You are here

Microphones - physics vs design/quality/R&D

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

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

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:09 pm

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...
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27846
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

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

Postby innerchord » Wed Jun 03, 2020 8:27 pm

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:
innerchord
Regular
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 12:00 am
 

Previous