'm not trying to fool anyone here...
Related resources
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:11:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Zac,

You need to ask permission to use those reviews. You will probably get
a yes from everyone you ask but if you do no have permission, you open
the door to a suit for copyright infringement.

Most people would be honored to be re-posted but you do need to ask,
and get permission.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:29:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zigakly" wrote ...
> I like the fact that it's anonymous.

How is that? How do you know that the "reviewers" have ever
seen another similar microphone to compare to? (Or even seen
the microphone being reviewed, for that matter?) Or what their
recording experience is?

An annonymous review is no better than a random grafitti
in a public restroom.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:30:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zac Roberts" wrote ...
> Cmon Now! I am the guy who runs the site. I don't work for zzounds
> but...yes there is advertising that I get paid a TINY TINY amound for
> and the purpose of that is to keep the site running and if I should
> turn some sort of a profit... that would be great too! At the same
> time... the only way to generate any traffic to the site is to have
> some REAL, valuable content that is actually useful to people who use
> microphones. It is not intended to be some lame site that says SM57
> and when you get there a million popups launch out at you and your are
> redirected to 10 different sites that sell SM57s. It is intended to
> be
> a site that has useful content and if people searching for SM57s find
> a
> good review and decide to click a link to zzounds and buy one... then
> I
> say great! I'm not trying to fool anyone here...

Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 1:46:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

NOPE, you're ritght. That was a little non-thunk:-)

I would want to be paid for my work, so -Honored if paid- might be a
better way to put it. I didn't really mean that someone like you would
give away their work. I can imagine loads of kids that would love to
see their name up somewhere, but I would need to be paid for my
writings as well.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 1:51:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have a friend that use to work for Cubase and I can confirm that a
large part of his job was to sit in user groups and talk up Cubase
while talking down the others.

Now, I like and use Cubase but that isn't the point of course. The
point is to confirm that anonymous reviews are worthless.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 4:12:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

philicorda <philicorda@localhost.com> wrote:
>
>There are also many web based boards getting ad revenue from
>everything posted on rec.audio.pro. They often don't make it clear that
>the messages came from usenet, or that original posters have never heard
>of the message board they appear to be posting on.

Yes, I have noticed this recently, and it is really, really bad news.
I think this is a fairly new phenomenon and I am not sure what is behind
it, but we have already had a few drop-ins in this newsgroup from folks
who discovered these sites.

>I am apparently a Tetris and Space Invaders champion on the MIDIBuddy
>board, as are you.

Wow.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 4:18:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:52:01 -0400, Zac Roberts wrote
(in article <1125784321.583321.94260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):

> Hey-
>
> I've added a bunch of new microphones to my web page since I last
> posted here and I could really use some help with reviews... I intend
> the site to be a FREE and reliable resource for mic information...
>
> http://www.microphone-review.com/
>
> Help me out with a review if you can...
> Thanks
>

OK, let's take a look at the review of the AT2020, line by line.....BTW, I
like this mic myself and have also reviewed it. A review I was paid by the
publisher to do.

--------PASTE------

The Audio Technica AT 2020 is a nice addirion (SPELLING ERROR) to the mic
locker. After discussion with the guys at AT I decided to try one. I
(SPELLING ERROR) works well for vocals for the home studio. It dosen't
(SPELLING ERROR) sound as good as my U87's but it retails under $200. ($99,
ACTUALLY)

We then tried it at several different applications ib (SPELLING ERROR) the
studio. Both Electric and Acoustic guitars, worked well. (I'M GLAD THEY
WORKED WELL. HOW DID THE MIC DO? WHERE DID YOU PUT IT? WHAT DID YOU PLUG IT
INTO?)

Overhead drums, well again. High Hat, bingo. Hand percussion, no (SPELLING
ERROR) as good as the AKG414's, but pretty decent. (WHY AND WHY NOT?) Then we
tried it on a variety of horns. Sounded good, no problem with distortion on
saxes, trumpets or bones. It does require phantom power. I would definitely
recommend this mic for studio work. Then we took it out for some live gig
work. They did amazingly well (WHAT DOES AMAZINGLY WELL ACTUALLY MEAN?) on
live drums (even on a guys kit that was pain to mic the individual rack toms
because he has a set of roto toms located right above them), one mic above
the roto worked great live. Live chorus worked well with these. Barbershop
groups worked well. (HOW WAS THAT DONE? MAY WE HEAR A CLIP?)

