You are here

Microphones - physics vs design/quality/R&D

Page 2 of 2

Re: Microphones - physics vs design/quality/R&D

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:09 pm
by Hugh Robjohns
Sam Inglis wrote:The capsule in the ELM series is much more elongated than those of earlier Pearl and Milab mics, so the asymmetry is more pronounced, but it's present in any mic with a rectangular capsule....

The Audio Technica 5000 series mics (5040, 5045 and 5047) also all have rectangular capsules too. The 5045 has a single diaphragm and the most pronounced pattern asymmetry, while the other two use quad diaphragm arrays. In these the composite array is still rectangular, but with a squarer aspect ratio so less severe asymmetry.

Ribbon mics also typically have an asymmetrical polar pattern with the deepest nulls at the end of the ribbon rather than the sides.

They are certainly asymmetrical, but I'm not convinced about a varying null depth. If a sound source lies directly on the plane of the ribbon the wavefront reaches both surfaces simultaneously and there is no output -- the null is virtually infinitely deep. I'm struggling to see how that would differ if a source was above or side on to the mic...

Re: Microphones - physics vs design/quality/R&D

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 8:27 pm
by innerchord
Ramirez wrote:There are a couple of DC96s at the studio, I shall experiment when the time allows!
I would encourage you to do that. I am lucky enough to own a DC96B, and it's always surprising me by how good it is. :thumbup: