Products > Dodgy Technology

Is it a fallacy that dynamic microphones are better at rejecting room sound?

<< < (4/4)

H713:
IMO, the SM57 is a great mic because it sounds acceptable, doesn't cost a whole lot, and can be chucked at a concrete wall a good number of times without dying.

But I agree, there are a lot of things that sound better.

BradC:

--- Quote from: Bassman59 on March 31, 2021, 04:21:10 pm ---"But this is how I hold it."

"I'm a sound mixer, not a magician."

--- End quote ---

I always used to say "you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter".

We've had all sorts of problems with our "lead guitarist", so recently I bought him a 45 degree stand for his amp and started micing it up. The only thing I had to do was threaten to break his fingers if he touched any of the knobs on the amp after soundcheck.

themadhippy:

--- Quote --- was threaten to break his fingers if he touched any of the knobs on the amp after soundcheck.
--- End quote ---
so the room acoustics have changed with the punters in,the drummers battering 7 shades of shit out his kit instead of the 3 he used at sound check and the keys player has his volume pedal smashed against the floor but the guitarist just has to live with it all or get busted fingers,nice.

Bassman59:

--- Quote from: H713 on May 11, 2021, 02:49:39 am ---IMO, the SM57 is a great mic because it sounds acceptable, doesn't cost a whole lot, and can be chucked at a concrete wall a good number of times without dying.
--- End quote ---

The cap of the SM57 falls off if you look at it crosseyed.

It's the SM58 which functions well as a hammer.

Richard Crowley:

--- Quote from: sfs1 on March 08, 2021, 10:55:02 am ---I'm not having much luck with this question in music production circles, it very quickly goes into personal experience and received wisdom.
--- End quote ---

Alas, those audio/music forums are populated mostly by dilettante amateurs where the "received wisdom" bounces around the echo chamber until most people just accept it.   :bullshit:


--- Quote ---It's commonly said that a dynamic microphone is better at rejecting background noise / room sound / reflections compared to a condenser microphone. I don't understand why this should be the case.
--- End quote ---

From an strictly scientific perspective, the major difference is sensitivity. Which is mostly the result of the passive nature of dynamic microphone where the sound wave itself must move the diaphragm (and attached voice-coil) through the magnetic field. vs. a condenser microphone which typically has a much more compliant diaphragm where the motion of the diaphragm is sensed by non-contact capacitance.

The result of the lower sensitivity is that the dynamic microphone will be unable to pick up quieter sounds like ambient noise and acoustical anomalies.  AND it will force the user to speak louder for an equivalent signal level. And that will further enhance the perception of the dynamic microphone being better at "rejecting background noise, etc."


--- Quote ---When I look at the polar response graphs for different mics, I don't see any pattern that would let me determine that I'm looking at a condenser mic or a dynamic. They're just all over the place (you can get a shotgun condenser and an omni dynamic for example). So if the polar response isn't characteristic, what else could make a difference? Maybe it's just that there are lots of dynamic mics that have a tight polar response and lots of condenser mics that have a wider response, so when you look at a typical mic cabinet in a studio, that rule of thumb holds. But people (and manufacturers) talk about it as if it was an intrinsic thing. I'm interested to find out if I missed anything or got anything wrong.
--- End quote ---

As you perceive, the polar response is determined by the physical design of the microphone case, completely independent of the capsule type (dynamic vs. condenser, etc.)  Certainly, there are different designs, polar patterns, sensitivity, capsule type for various applications.

For example, we often use "shotgun" microphones for relatively distant pickup during cine/video production.  Because of the expected low audio levels involved, these microphones virtually always are designed using condenser capsules.  At the other end of the spectrum, certain microphones are designed for "close talking" in high-noise (and  often rugged) environments. So the more rugged (and impervious to humidity) dynamic microphone capsules are typically used.

Because condenser capsules are extremely high impedance and produce a very low signal level, they require active amplification and impedance conversion. So they require power for the active circuit. A convention using 48VDC was devised by Neumann GmbH and Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, NRK in 1966. It was subsequently established as DIN 45596 standard.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page