Microphone Graph and Data Collection

[Jeremiah Sheets]

Here is a page that I've been working on showing multiple microphone graphs and some basic information to make it easier for people doing research on the difference between mics.

The library currently contains only shotgun microphones, so you'll notice that the "All Microphones" page is identical to the "Shotguns" page. This all takes some time to compile.

This library now has 114 microphone plots for 58 microphones from 15 different manufacturers.

Hopefully this will be of some help.

I'll let you know when I update more.

http://jeremiahsheets.wix.com/home#!microphone-plots/ccbh

[soundtrane]

+1 great stuff

[John Willett]

Interesting, but the graphs are in different scales which makes comparison difficult.

 

On the Microphone Data site, all the graphs have been re-drawn to the same scale to make comparison easier.

[chrisnewton]

Thanks Jeremiah. I have an old Beyer MC836 which I picked up as a (seldom used) backup mic. The polar pattern you showed was very interesting in that there is only a very small rear pickup lobe on this mic. I'll haul it out and give it another listen. Could come in handy. Somehow I never cared much for the sound of this mic, preferring the instant gratification of my 416. Kind of like MSG on chinese food. Any beyer MC836 or 837 users out there?

[Jeremiah Sheets]

Hello, John. Thank you for posting.

I don't believe the different scales to be an issue since they each have their manufacturer supplied scale displayed.

The graphs on the page you linked are very nice looking, but I do not wish to use those graphs as I'm sure they spent a lot of time and effort designing them. Even though I wish that I could, for my purposes the manufacturer supplied graphs will do.

The purpose of my page is to allow the public to be able to view all manufacturer's information at once with a simple glance. Meant mostly for those with an interest in a new microphone without knowing where to start, or for making comparisons of several microphones with other microphones they may have tried. It is not nearly as complete as microphone-data .com, but that is a trade off.

That looks like a great resource for getting deeper information on particular microphones of interest. Perhaps the combination of the two pages would be of most use.

Thanks again.

[Jeremiah Sheets]

Perhaps I will supply a link to that page on mine, so more people see that it is available.

I've been in the industry for longer than that page has been around and did not know it existed.

[Jeremiah Sheets]

Hi, Chris. I'm a fan of Beyerdynamic's Dynamic microphones, but have not used the shotgun. There are many aspects that effect the sonic character of a microphone. One of the biggest is it's phase response throughout the spectrum and its distortions. That info is not readily available by the manufacturers and so I don't have graphs for these, which is a shame. In fact I fear that many don't measure the response, though I don't know that.

But I'm very pleased that you found some use for my page already.

[Jeremiah Sheets]

I've edited the page to also include a link to the Microphone-Data website.

[mikewest]

An interesting collection Jeremiah.

 

I believe most people will choose a microphone by using their ears, recommendation and price too.

 

Cheers

 

mike

[Jeremiah Sheets]

Absolutely, and that is advice that I give in that opening page. More of a warning, than anything.

You have to use a piece of gear in the field to know if it is right for you.

[mikewest]

Yep and it's interesting to try a microphone on a job.

 

Just talking into it and listening tell nothing about it's performance.

 

BTW my favorite is the CS-1

 

It's front to back ratio is laboratory perfect, it has reach and a conveniently wide angle

 

Sadly no bass roll off (i confronted the two design engineers in Tokyo - no comment!)

 

So a good quiet mount is essential plus bass roll off in my 664

 

Regards

 

mike

[chrisnewton]

I tested my Beyer MC836 for rear lobe sensitivity and it does indeed have very good rejection. Still not crazy about the sound though. Not nearly as much "reach" as the usual suspects either. For my money, the Rode NTG1, which I use for camera mic on doc. shoots has a "nicer" sound (my purely non-scientific opinion of course). The 836 is really long as well,so no good for on-camera backup. As NZ Mike says, it's all in the ear of the beholder.