I guess any place I want to use a condensor this mic worked great. Since it
is a large diaphragm you have to be concerned with wind noise. (EXCUSE ME?
FIRST, IT'S ROUGHLY 2/3", SO NOT AN LDC. SECOND, DIAPHRAGM SIZE HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH WIND SENSITIVITY) But sofar so good. The mic takes around 145 db
level without distortion so it's equally at home on the rock band as well as
the acoustic scene. I now have six of these and have been using them for
several months. I will probably buy more of them. Can't beat the
price/performance ratio.

Date Reviewed: 2005-09-03 06:00:37

---------------

I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can also
review them.

For more reviews, visit. http://tinyurl.com/ahbh3

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 6:42:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Zac Roberts wrote:

> Cmon Now! I am the guy who runs the site. I don't work for zzounds
> but...yes there is advertising that I get paid a TINY TINY amound for
> and the purpose of that is to keep the site running and if I should
> turn some sort of a profit... that would be great too! At the same
> time... the only way to generate any traffic to the site is to have
> some REAL, valuable content that is actually useful to people who use
> microphones. It is not intended to be some lame site that says SM57
> and when you get there a million popups launch out at you and your are
> redirected to 10 different sites that sell SM57s. It is intended to be
> a site that has useful content and if people searching for SM57s find a
> good review and decide to click a link to zzounds and buy one... then I
> say great! I'm not trying to fool anyone here...

Hi Zac,

I took a look at your site. Is it possible to 'credit' the authors of the
reviews in some way ?

It would be nice to know for example what kind of experience the review
writers have. e.g band member, live sound engineer, recording guy -
whatever just to give some more context to the review.

Also I noted that you have some mics on the site with no reviews but yet
the manufacturer's list is not an exhaustive one.

Is it possible to add a model easily ?

I like the idea btw. Mics are a very subjective thing and it's nice to have
a resource where ppl can contribute and other can draw from their
experience. Good luck with the idea.

Graham
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:05:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> philicorda <philicorda@localhost.com> wrote:
> >
> >There are also many web based boards getting ad revenue from
> >everything posted on rec.audio.pro. They often don't make it clear that
> >the messages came from usenet, or that original posters have never heard
> >of the message board they appear to be posting on.
>
> Yes, I have noticed this recently, and it is really, really bad news.
> I think this is a fairly new phenomenon and I am not sure what is behind
> it, but we have already had a few drop-ins in this newsgroup from folks
> who discovered these sites.

I've discovered my posts on a Saab drivers' forum. Not r.a.p posts from here
of course !

Graham
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:57:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.

Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
the job?

Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:11:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Danny Taddei" <palmtreedreamer@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125843062.476066.31170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Zac,
>
> You need to ask permission to use those reviews. You will probably get
> a yes from everyone you ask but if you do no have permission, you open
> the door to a suit for copyright infringement.
>
> Most people would be honored to be re-posted but you do need to ask,
> and get permission.

It's way too obvious that submitting a review means it will be published on
the site, so there's no way in hell someone couls sue, especially since the
anonymous nature of the site makes it hard just to prove who actually made
the review.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:15:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I have a friend that use to work for Cubase and I can confirm that a
> large part of his job was to sit in user groups and talk up Cubase
> while talking down the others.
>
> Now, I like and use Cubase but that isn't the point of course. The
> point is to confirm that anonymous reviews are worthless.

If you can't distinguish personal bias from technical merit, you're never
going to shop well, even if you never read a review. My only concern for
the anon posts is that it will turn into a discussion forum where people
retort other's reviews and lose the plot. Sound familiar?
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:20:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11hm16hjkvm34ac@corp.supernews.com...
> "Zigakly" wrote ...
> > I like the fact that it's anonymous.
>
> How is that? How do you know that the "reviewers" have ever
> seen another similar microphone to compare to? (Or even seen
> the microphone being reviewed, for that matter?) Or what their
> recording experience is?

