"Keith G" wrote in message
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
No-one is more aware of the old 'you get what you pay
for adage' (or the various issues with cheep Chinky
stuff) than I am, but my curiosity/interest in a valve
microphone has had me punting a relatively paltry £132
(inc. postage) on this little lot:
The noise floor of the clari01 recording is dominated by 700 Hz and its
harmonics - perhaps a nearby PC cooling fan? Second major source of noise
is that of a person inhaling.
In terms of evaluating mics, I can't think of anything much worse than a
solo clairinet. Limited frequency range, limited dynamic range. Even a set
of keys jangling would give more information about response over the
critical upper half of the audio spectrum.
Sorry to say, it's looking like *stinker* atm:
What the MP3 is a recording of, is not self-evident.
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Noisy%20Mic.mp3
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/SelfNoise.wmv
If the left channel is the preamp, terminated with a low-value resistor,
then the right channel may not be all that bad.
If the left channel is the ribbon mic, set up for equal acoustical
sensitivity, then the right channel is horrid.
The right channel has a nearly theoretical-looking -40 dB/decade slope, and
seems to be electronic in nature. Get rid of the tube!
I can only imagine what would happen if Keith tried one of the better mics I
routinely use - a Rode NT-1 or NT-5, for example. Of course they are both
infected with that deadly disease - "sand state" electonics.
It would be good if some people would let a modicum of the scientific method
inform their investigations. One such informative scientific tool is the
known reference. Comparing eBay special ribbon to eBay special cheap tube
mulit-pattern mic via a well-known travesty of a mic preamp (The Tube MP)
may be fun, but it is frustrating if one were to try to actually make sense
of the proceedings.