Comments on: Myth Busted – The Too Sensitive Condenser Microphone http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/12/30/myth-busted-the-too-sensitive-condenser-microphone/ home recording and acoustic guitars Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:37:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: Fran Guidry http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/12/30/myth-busted-the-too-sensitive-condenser-microphone/comment-page-1/#comment-2985 Fran Guidry Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:10:51 +0000 http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/?p=465#comment-2985 Thanks very much for your comment. I have never had any success persuading anyone that any of their audio myths were untrue, at least so far. But I continue to hope. Probably the key issue in all this is that we seriously mistake our ability to recognize volume difference without measurement tools. It seems like common sense that we can tell if one recording is louder than the other, but in fact our ear/brain auditory system is not designed to be an SPL meter. This results in "microphone shootouts" done with different performances and no level matching and people believing that the differences they hear are due to the microphone. Amazing, but nearly universal. Fran Thanks very much for your comment. I have never had any success persuading anyone that any of their audio myths were untrue, at least so far. But I continue to hope.

Probably the key issue in all this is that we seriously mistake our ability to recognize volume difference without measurement tools. It seems like common sense that we can tell if one recording is louder than the other, but in fact our ear/brain auditory system is not designed to be an SPL meter.

This results in “microphone shootouts” done with different performances and no level matching and people believing that the differences they hear are due to the microphone. Amazing, but nearly universal.

Fran

]]> By: Joe W. http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/12/30/myth-busted-the-too-sensitive-condenser-microphone/comment-page-1/#comment-2984 Joe W. Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:42:44 +0000 http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/?p=465#comment-2984 Thanks very much for going over this topic in such detail. Your tests have verified something I have long suspected, but didn't have the resources or full knowledge to try to test for myself. I also took the time time to enquire about this with a technician at Shure, who also seemed to suggest similar as to your findings for the most part, but also noted that a dynamic, due to a thicker diaphram and being more "mechanical" in it's method of turning sound pressure into electrical energy, does take slightly more force to respond to lighter sound pressures than a condenser diaphragm, which they explained mostly affects the higher frequency range, as to which they said some people will "perceive" this as being more sensitive than it actually is, as was explained in the thread you linked to, due to the non-linearity of human hearing. So now it is easy to understand that the misconception that a condenser will amplify background sounds at a higher ratio than what it actually is (I guess an environmental signal to noise ratio would be a good enough description), somehow making them louder than what they are in reference to the source material, or even reach and grab sounds that a dynamic of the same configuration cannot, is simply ludicrous. A microphone can only reproduce sound waves that reach it's diaphragm, with enough energy to cause the diaphragm to react, which is all just basic physics, once one understands exactly how a microphone works. Again, your explanation and demonstration have proven to be invaluable. I hope more people read your article and become educated enough to dispel the silly myth of a too sensitive condenser microphone once and for all. Thanks very much for going over this topic in such detail. Your tests have verified something I have long suspected, but didn’t have the resources or full knowledge to try to test for myself. I also took the time time to enquire about this with a technician at Shure, who also seemed to suggest similar as to your findings for the most part, but also noted that a dynamic, due to a thicker diaphram and being more “mechanical” in it’s method of turning sound pressure into electrical energy, does take slightly more force to respond to lighter sound pressures than a condenser diaphragm, which they explained mostly affects the higher frequency range, as to which they said some people will “perceive” this as being more sensitive than it actually is, as was explained in the thread you linked to, due to the non-linearity of human hearing.

So now it is easy to understand that the misconception that a condenser will amplify background sounds at a higher ratio than what it actually is (I guess an environmental signal to noise ratio would be a good enough description), somehow making them louder than what they are in reference to the source material, or even reach and grab sounds that a dynamic of the same configuration cannot, is simply ludicrous. A microphone can only reproduce sound waves that reach it’s diaphragm, with enough energy to cause the diaphragm to react, which is all just basic physics, once one understands exactly how a microphone works.

Again, your explanation and demonstration have proven to be invaluable. I hope more people read your article and become educated enough to dispel the silly myth of a too sensitive condenser microphone once and for all.

]]> By: watcharaaircon http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/12/30/myth-busted-the-too-sensitive-condenser-microphone/comment-page-1/#comment-2972 watcharaaircon Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:12:59 +0000 http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/?p=465#comment-2972 Good article very much. Useful for people who did not know. Thank you for sharing knowledge. Webblog and would like to introduce air conditioning(Thai). Recommend that your first forum. http://www.watcharaaircon.com. Good article very much. Useful for people who did not know.
Thank you for sharing knowledge.
Webblog and would like to introduce air conditioning(Thai).
Recommend that your first forum. http://www.watcharaaircon.com.

]]> By: Fran Guidry http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/12/30/myth-busted-the-too-sensitive-condenser-microphone/comment-page-1/#comment-170 Fran Guidry Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:14:10 +0000 http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/?p=465#comment-170 No, I've never used either mic and have no opinion about either one. I would suggest that a switchable multi-pattern mic like an NT2a is more useful for most recording tasks, but both the mics you mention are well respected. Fran No, I’ve never used either mic and have no opinion about either one. I would suggest that a switchable multi-pattern mic like an NT2a is more useful for most recording tasks, but both the mics you mention are well respected.

Fran

]]> By: Dwight Powell http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/12/30/myth-busted-the-too-sensitive-condenser-microphone/comment-page-1/#comment-169 Dwight Powell Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:02:05 +0000 http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/?p=465#comment-169 Hello, I'm trying to decide between the Shure SM27 and the Rode Nt1a. I will use the mic for vocals mostly. Do you have an opinion based on your test results. Thanks Hello,

I’m trying to decide between the Shure SM27 and the Rode Nt1a. I will use the mic for vocals mostly. Do you have an opinion based on your test results.
Thanks

]]>