|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 15, 2018 10:37:43 GMT -6
I HATE Beta 57s and 58s. Horrible, horrible microphones. Really rasty, obnoxiously hyped presence peak. They do all the things I DON'T want a vocal (or guitar) mic to do. When my band plays clubs we carry rergular 57s and 58s so that if the club doesn't have any nice mics - most don't - at least we wont's have tp put up with those godawful Betas.
Me, I use an M88TG live.
Thats fair. From a live sound engineer stand point, the Beta 57 is a nice mic to use and the 58 fits some singers well. Its like anything else, right mic for the right thing always works. M88 is an underrated mic. I like that mic as well all around on drums. I've never tried it as a vocal, I should. The M88 is a great vocal mic. You see them in videos by people like David Bowie, Pat Benetar, and Phil Collins.
I was speaking of the Beta 57/58 in a live sound context. I would never think of using them in recording and neither would anyone else who knows anything about mics. They have the advantages of being hypercardiod so they are less likely to feed back and have higher output due to the neodymium magnets. However the hypercardioid pattern is almost offset by the nasty hyped presence peak which makes the mic MORE likely to feed back, at least without some serious EQ, which has its own problems. The hyped presence makes the mic "cut through" on a noisy stage, but IMHO it sounds awful, especially on vocalists who have any sibilance in their voice. They also get icepicky on female vocals. Shure has had a problem historically with the presence region of their live performance dynamics, not only is there an augmented response in that region, it's not smooth. In fact, if you ever get a chance to see real pen graph readouts you find that not only is the presence region very ragged, there is also little consistancy between units, which makes EQing stage monitors difficult, especially if several mics are in the same mix. Contrast that to mics like the Beyer M88 and M69, where you'll find a great deal of consistancy from unit to unit. In fact Beyer used to guarantee that any two mics of a given model chosen at random could be used as a matched stereo pair! I don't know it they still do or not. They also used to furnish individual serial numbered pen graph plots with each mic, but they no longer do that. You'll nothice that Shure does not even bother serial numbering their Beta and SM series mics.
There appears to be something of a design problem with Neodymium in mic magnets, as several companies seem to have similar problems with their neodymium designs. About the only company I can think of (whose mics I've used to any extent) is EV; some of their neo mics seem quite nice, although I have not used all of them by any means and am wary of those I have not. I've heard that their neo take on the RE-20 is not as good, for example, but I have no personal experience with that model.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 15, 2018 11:15:50 GMT -6
Thats fair. From a live sound engineer stand point, the Beta 57 is a nice mic to use and the 58 fits some singers well. Its like anything else, right mic for the right thing always works. M88 is an underrated mic. I like that mic as well all around on drums. I've never tried it as a vocal, I should. The M88 is a great vocal mic. You see them in videos by people like David Bowie, Pat Benetar, and Phil Collins.
I was speaking of the Beta 57/58 in a live sound context. I would never think of using them in recording and neither would anyone else who knows anything about mics. They have the advantages of being hypercardiod so they are less likely to feed back and have higher output due to the neodymium magnets. However the hypercardioid pattern is almost offset by the nasty hyped presence peak which makes the mic MORE likely to feed back, at least without some serious EQ, which has its own problems. The hyped presence makes the mic "cut through" on a noisy stage, but IMHO it sounds awful, especially on vocalists who have any sibilance in their voice. They also get icepicky on female vocals. Shure has had a problem historically with the presence region of their live performance dynamics, not only is there an augmented response in that region, it's not smooth. In fact, if you ever get a chance to see real pen graph readouts you find that not only is the presence region very ragged, there is also little consistancy between units, which makes EQing stage monitors difficult, especially if several mics are in the same mix. Contrast that to mics like the Beyer M88 and M69, where you'll find a great deal of consistancy from unit to unit. In fact Beyer used to guarantee that any two mics of a given model chosen at random could be used as a matched stereo pair! I don't know it they still do or not. They also used to furnish individual serial numbered pen graph plots with each mic, but they no longer do that. You'll nothice that Shure does not even bother serial numbering their Beta and SM series mics.