You can tell by the nature of the post to a reasonable enough degree. If
you don't want to support the site, don't post a review. If you can't tell
what's uninformed jargon or commercial plants, don't read the reviews. If
you can appreciate the prospect of an unbiased forum for the comparison of
microphone experiences from all types of musicians and techs, jump in, the
water's warm.

> An annonymous review is no better than a random grafitti
> in a public restroom.

Really. My posts here are anonymous. For a good time call...
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:42:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uNmdnbhjTKbfg4beRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:52:01 -0400, Zac Roberts wrote
> (in article <1125784321.583321.94260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > Hey-
> >
> > I've added a bunch of new microphones to my web page since I last
> > posted here and I could really use some help with reviews... I intend
> > the site to be a FREE and reliable resource for mic information...
> >
> > http://www.microphone-review.com/
> >
> > Help me out with a review if you can...
> > Thanks
> >
>
> OK, let's take a look at the review of the AT2020, line by line.....BTW, I
> like this mic myself and have also reviewed it. A review I was paid by the
> publisher to do.
>
> --------PASTE------
>
> The Audio Technica AT 2020 is a nice addirion (SPELLING ERROR) to the mic
> locker. After discussion with the guys at AT I decided to try one. I
> (SPELLING ERROR) works well for vocals for the home studio. It dosen't
> (SPELLING ERROR) sound as good as my U87's but it retails under $200.
($99,
> ACTUALLY)
>
> We then tried it at several different applications ib (SPELLING ERROR) the
> studio. Both Electric and Acoustic guitars, worked well. (I'M GLAD THEY
> WORKED WELL. HOW DID THE MIC DO? WHERE DID YOU PUT IT? WHAT DID YOU PLUG
IT
> INTO?)
>
> Overhead drums, well again. High Hat, bingo. Hand percussion, no (SPELLING
> ERROR) as good as the AKG414's, but pretty decent. (WHY AND WHY NOT?) Then
we
> tried it on a variety of horns. Sounded good, no problem with distortion
on
> saxes, trumpets or bones. It does require phantom power. I would
definitely
> recommend this mic for studio work. Then we took it out for some live gig
> work. They did amazingly well (WHAT DOES AMAZINGLY WELL ACTUALLY MEAN?) on
> live drums (even on a guys kit that was pain to mic the individual rack
toms
> because he has a set of roto toms located right above them), one mic above
> the roto worked great live. Live chorus worked well with these. Barbershop
> groups worked well. (HOW WAS THAT DONE? MAY WE HEAR A CLIP?)
>
> I guess any place I want to use a condensor this mic worked great. Since
it
> is a large diaphragm you have to be concerned with wind noise. (EXCUSE ME?
> FIRST, IT'S ROUGHLY 2/3", SO NOT AN LDC. SECOND, DIAPHRAGM SIZE HAS
NOTHING
> TO DO WITH WIND SENSITIVITY) But sofar so good. The mic takes around 145
db
> level without distortion so it's equally at home on the rock band as well
as
> the acoustic scene. I now have six of these and have been using them for
> several months. I will probably buy more of them. Can't beat the
> price/performance ratio.
>
> Date Reviewed: 2005-09-03 06:00:37
>
> ---------------
>
> I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can also
> review them.

ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
right one for the job?
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:16:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
>dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
>the job?
>
>Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.

I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly comprehensive
measurements on any microphone. And I have made a lot of microphone
measurements over the years.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:20:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:

>
>"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:uNmdnbhjTKbfg4beRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:52:01 -0400, Zac Roberts wrote
>> (in article <1125784321.583321.94260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> > Hey-
>> >
>> > I've added a bunch of new microphones to my web page since I last
>> > posted here and I could really use some help with reviews... I intend
>> > the site to be a FREE and reliable resource for mic information...
>> >
>> > http://www.microphone-review.com/
>> >
>> > Help me out with a review if you can...
>> > Thanks
>> >
>>
>> OK, let's take a look at the review of the AT2020, line by line.....BTW, I
>> like this mic myself and have also reviewed it. A review I was paid by the
>> publisher to do.
>>
>> --------PASTE------
>>
>> The Audio Technica AT 2020 is a nice addirion (SPELLING ERROR) to the mic
>> locker. After discussion with the guys at AT I decided to try one. I
>> (SPELLING ERROR) works well for vocals for the home studio. It dosen't
>> (SPELLING ERROR) sound as good as my U87's but it retails under $200.
>($99,
>> ACTUALLY)
>>
>> We then tried it at several different applications ib (SPELLING ERROR) the
>> studio. Both Electric and Acoustic guitars, worked well. (I'M GLAD THEY
>> WORKED WELL. HOW DID THE MIC DO? WHERE DID YOU PUT IT? WHAT DID YOU PLUG
>IT
>> INTO?)
>>
>> Overhead drums, well again. High Hat, bingo. Hand percussion, no (SPELLING
>> ERROR) as good as the AKG414's, but pretty decent. (WHY AND WHY NOT?) Then
>we
>> tried it on a variety of horns. Sounded good, no problem with distortion
>on
>> saxes, trumpets or bones. It does require phantom power. I would
>definitely
>> recommend this mic for studio work. Then we took it out for some live gig
>> work. They did amazingly well (WHAT DOES AMAZINGLY WELL ACTUALLY MEAN?) on
>> live drums (even on a guys kit that was pain to mic the individual rack
>toms
>> because he has a set of roto toms located right above them), one mic above
>> the roto worked great live. Live chorus worked well with these. Barbershop
>> groups worked well. (HOW WAS THAT DONE? MAY WE HEAR A CLIP?)
>>
>> I guess any place I want to use a condensor this mic worked great. Since
>it
>> is a large diaphragm you have to be concerned with wind noise. (EXCUSE ME?
>> FIRST, IT'S ROUGHLY 2/3", SO NOT AN LDC. SECOND, DIAPHRAGM SIZE HAS
>NOTHING
>> TO DO WITH WIND SENSITIVITY) But sofar so good. The mic takes around 145
>db
>> level without distortion so it's equally at home on the rock band as well
>as
>> the acoustic scene. I now have six of these and have been using them for
>> several months. I will probably buy more of them. Can't beat the
>> price/performance ratio.
>>
>> Date Reviewed: 2005-09-03 06:00:37
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>> I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can also
>> review them.

>ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
>that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
>not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
>right one for the job?

No, it's not a guarantee, but it's always a competent review, by a
competent engineer, and I trust Ty's ears. Although I may not always
agree with his findings, I've always found Ty's reviews to be very
thorough, thoughtful, helpful, and complete.

Would I trust an anonymous reviewer who may only own (or have a limited
amount of experience with) the one mic he's reviewing? I don't think
so.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:24:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:20:51 -0400, "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:

> My posts here are anonymous.

And in that context, you might consider how much
credibility and general street cred is given here,
in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
poster.

FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 7:38:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:

> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> > Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
>
> Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
> dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
> the job?
>
> Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.

Oh, I reckon subjective assessments are valuable too. Even if they do
expose the inherent flaws of a mic - like the SM58 ! ;-)

Graham
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:20:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D fgda0$3sd$1@panix2.panix.com
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>>
>> Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
>> dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one
>> for the job?
>>
>> Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
>
> I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly
> comprehensive measurements on any microphone. And I have
> made a lot of microphone measurements over the years.

A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
that's 155,520 points.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:56:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:11:52 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article <dffutm$gep$1@domitilla.aioe.org>):

>
> "Danny Taddei" <palmtreedreamer@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1125843062.476066.31170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Zac,
>>
>> You need to ask permission to use those reviews. You will probably get
>> a yes from everyone you ask but if you do no have permission, you open
>> the door to a suit for copyright infringement.
>>
>> Most people would be honored to be re-posted but you do need to ask,
>> and get permission.
>
> It's way too obvious that submitting a review means it will be published on
> the site, so there's no way in hell someone couls sue, especially since the
> anonymous nature of the site makes it hard just to prove who actually made
> the review.
>
>

Of course if someone wanted to copy a review from somewhere else and post it
on the site anonymously.........

