On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:54:53 +0200, Hans Hagberg wrote:

>About mic response curves:
>
>I build speakers too and I consider myself audiophile-damaged.

I like that description...! ;-)

>I know
>that a speaker that started to roll off at 100 Hz would sound very thin
>for the kind of music I have in mind. I would say that a -3 db point at
>40 Hz would be more acceptable as full range for almost all music.

True - but these are rare in reality, if not in the ad.
claims...;-) For most people, even for organ pedal notes,
a speaker flat and clean to 100Hz and rolling off at
12db/octave below that would satisfy... (this, from a
bass-freak who builds flat-to-16Hz woofers...!;-).

>I have never given much thought at how microphones are specified though.
>I doubt they roll of like a speaker. So what does a lower limit of 100
>Hz mean for a microphone ?

Many things, alas, as with speakers...
Best to try the mic of interest.

>Personally, I wouldn't need a built in cut-off in the microphone since
>my camera has a built in wind-cut filter that can be activated.
>
>Another question:
>How do you test a microphone when trying to decide if it is good for
>video ?
>I have tried to test by recording the output from my hi-fi system. I
>know exactly what it sounds like and when I replay the recording from
>the camera, back through the hi-fi system, it is easy to tell what is
>lost in the process. I don't know if this method is flawed.

It is great - if the recordings are made in the same room,
with the source replacing the speakers, and with the mic
placed as before...;-) Different environments will alter the
sound considerably, as you know - and the mic distance from
the sound source may also noticeably change the mic tonal
balance. Best is checking out the mic of interest in the
environments of interest, with the expected mic placements,
and with the sources of interest - not easy to do, but...
If you are on a tight budget, the choices are greatly
restricted, and a decent, general-purpose mic may serve.
The Sony 908C is "bottom-end" for that category, but it may
serve well enough. Look also at the AT822(?) Audio Technica
stereo mic (it comes in a version with stereo mini-plug).
BTW, I used to put together some nice sounding mics for
audio-only recordings using tiny Panasonic mic elements
in parallel triples - total cost, about $5/mic, and they
compared surprisingly well with Neumann KM-83s and some
$1000 B&Ks...;-) (Not in noise, though...;-)
I could not find the ECM959C here, and the nearest
equivilent was the price of the AT. BTW, with video, one
can get "good" sound (with picture...) that might not
satisfy if it were a sound-only recording - the picture
can "fill-in" a lot of missing ultimate sound quality, I
find...

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>>
>> I would be interested, too, in comments on the ECM-959C.
>> Thanks for pointing it out. A few comments, that may not
>> be relevant:
>> - mic frequency response limits (which are not "brick-wall")
>> are important, but less so than the smoothness and
>> "balance" of the response curve, both on and off axis,
>> unless it is severely limited (the 908C sounds OK on
>> organ, voice, piano, and violin, from recent
>> experience - not "audiophile"-quality, but OK...).
>> - video mics often are restricted in low end response
>> to minimize wind problems.
>> - most music does not go much below 100Hz, and a pure
>> 100Hz tone sounds very low to most people (I build giant
>> sub-woofers, so I know...! ;-), and for most people
>> 18kHz response vs. 15kHz is not audible (though it can
>> result in smoother HF response in the audible range).
>> - The "MS" design of the 908C may offer preferable
>> directional characteristics to the "dual-mono" (?)
>> design of the 959C (unknown, but it is labeled "S",
>> rather than "MS" [which indicate different ways of
>> arranging the capsules inside the mic...]).
>> I will try to order a 959C soon, if the price is not too
>> high, it is available here, and I haven't heard negative
>> comments about it before I do...