![]() ![]() Your particular situation is necessary for making a final decision. ![]() Might cause me enormous trouble with my system tuning, but be just fine for you.įor these reasons, I made the suggestion that I did in the introduction: That this study is useful as a way to "shortlist" purchase contenders, but that subjective testing specific to Further, a particular "cupping peak" for a mic This, of course, tells you very little about what happens when that same mic is routed to many monitors across a stage. For instance, the feedback performance of the mics was tested with one mic routed to a single monitor speaker. That "bench tests" like this don't account for many real-life factors. As a follow-on to that point, it's important to recognize To produce a complete picture of any single microphone's performance - especially under different sets of real-world conditions. This is necessary for simplicity of comparison, but unavoidably fails The wind noise measurement seemed relatively consistent and fair overall, but the test was by no means an accurate simulation of a plosive vocal sound.Īn overall consideration is that, in this study as a whole, complex behaviors have been reduced to a single number. Also, some of the mics tested are billed specifically as "instrument" mics, meaning that their internal shockmounting against handling Significantly better than the results would indicate. A reasonable guess would be that the worst performers are actually As such, the overall fairness of the test is questionable. In different places along their construction. This couples with the issue that mics are more susceptible to mechanical noise ![]() Unpredictability in exactly where the object will strike the microphone under test. As it turns out, dropping an object onto a microphone (even from a repeatable distance) suffers from It should be noted that there are two areas of uncertainty in the measurements presented above, with one area being particularly questionable.ĭuring testing, it was difficult to get repeatable results for mechanical noise. The interactive table requires Javascript for display. Please be aware that the Shootout has some limitations, which are discussed below. The results of this experiment are shown in the interactive table below. As such, an alternative title for this shootout could have been, "The Cash-Strapped Audio-Human's Guide To Affordable Mics." The other microphones chosen for the first round of testingĪll have a purchase price below that of Shure's long-time workhorse. The specific purpose of this experiment was ultimately to evaluate how various microphones stack-up to the venerable SM58. Various potential bits of technology can then be shortlisted via the quantitative information, and then later evaluated subjectively by individuals. To my way of thinking, a far better basis for comparing audio devices is by measuring their performance via repeatable experiments, experiments that produce The experience of others involves a potentially staggering number of variables that can't be controlled for. The point where I find myself irked by the statement "To my ears." It's not that the experience of others has no value in decision making, it's simply that Which console is "the best?" Which mic should I buy?Ī problem (as I see it) is that many of these comparisons are tackled via means which are highly subjective, such as listening tests. The live-production industry is very often a world of comparisons: Is this loudspeaker a better choice than some other loudspeaker? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |