![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Do you guy think it would be appopriate to ad thhat a speaker, like a small earphone, can be used as a microphone. If so where. Dosman
I think this needs some work on how sound waves are put into it and how the inside flexes creating electrical signals.. -- Cyberman 02:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your diagrams are gorgeous ;-). But it's not obvous where is the microphone. Can I suggest to add a red point ? Ericd
We need to clarify:
I think this could most easily be explained with two 3D pictures; one of an end mic and one of a front mic. Show the axis of symmetry as a dotted line (maybe with an arrowhead at the end?) starting at the mic element and extending out towards the direction of the performer. Show the directionality pattern as a 3D "lobe" surface for each, like these:
Like a cardioid dynamic mic and a hypercardioid condenser should cover the concept well enough for people to understand it (omni wouldn't be as good, since it wouldn't show them the directionality). — Omegatron 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a standard that defines these types? I see very conflicting info online. When I originally made the SVGs, I just traced over the old PNGs, since the only info I could find was in conflict. Obviously there's a continuum between omni and bidirectional, but I'd like to make the images authoritative and accurate.
Any standards? — Omegatron 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that it's a continuum, but I am wondering if there are any standard values to differentiate between hyper and super. Also, one site said that shotguns were super, but you say they are completely different. Your description makes more sense, but we need references, standards, authoritative citations. — Omegatron 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
According to ftp://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/micropho.zip
(since it is interference that creates the direction sensitivity for higher freqs in a shotgun, it must have multiple frequency-dependent lobes. So obvious it doesn't need a reference)
http://www.josephson.com/pdf/srs7ug.pdf:
http://www.knowleselectronics.com/engineering/pdf/an-4-issue01.pdf:
http://www.musiciansbuy.com/mmMBCOM/html/akg/music_rec_applications.pdf
http://www.audiomastersforum.org/amforum/topic-4057.html
So I think the only reasonable NPOV way is to state it that there is no absolute consensus, although a=0.63/0.75 seem to be the most common ones for super/hyper. In real life the pick-up patterns are never as clean and frequency-independent as these equations suggest anyway to justify the distinction between a=0.3, a=0.33, and a=0.25.
Han-Kwang 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
A table might be good: [14] — Omegatron 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I would very like to see some information about how to understand in layman's term the various specs of a microphone. For instance right now I am trying to figure out if a -44dB mike is more sensitive than a -58dB one. I would guess so, and according to this web site, it would be twice more sensitive. But I am a little lost :-)
I think lav microphones should not be put together with condenser & dynamic (etc.) classification. The latter should make up a new section called "microphone principles". Lavaliers should go together with other KINDS of microphones such as shotgun, wireless, large diaphragm etc. -- Dulldull 05:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
---
I'd like to learn exactly why pressure gradient transducer microphones pick up higher frequencies more than lower.
---
Should be a mention of David Edward Hughes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Edward_Hughes who invented the carbon microphone in this article.
---
Is a "lav microphone" really a different type of microphone (operating on a different physical principle) or just a small microphone? Does this section really belong here? If it uses a different physical principle, then the paragraph should state what that is.
I've added a reference to 468-weighting, as I've recently created a page on this. As well as being the preferred weigting for subjective validity it makes mic measurements easier as it is much less affected by low frequency noise. Measuring mic noise, especially on omnis is normally very difficult because of the need for extraordinarily quiet surroundings, and the effect low frequency pressure variations from wind can have. I'd like to see 468-weighting used a lot more. I've made other changes, and as with previous comments I'm not sure the various categories are sorted out properly yet. Lindosland 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
abbreviated mike ( [15])
This article states that "Emile Berliner invented the first microphone", but the Emile Berliner states that he "invented an improved telephone transmitter". Is this a contradiction? -- Sean Brunnock 16:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know enough to begin to write this, but something on the history of the microphone would be good. For example, in working on the article on Udi Hrant Kenkulian I came across the fact that the electronic microphone dates from 1927. I'm sure there is a lot of other chronology that should be added to this article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here in Wikipedia so I'm not quite sure how to add the corresponding sections. I think here should be explained the technical issues about impedance on microphones, when to use a transformer, types of connections (XLR, plug, etc). And explain something about the cables. I've also created an article about wireless microphones. I think this article should mention something about them.-- Lenilucho 19:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You (Light current) are dead wrong when you say that "mike" is not used to describe microphones.