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:59:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:57:07 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article <dfg8l905ei@enews3.newsguy.com>):

>
>
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
>
> Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
> dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
> the job?
>
> Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
>
>
> Bob
>

Knowing Bob the way I do, I'll only take mild offense at his statement 'cause
I don't think he was aiming for me.

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:01:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 22:24:06 -0400, Chris Hornbeck wrote
(in article <qqanh1p1hrb0ndfof2l7d7ld3umrvl5nhl@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:20:51 -0400, "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:
>
>> My posts here are anonymous.
>
> And in that context, you might consider how much
> credibility and general street cred is given here,
> in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
> poster.
>
> FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.
>
> Good fortune,
>
> Chris Hornbeck

Persactly!. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Ty (Pogo) Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:03:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:42:53 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article <dfg0nl$ju0$1@domitilla.aioe.org>):

>> I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can also
>> review them.
>
> ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
> that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
> not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
> right one for the job?

Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of pronouncement
without caveats.

BTW, what do you do for a living?

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:13:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 03:20:18 -0400, Harvey Gerst wrote
(in article <u0snh11njf6bthk1rqba5m94flr54nftfn@4ax.com>):

>> ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
>> that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
>> not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
>> right one for the job?
>
> No, it's not a guarantee, but it's always a competent review, by a
> competent engineer, and I trust Ty's ears. Although I may not always
> agree with his findings, I've always found Ty's reviews to be very
> thorough, thoughtful, helpful, and complete.
>
> Would I trust an anonymous reviewer who may only own (or have a limited
> amount of experience with) the one mic he's reviewing? I don't think
> so.
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/


Thanks Harv. back at you.

The Internet has spawned many amazing things; some fact, some fiction.
Anecdotal rather than technical information can be helpful in determining
what mic to choose. I usually meld the two in a way that seems to make sense
based on the immediate context. That usually confirms or raises a question
about the published specifications.

Besides, we all know that specs alone don't tell the story, right?

Besides, besides, even if intense technical tests were done, many folks
probably wouldn't know what they meant. I lose interest pretty quickly
myself.

Besides, besides, besides, there's a time and word limit to reviews. How much
time do you think it takes to review a mic? (Actually read one of mine and
tell me.)

How much more time and equipment would it take to go deeper. I'm lucky to get
800 words to review a mic. Real, in depth stuff eats that up pretty quickly.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:57:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly
>> comprehensive measurements on any microphone. And I have
>> made a lot of microphone measurements over the years.
>
>A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
>octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
>on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
>that's 155,520 points.

No, that's not enough. I want impulse response at each of those positions.
Waterfall plots at 10-degree intervals would make me happy, I think.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:07:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:42:53 -0400, Zigakly wrote
>
> ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you suggest
> that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was paid or
> not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be the
> right one for the job?

See, I often disagree with Ty about microphones. In fact, I think most of
the time I disagree with Ty about microphones. But I know how I disagree
with him, and when I see a review with his name on it, I start out with
some basic knowledge of how my attitudes differ from his. This just comes
from a decade of reading Ty's reviews.

If Ty's reviews were anonymous, I wouldn't know this. I might read partway
through one, read his comparison with a 77DX and discount the rest of the
review completely, if I didn't know it was Ty and know that he has a very
different notion of how aggressive a vocal sound ought to be than I do.

Because I have this basic knowledge of Ty's biases (or maybe my biases
with respect to his), I find his reviews very useful. If I didn't have it,
if I didn't know the reviewer, if the review was anonymous so I had no
baseline, I wouldn't find the review useful at all, no matter how good it
was.

When I do microphone reviews, I try very hard to explain my basic biases
and what I tend to like and why. And I try to do comparisons with other
microphones that people might have. This is, however, a lot of work and
takes up a lot of column space. You can't really do it completely and
often you can't do it at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 7:40:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 9/5/05 7:20 AM, in article dM-dnbZOP_hvtIHeRVn-oQ@comcast.com, "Arny
Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:D fgda0$3sd$1@panix2.panix.com
>> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
>>> dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one
>>> for the job?
>>>
>>> Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly
>> comprehensive measurements on any microphone. And I have
>> made a lot of microphone measurements over the years.
>
> A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
> octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
> on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
> that's 155,520 points.
>
>
Which sounds daunting until you think of how that'd easily be represented in
a color 3D graphic.

