quote:

If you're going to use some classifications, it might be good to straighten them out.

There are "dark" mics because they are not bright. There are bright mics because they have a boosted top end.

There are "colored" mics - which color the sound. And there are neutral mics that do not color the sound as much. Then there are "transparent" mics which have no noticable color at all.

So, "bright" is not "coloration". You can have a dark colored mic like the MXL V69 ME. And you can have a bright colored mic like the SP C1. You can have a bright neutral mic like the AKG 414.

Some bright, neutral mics:
AKG 414
AKG 451 SDC
Most newer AKG condenser mics fall into this category
AT 4050 - most AT mics are in this category. Some are less bright.
SP B1 - all B series
Red5 Audio RV8
ADK TL

Some bright colored mics:
SP C1 - all C series
Blue Blueberry
T.H.E. KA-04
Neumann U87
Nuemann TLM103
Most newer Neumanns fall into this category - but they're not as bright as the AKG's

Then there are more transparent mics such as DPA and Earthworks.

quote:

cominginsecond posted:
So, what in the hell is "color" if it's not a particular way of responding to frequencies?

I always thought that this was the case: there was a continuum with dark on one end, bright on the other, and neutral in the middle. If a mic fell roughly in the middle it was "neutral", and if it fell on the extremes somewhere, it was "colored," either in a bright or a dark way. Tell me where I missed the boat.

quote:

Dot posted:
I am not a mic designer or a tech by any means. "Color" is often introduced to audio components by the use of transformers and other various components. Transformers are mainly made with a mixture of iron and nickle - and the signal, running through those metals "color" the sound. That's sometimes why you hear of a piece of gear really having some "iron". You can hear the "iron".

And introducing some mild distortion - which the ear hears naturally and finds pleasing - is a way of coloring the sound. Tubes can also - but not necessarily - introduce color into the signal path.

So one plane of describing the tonal character would go from dark to bright.

Another, perpendicular plane, would go from colored to neutral to transparent.

Here's a graph of some different mics and where they would approximately be positioned based on their sound. I've been wanting to start this anyway - seems as good a time as any. I'm also working on one for mic preamps.

quote:

cominginsecond posted:

Thanks for your answer. What does color sound like? The distortion answer made sense to me, but then you seemed to say that distortion was only one way to color the sound. What does transformer color sound like, and why is it not reducible to frequency response?

I've owned both the B1, a mic you say is fairly neutral, and the V67, which you say is very colored. The only differences I perceive between these two mics have to do with their frequency response (The B1 is truer to the source, but does not emphasize frequencies that tend to flatter most voices. The V67 is not as true to the source, but tends to emphasize frequencies that flatter many voices). What should I be listening for so that I can determine how much "color" is in each of these mics?

quote:

Dot posted:
Yes, ultimately color=distortion. More color=more distortion. But it is - for the most part - controlled distortion. One of the reasons Neve mic preamps have remained popular are due to a very specific type of distortion based on the design of the input and the output transformers. And when those transformers have more signal driven into them, they begin to distort more - which translates into an often pleasing type of coloration of the sound. That sound is often referred to as "iron in the path".

Transformers - depending on which designer you talk to - will tend to slow down the signal. So while, on one hand you may introduce a nice type of colored distortion into the signal, the negative side effect of that is that the frequencies - especialy the faster higher ones, don't pass as quickly through the path. That results in a lessening of the overall imagery, definition and 3-dimensional depth.

Mics and preamps that are specifically designed to be very fast - and allowing the signal to pass through the component as unhindered as possible - are often [ but not always ] transformerless. What that type of design does is colors the signal much less, and since it's allowing all the frequencies to pass through faster - the end result is a much better presentation of imagery in the overall recording - especially stereo recordings.

So, if you want more detail and imagery on a particular track - like acoustic guitar, you might chose a neutral or transparent mic - and mic pre - so that all the frequencies are presented at a similar speed at which travel naturally fom the source. That type of sound is also often desired on drum overheads - so that what is recorded gives a nice spacial detail of the kit. But then lets say you have an amped electric guitar part that you really want to sound big and have balls and energy. Well, for that you'd be more interested in introducing some color/distortion - and less in preserving the "imagery" - you just want in-your-face balls to the wall sound. That's often true of kick and even snare - where you don't care as much about spacial information - just more about energy and the right tone.

So, if you're listening to your B1 - notice how much more detail and imagery it can pick up than your V67. But also notice how the V67 can give a more classic, almost retro sound. The B1 sounds much more modern than the V67.

quote:

Originally posted by cominginsecond
Thanks for your answer. What does color sound like?

quote:

Originally posted by Lakester:
just wait 'til someone wants another parameter and you'll have to do it in 3D :P

I mean, just because two mics both have much colour and are equally bright doesn't mean they sound much alike?

quote:

Originally posted by Jason A.:
For give me but what is the difference between neutral and transparent? Is neutral just a designator for the midpoint of both axis?

quote:

Originally posted by joel77:

I think something like this could really fly. My only(initial) concern: Will this be from your own experience, or will others be contributing.

Describing sound, from whatever source, is extremely relative, based on ones past experience.

quote:

Originally posted by analog:
I like it. I suggest that you don't try to put too much into a single graph as it might get "muddy". If it takes two or more graphs or charts to convey the all information, that'd be fine.