You could have used Google, as I did, and found:
So there. == ILike2BeAnonymous 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you a child? You certainly act like one!-- Light current 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen "mike" used now and then, but always considered it a spelling error than standard usage. If google can be the ultimate arbiter, then note that "dynamic mike" gets 783 hits, and "dynamic mic" gets 175000 hits (use the quote marks); ditto for "condenser mike" (12500) vs. "condenser mic" (1150000). Also note that neither "dynamic mike" nor "condenser mike" return ads with the search, while "dynamic mic" (and "condensor mic") do return various ads -- suggesting that people are making real money with "mic", but not "mike". And indeed, perusing most of the "usual" microphone manufacturers (Shure, Sennheiser, Schoeps, etc), when not calling them "microphones", they all seem to use "mic", not "mike". Finally, the inhabitants of the nature recordists forum at Yahoo are apparently loathe to use "dynamic mike" (4 hits), while "dynamic mic" is much more common (114 hits) ("condenser": 26 for "mike" vs. 211 for "mic"). mdf 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to writing in Wikipedia but have 20+ years as an electronics engineer. I saw a request for an article on Button microphone. I considered that on the one hand, it is already covered in the Microphone article under the Carbon microphone heading, but on the other hand, redirects can't be made to a particular heading, only the top of an article. Further, I have some content that is not included in the Microphone article. I decided to write a short Button microphone article.
I am seeking opinions on whether it would be best to
Gerry Ashton 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I endorse the changes that ILike2BeAnonymous made to the Button microphone article. I have added a link to that article in the "See also" list, and alphabetized the "See also" list. Gerry Ashton 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add that when connecting a microphone to the computer, it is usually connected to the pink coloured connector thingymabob.
I have some doubts about a few remarks under 'Near-coincident recording':
Quote: The choice between one and the other depends on the recording angle of the microphone system,
It is not clear what "recording angle of the microphone system" means.
Quote: not on the distance to and the width of the sound source.
See DAT-heads digest: "the 110 degree angle was chosen because, from the recording position (as the apex) to the edges of the orchastra (as the rays) the angle was 110 degrees. from this position, the french radio network found that 18 cm produced the best sound for their purposes."
Han-Kwang 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The material on A/B, X/Y, ORTF and other techniques of recording is not really about microphones as such; it's about how to make stereo recordings, and much of it is already included in the article on Stereophonic sound. I propose to remove it from this article. Do people agree with that idea? -- DSatz 18:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this article should mention, with an illustration, the three or more (?) main types of microphone jacks (esp. the male parts). - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
We could do with a few examples of some studio and live sound standards, photos of which I would happily take and provide. For example, under dynamic mikes, where is a photo of the Shure SM57, the podium mike of the President if the US for the last 30 years?
Added image of SM57 Iain 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I do slightly question the use of an Oktava as an example of a condenser. This Russian firm makes some very nice mikes but there are also some unplesant Chinese copies hanging around from a manufacturing dispute. In use in professional studios you will more typically find Neumann, AKG, Gefell and such like. However, I guess in true neutral style, any change now would imply partiality. But I would expect a mike tech to be reaching for Schoeps or Sennheiser to record a grand piano not Oktava. -- DavidP 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the comment about dynamic mirophones having poor low frequency response. This is not inherent to a dynamic microphone. For example, the Shure Beta52, Beyer MT88, AKG D112 etc are all used to record kick drum and other low frequency instruments. Iain 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To the admins:
Users have added many microphone informational resources, why cannot I add one myself? I wish to submit www.themicrophonevault.com as an educational resource of vintage microphones as well as current microphones. The microphonevault is intended to serve as an educational resource and extremely comprehensive. There are photographs of microphones, user comments, and lenghty descriptions. If this site is not allowed or does not meet the standards of being listed under the "MICROPHONE" section, then why is a DJ Forum (which is nearly completely irrelevant to the subject of MICROPHONES) and a "personal" site, countant.org on the links??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.58.249 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 August 2006
"The Admins" were the ones who suggested that I bring this about on the "discussion" section. I'm just trying to figure out why this is not allowed.
The condenser microphone was invented in 1916 by E. C. Wente at Bell Labs. The moving-coil, or "dynamic" microphone was developed by W. C. Wente and A. C. Thuras at Bell Labs in the late 1920's, and was patented in 1931. http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/microphones2.html
Many of the excellent condenser recording mics prized today come from the fifties --more history here: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/microphones4.html
Decide for yourself - but this does not agree with article. -- G. Beat 19:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In the early part of the 20th century when this technology was being developed, the word "condenser" was used for what are now called capacitors. Even electrolitic capacitors were called condensers. There is a similar problem with transmitter/microphone and plumbago/graphite. To avoid confusion, it is better to use current terminology. I reverted condenser to capacitor. Greensburger 01:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I did a google search and you're right, "condenser microphone" yielded about 1,320,000 hits, although "capacitor microphone" yielded a respectable 21,200 hits. A recent patent 6,678,383 calls it a "Capacitor Microphone". I concede the argument. Greensburger 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
IANA Electrical or Audio Engineer. Can someone with a bit more knowledge comment on the following?
-- TimNelson 06:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sine wave not sinus wave. A sine wave represents a single frequency in which the amplitude at each point on the curve is proporional to the trigonometry sine of the phase angle. I corrected it. Greensburger 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Although dpamic ( talk · contribs)'s addition clearly violated WP:EL, I think that http://www.dpamicrophones.com/page.php?PID=1&LANG=3 is a good information source. However, it may be more appropriate on a page about audio recording than this page. Han-Kwang 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Do you guy think it would be appopriate to ad thhat a speaker, like a small earphone, can be used as a microphone. If so where. Dosman
I think this needs some work on how sound waves are put into it and how the inside flexes creating electrical signals.. -- Cyberman 02:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your diagrams are gorgeous ;-). But it's not obvous where is the microphone. Can I suggest to add a red point ? Ericd
We need to clarify:
I think this could most easily be explained with two 3D pictures; one of an end mic and one of a front mic. Show the axis of symmetry as a dotted line (maybe with an arrowhead at the end?) starting at the mic element and extending out towards the direction of the performer. Show the directionality pattern as a 3D "lobe" surface for each, like these:
Like a cardioid dynamic mic and a hypercardioid condenser should cover the concept well enough for people to understand it (omni wouldn't be as good, since it wouldn't show them the directionality). — Omegatron 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a standard that defines these types? I see very conflicting info online. When I originally made the SVGs, I just traced over the old PNGs, since the only info I could find was in conflict. Obviously there's a continuum between omni and bidirectional, but I'd like to make the images authoritative and accurate.
Any standards? — Omegatron 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that it's a continuum, but I am wondering if there are any standard values to differentiate between hyper and super. Also, one site said that shotguns were super, but you say they are completely different. Your description makes more sense, but we need references, standards, authoritative citations. — Omegatron 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
According to ftp://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/micropho.zip
(since it is interference that creates the direction sensitivity for higher freqs in a shotgun, it must have multiple frequency-dependent lobes. So obvious it doesn't need a reference)
http://www.josephson.com/pdf/srs7ug.pdf:
http://www.knowleselectronics.com/engineering/pdf/an-4-issue01.pdf:
http://www.musiciansbuy.com/mmMBCOM/html/akg/music_rec_applications.pdf
http://www.audiomastersforum.org/amforum/topic-4057.html
So I think the only reasonable NPOV way is to state it that there is no absolute consensus, although a=0.63/0.75 seem to be the most common ones for super/hyper. In real life the pick-up patterns are never as clean and frequency-independent as these equations suggest anyway to justify the distinction between a=0.3, a=0.33, and a=0.25.
Han-Kwang 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
A table might be good: [14] — Omegatron 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I would very like to see some information about how to understand in layman's term the various specs of a microphone. For instance right now I am trying to figure out if a -44dB mike is more sensitive than a -58dB one. I would guess so, and according to this web site, it would be twice more sensitive. But I am a little lost :-)
I think lav microphones should not be put together with condenser & dynamic (etc.) classification. The latter should make up a new section called "microphone principles". Lavaliers should go together with other KINDS of microphones such as shotgun, wireless, large diaphragm etc. -- Dulldull 05:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
---
I'd like to learn exactly why pressure gradient transducer microphones pick up higher frequencies more than lower.
---
Should be a mention of David Edward Hughes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Edward_Hughes who invented the carbon microphone in this article.
---
Is a "lav microphone" really a different type of microphone (operating on a different physical principle) or just a small microphone? Does this section really belong here? If it uses a different physical principle, then the paragraph should state what that is.
I've added a reference to 468-weighting, as I've recently created a page on this. As well as being the preferred weigting for subjective validity it makes mic measurements easier as it is much less affected by low frequency noise. Measuring mic noise, especially on omnis is normally very difficult because of the need for extraordinarily quiet surroundings, and the effect low frequency pressure variations from wind can have. I'd like to see 468-weighting used a lot more. I've made other changes, and as with previous comments I'm not sure the various categories are sorted out properly yet. Lindosland 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
abbreviated mike ( [15])
This article states that "Emile Berliner invented the first microphone", but the Emile Berliner states that he "invented an improved telephone transmitter". Is this a contradiction? -- Sean Brunnock 16:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know enough to begin to write this, but something on the history of the microphone would be good. For example, in working on the article on Udi Hrant Kenkulian I came across the fact that the electronic microphone dates from 1927. I'm sure there is a lot of other chronology that should be added to this article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here in Wikipedia so I'm not quite sure how to add the corresponding sections. I think here should be explained the technical issues about impedance on microphones, when to use a transformer, types of connections (XLR, plug, etc). And explain something about the cables. I've also created an article about wireless microphones. I think this article should mention something about them.-- Lenilucho 19:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You (Light current) are dead wrong when you say that "mike" is not used to describe microphones.
You could have used Google, as I did, and found:
So there. == ILike2BeAnonymous 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you a child? You certainly act like one!-- Light current 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen "mike" used now and then, but always considered it a spelling error than standard usage. If google can be the ultimate arbiter, then note that "dynamic mike" gets 783 hits, and "dynamic mic" gets 175000 hits (use the quote marks); ditto for "condenser mike" (12500) vs. "condenser mic" (1150000). Also note that neither "dynamic mike" nor "condenser mike" return ads with the search, while "dynamic mic" (and "condensor mic") do return various ads -- suggesting that people are making real money with "mic", but not "mike". And indeed, perusing most of the "usual" microphone manufacturers (Shure, Sennheiser, Schoeps, etc), when not calling them "microphones", they all seem to use "mic", not "mike". Finally, the inhabitants of the nature recordists forum at Yahoo are apparently loathe to use "dynamic mike" (4 hits), while "dynamic mic" is much more common (114 hits) ("condenser": 26 for "mike" vs. 211 for "mic"). mdf 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to writing in Wikipedia but have 20+ years as an electronics engineer. I saw a request for an article on Button microphone. I considered that on the one hand, it is already covered in the Microphone article under the Carbon microphone heading, but on the other hand, redirects can't be made to a particular heading, only the top of an article. Further, I have some content that is not included in the Microphone article. I decided to write a short Button microphone article.
I am seeking opinions on whether it would be best to
Gerry Ashton 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I endorse the changes that ILike2BeAnonymous made to the Button microphone article. I have added a link to that article in the "See also" list, and alphabetized the "See also" list. Gerry Ashton 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add that when connecting a microphone to the computer, it is usually connected to the pink coloured connector thingymabob.