BOSE does this to some degree.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 7:40:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"SSJVCmag" wrote ...
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:

>> A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
>> octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
>> on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
>> that's 155,520 points.
>>
>>
> Which sounds daunting until you think of how that'd easily be
> represented in
> a color 3D graphic.
>
> BOSE does this to some degree.

LOL :-) Perhaps you meant the Bose marketing gerbs?
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:49:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:57:07 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
> (in article <dfg8l905ei@enews3.newsguy.com>):
>
>
>>
>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.
>>
>>Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
>>dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
>>the job?
>>
>>Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.
>>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>
>
> Knowing Bob the way I do, I'll only take mild offense at his statement 'cause
> I don't think he was aiming for me.

Right. Just displaying my bias against subjective
evaluation of something which doesn't even have a meaningful
consensus vocabulary. (It's much like describing the
differential taste of various butterscotch concoctions.) I
can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what
measurement can, despite any experience he might have
listening to some of them on some source material.

The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
with "I like it" or "I don't like it". I have a hard time
understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
that can be given a lot more weight than any other's. Hell,
individual hearing responses almost certainly vary as much
as those of microphones and are highly sensitive to
listening level. Finally, with listening a reviewer is
limited to evaluating the output of a speaker in an
idiosyncratic setting which itself is far less ideal in most
every way than is a microphone.

This criticism applies, of course, to review of many things
other than microphones.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:38:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
> I have a hard time understanding how any particular individual's
> opinion on that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.


The "how" is history and comparison. In fact, Ty's reviews are an
excellent example of exactly that in my case.

I read some of Ty's reviews of mics I know well. His observations were
consistent with my own. I then went and listened to items he described
that I hadn't heard before, and, again, found that my own impressions
were quite similar to his. That suggests that my listening habits and
preferences are similar to his, so his reviews should have merit for me.
Whether or not they would for someone else depends on their tastes and
habits.

I've also gone through the same exercise with some other people here,
and found that they enjoy things I wouldn't listen to without a gun to
my head. Guess how I weight *their* reviews?

Attribution may not be much use if you don't know the reviewer, but it's
great if you do.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 1:02:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
>Why would anonymity appeal to you? Without knowing whose opinion I'm
>reading, how do I know how to weight it?

The advantage of anonymity is that some people might be willing to make
some statements anonymously that they wouldn't be willing to make in
public. For example, I am on NDA by a couple microphone manufacturers
about some interesting stuff that I can't talk about. And if I mention
A&S McKay much more, they'll probably threaten to sue me again. So you
will not, for example, see any Recording magazine review of the new
Chinese "Oktava" microphones with my name on it.

This is countered by the fact that, if I did post anonymously with enough
information, people would probably know it was me. And if I posted
anonymously without enough information, nobody would know it was me and
so they wouldn't pay too much attention to the review.

>For example, I've read comments from people around here, then listened
>to the items they were describing. From that I've been able to
>determine who has tastes and ears similar to my own. I've also
>discovered that certain people seem to hear the world in a MUCH
>different way than I do. I read their comments in a different context.

Precisely. This more than outweighs any additional ability to speak
freely that anonymity might provide.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 11:02:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:

> I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
> despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
> source material.

I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
give me. I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
him.

> The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
> with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
> with "I like it" or "I don't like it".

And the sound of a measurement is...??

> I have a hard time
> understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
> that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.

Then listen to the man's work and decide for yourself. People who use
these tools nearly everyday and get outstanding results have often been
able to inform me about the usefullness or not of many different audio
tools.

--
ha
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 11:02:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:02:34 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article <1h2gt1v.1b6t2vn1mb6ysmN%walkinay@thegrid.net>):

> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
>> despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
>> source material.
>
> I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
> correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
> give me. I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
> him.
>

I think I somehow try to use language that transcends the typical
communicational problems. I also have found that comparison without claiming
one is better than the other seems to help as a way of explaining what a new
mic sounds like.