I have some doubts about a few remarks under 'Near-coincident recording':
Quote: The choice between one and the other depends on the recording angle of the microphone system,
It is not clear what "recording angle of the microphone system" means.
Quote: not on the distance to and the width of the sound source.
See DAT-heads digest: "the 110 degree angle was chosen because, from the recording position (as the apex) to the edges of the orchastra (as the rays) the angle was 110 degrees. from this position, the french radio network found that 18 cm produced the best sound for their purposes."
Han-Kwang 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The material on A/B, X/Y, ORTF and other techniques of recording is not really about microphones as such; it's about how to make stereo recordings, and much of it is already included in the article on Stereophonic sound. I propose to remove it from this article. Do people agree with that idea? -- DSatz 18:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this article should mention, with an illustration, the three or more (?) main types of microphone jacks (esp. the male parts). - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
We could do with a few examples of some studio and live sound standards, photos of which I would happily take and provide. For example, under dynamic mikes, where is a photo of the Shure SM57, the podium mike of the President if the US for the last 30 years?
Added image of SM57 Iain 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I do slightly question the use of an Oktava as an example of a condenser. This Russian firm makes some very nice mikes but there are also some unplesant Chinese copies hanging around from a manufacturing dispute. In use in professional studios you will more typically find Neumann, AKG, Gefell and such like. However, I guess in true neutral style, any change now would imply partiality. But I would expect a mike tech to be reaching for Schoeps or Sennheiser to record a grand piano not Oktava. -- DavidP 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the comment about dynamic mirophones having poor low frequency response. This is not inherent to a dynamic microphone. For example, the Shure Beta52, Beyer MT88, AKG D112 etc are all used to record kick drum and other low frequency instruments. Iain 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To the admins:
Users have added many microphone informational resources, why cannot I add one myself? I wish to submit www.themicrophonevault.com as an educational resource of vintage microphones as well as current microphones. The microphonevault is intended to serve as an educational resource and extremely comprehensive. There are photographs of microphones, user comments, and lenghty descriptions. If this site is not allowed or does not meet the standards of being listed under the "MICROPHONE" section, then why is a DJ Forum (which is nearly completely irrelevant to the subject of MICROPHONES) and a "personal" site, countant.org on the links??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.58.249 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 August 2006
"The Admins" were the ones who suggested that I bring this about on the "discussion" section. I'm just trying to figure out why this is not allowed.
The condenser microphone was invented in 1916 by E. C. Wente at Bell Labs. The moving-coil, or "dynamic" microphone was developed by W. C. Wente and A. C. Thuras at Bell Labs in the late 1920's, and was patented in 1931. http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/microphones2.html
Many of the excellent condenser recording mics prized today come from the fifties --more history here: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/microphones4.html
Decide for yourself - but this does not agree with article. -- G. Beat 19:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In the early part of the 20th century when this technology was being developed, the word "condenser" was used for what are now called capacitors. Even electrolitic capacitors were called condensers. There is a similar problem with transmitter/microphone and plumbago/graphite. To avoid confusion, it is better to use current terminology. I reverted condenser to capacitor. Greensburger 01:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I did a google search and you're right, "condenser microphone" yielded about 1,320,000 hits, although "capacitor microphone" yielded a respectable 21,200 hits. A recent patent 6,678,383 calls it a "Capacitor Microphone". I concede the argument. Greensburger 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
IANA Electrical or Audio Engineer. Can someone with a bit more knowledge comment on the following?
-- TimNelson 06:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sine wave not sinus wave. A sine wave represents a single frequency in which the amplitude at each point on the curve is proporional to the trigonometry sine of the phase angle. I corrected it. Greensburger 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Although dpamic ( talk · contribs)'s addition clearly violated WP:EL, I think that http://www.dpamicrophones.com/page.php?PID=1&LANG=3 is a good information source. However, it may be more appropriate on a page about audio recording than this page. Han-Kwang 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)