When I started reviewing that way it raised some eyebrows. Publishers were
concerned that I'd be dissing one mic or the other. I told them that I wasn't
going after the "this good, that bad" angle as much as I was using the
relatively known aspects of one mic as a point of comparison. I was hoping
that, as a reader, if you knew A and I communicated about how B was different
than A, that it would help the reader vector in on what B was. It seems to
have worked.

As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.

Regards,

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 4:43:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D fhmd0$jaq$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly
> >> comprehensive measurements on any microphone. And I have
> >> made a lot of microphone measurements over the years.
> >
> >A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
> >octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
> >on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
> >that's 155,520 points.
>
> No, that's not enough. I want impulse response at each of those
positions.
> Waterfall plots at 10-degree intervals would make me happy, I think.
> --scott

I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic linearity, so take those
measurements at different SPL's as well. I'm certain that the non-linear
dynamics of mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it anywhere.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:00:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:29:51 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
>has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
>perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
>Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.

*This* is why I read the newsgroup.

Thanks to all,

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:01:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > My posts here are anonymous.
>
> And in that context, you might consider how much
> credibility and general street cred is given here,
> in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
> poster.
>
> FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.

A rose by any other name (or none at all) would smell as sweet. I call them
as I see them. Anyone experienced enough to make a thorough, concise,
intelligible review probably isn't lying. The usual caveats apply as well
of course, but name recognition isn't important to me. In fact I marginally
discredit anyone who posts personal information publicly unnecessarily. (no
offense to those who do)
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:17:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o 6udnU5058WtzYHeRVn-2g@comcast.com...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:42:53 -0400, Zigakly wrote
> (in article <dfg0nl$ju0$1@domitilla.aioe.org>):
>
> >> I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can
also
> >> review them.
> >
> > ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you
suggest
> > that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was
paid or
> > not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be
the
> > right one for the job?
>
> Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of
pronouncement
> without caveats.

I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that AT2020
review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
review more or less valid on its face. If the two reviews are side-by-side
but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more competent
analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews, anonymous
or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but it's
not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.

> BTW, what do you do for a living?

Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:17:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zigakly" wrote ...
> Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
> name-dropping...

Perhaps you could start with your own?
Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>*This* is why I read the newsgroup.

Should have included "Because it's Godardian!"
Arf.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:24:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
>> I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
>>despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
>>source material.
>
>
> I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
> correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
> give me.

That's because there are no standards for comprehensive
testing which even private testers can apply. If there
were, and one could find the results for the various mics
then the correlation would begin to happen and they would be
much more accurate than what can be accomplished with verbage.

I've done quite a lot of (accurate) frequency response
characterisation of things I have on hand and have come to
feel I can tell a good deal from a good set of data. (By
frequency response I mean the complex response which yields
the time domain aspects as well via things like the STFT
which gives a watefall plot.)

We know that what comes from the manufacturers is minimal
add copy and that, of course, correlates with very little.

> I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
> him.

You've apparently learned his vocabulary and can do some
correlation with your own experience. Still, there really
isn't all that much that can be said about the wide and
detailed differences among them. Too much information
compression.

>>The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
>>with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
>>with "I like it" or "I don't like it".
>
>
> And the sound of a measurement is...??

That's the point. A comprehensive procedure that would
disclose a great deal about mic performance could be
established but hasn't. I think David Josephson was heading
such a standards committee but I've not heard what came out
of it.

>> I have a hard time
>>understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
>>that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.
>
> Then listen to the man's work and decide for yourself.

I'm not sure which work you refer to.

For me, even a discography wouldn't help much because his
vocabulary is idiosyncratic as is every reviewer's. To get
anywhere with reviews I'd have to do as you have, get
instances of the things he (or anyone who does it) has
reviewed and compare his verbage with my own impressions but
if one has that option, what is the point of reading reviews?

> People who use
> these tools nearly everyday and get outstanding results have often been
> able to inform me about the usefullness or not of many different audio
> tools.

To be sure. I'm just skeptical about effectively describing
in language the more esoteric and subjective aspects of
complex widgets like transducers. Especially when
transducers have to be cascaded to get at something to describe.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:25:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:

> As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
> has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
> perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
> Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.

LOL! :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:34:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D fhn08$arn$1@panix2.panix.com...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:42:53 -0400, Zigakly wrote
> >
> > ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you
suggest
> > that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was
paid or
> > not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be
the
> > right one for the job?
>
> See, I often disagree with Ty about microphones. In fact, I think most of
> the time I disagree with Ty about microphones. But I know how I disagree
> with him, and when I see a review with his name on it, I start out with
> some basic knowledge of how my attitudes differ from his. This just comes
> from a decade of reading Ty's reviews.
>
> If Ty's reviews were anonymous, I wouldn't know this. I might read
partway
> through one, read his comparison with a 77DX and discount the rest of the
> review completely, if I didn't know it was Ty and know that he has a very
> different notion of how aggressive a vocal sound ought to be than I do.
>
> Because I have this basic knowledge of Ty's biases (or maybe my biases
> with respect to his), I find his reviews very useful. If I didn't have
it,
> if I didn't know the reviewer, if the review was anonymous so I had no
> baseline, I wouldn't find the review useful at all, no matter how good it
> was.
>
> When I do microphone reviews, I try very hard to explain my basic biases
> and what I tend to like and why. And I try to do comparisons with other
> microphones that people might have. This is, however, a lot of work and
> takes up a lot of column space. You can't really do it completely and
> often you can't do it at all.
> --scott

Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...

I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have with
Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
casual basis as the website in question. There are many aspects to mics
that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:40:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11hsumlt994t58@corp.supernews.com...
> "Zigakly" wrote ...
> > Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
> > name-dropping...
>
> Perhaps you could start with your own?
> Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
> aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.

I'm not hiding, but I'm not waving my dick around either. I consider the
unnecessary publication of personal information to be irresponsible. If I
lose points for that, so be it.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 11:43:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:D flr5l$39k$1@domitilla.aioe.org


> I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
> linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
> as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
> mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
> anywhere.

Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit compared to
the nonlinear performance of speakers.

This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed close
to a loud source can't clip its internal electronics.
However a lot of mics that have that exposure, have built-in
attenuators.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 12:52:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 01:17:19 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article <dflt3u$5e1$1@domitilla.aioe.org>):

>> Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of
> pronouncement
>> without caveats.
>
> I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that AT2020
> review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
> review more or less valid on its face.

I beg to differ. The FCC license on my wall is smirking as well.

If the two reviews are side-by-side
> but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more competent
> analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews, anonymous
> or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but it's
> not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.

It speaks to my credibility. Any hoo haa can post on the net. Getting paid to
write a good review is something entirely different. Of course there's added
value there.

>> BTW, what do you do for a living?
>
> Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
> name-dropping...

Oh PLEEEEASE! Wash your hands before and after you type something like that
again. And while you're at it, send out monagrammed tissues so we can all
wipe the spew from our screens and keyboards after reading your last line.

Oh I get it, you're into provoking (which is different and less interesting
that being provocative). Try rec.audio.provoke, it's a more challenging read.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:11:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
> > linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
> > as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
> > mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
> > anywhere.
>
> Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit compared to
> the nonlinear performance of speakers.
>
> This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed close
> to a loud source can't clip its internal electronics.
> However a lot of mics that have that exposure, have built-in
> attenuators.

I was refering to a compressive or expansive characteristic at various
frequencies, well short of the mic's max SPL. Measurement mics are chosen
for their linearity, so they can act as a comparison base, whether the
speaker is consistent or not.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 6:08:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:D fn6v0$p75$1@domitilla.aioe.org
>>> I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
>>> linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
>>> as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
>>> mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit
>> compared to the nonlinear performance of speakers.
>>
>> This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed
>> close to a loud source can't clip its internal
>> electronics. However a lot of mics that have that
>> exposure, have built-in attenuators.

> I was refering to a compressive or expansive
> characteristic at various frequencies, well short of the
> mic's max SPL.

I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding a
speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at the mic.

>Measurement mics are chosen for their
> linearity, so they can act as a comparison base, whether
> the speaker is consistent or not.

Let's distinguish between linear response in the frequency
domain and linear amplitude response. Measurement mics need
to be linear in the frequency domain, but they don't
necessarily need to have especially linear amplitude
response or handle really high acoustic levels, not that the
better ones don't.
!