There appears to be something of a design problem with Neodymium in mic magnets, as several companies seem to have similar problems with their neodymium designs. About the only company I can think of (whose mics I've used to any extent) is EV; some of their neo mics seem quite nice, although I have not used all of them by any means and am wary of those I have not. I've heard that their neo take on the RE-20 is not as good, for example, but I have no personal experience with that model.
Something we will agree on.. The Beta57 sounds pretty awful. A strange nasal top end, even on axis.. Worse off axis..
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 15, 2018 12:45:32 GMT -6
Thats fair. From a live sound engineer stand point, the Beta 57 is a nice mic to use and the 58 fits some singers well. Its like anything else, right mic for the right thing always works. M88 is an underrated mic. I like that mic as well all around on drums. I've never tried it as a vocal, I should. The M88 is a great vocal mic. You see them in videos by people like David Bowie, Pat Benetar, and Phil Collins.
I was speaking of the Beta 57/58 in a live sound context. I would never think of using them in recording and neither would anyone else who knows anything about mics. They have the advantages of being hypercardiod so they are less likely to feed back and have higher output due to the neodymium magnets. However the hypercardioid pattern is almost offset by the nasty hyped presence peak which makes the mic MORE likely to feed back, at least without some serious EQ, which has its own problems. The hyped presence makes the mic "cut through" on a noisy stage, but IMHO it sounds awful, especially on vocalists who have any sibilance in their voice. They also get icepicky on female vocals. Shure has had a problem historically with the presence region of their live performance dynamics, not only is there an augmented response in that region, it's not smooth. In fact, if you ever get a chance to see real pen graph readouts you find that not only is the presence region very ragged, there is also little consistancy between units, which makes EQing stage monitors difficult, especially if several mics are in the same mix. Contrast that to mics like the Beyer M88 and M69, where you'll find a great deal of consistancy from unit to unit. In fact Beyer used to guarantee that any two mics of a given model chosen at random could be used as a matched stereo pair! I don't know it they still do or not. They also used to furnish individual serial numbered pen graph plots with each mic, but they no longer do that. You'll nothice that Shure does not even bother serial numbering their Beta and SM series mics.
There appears to be something of a design problem with Neodymium in mic magnets, as several companies seem to have similar problems with their neodymium designs. About the only company I can think of (whose mics I've used to any extent) is EV; some of their neo mics seem quite nice, although I have not used all of them by any means and am wary of those I have not. I've heard that their neo take on the RE-20 is not as good, for example, but I have no personal experience with that model.
That's fair. I've done extensive Live shows of a huge variety and have used Shure mics a lot often due to thats what everyone has(cheap). I've never had issues with making things sound good FOH with either one. But then again, I'm used to just making it work and sounding as best it can with the crap set in front of me..which often isn't good haha
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 15, 2018 15:43:26 GMT -6
The M88 is a great vocal mic. You see them in videos by people like David Bowie, Pat Benetar, and Phil Collins.
I was speaking of the Beta 57/58 in a live sound context. I would never think of using them in recording and neither would anyone else who knows anything about mics. They have the advantages of being hypercardiod so they are less likely to feed back and have higher output due to the neodymium magnets. However the hypercardioid pattern is almost offset by the nasty hyped presence peak which makes the mic MORE likely to feed back, at least without some serious EQ, which has its own problems. The hyped presence makes the mic "cut through" on a noisy stage, but IMHO it sounds awful, especially on vocalists who have any sibilance in their voice. They also get icepicky on female vocals. Shure has had a problem historically with the presence region of their live performance dynamics, not only is there an augmented response in that region, it's not smooth. In fact, if you ever get a chance to see real pen graph readouts you find that not only is the presence region very ragged, there is also little consistancy between units, which makes EQing stage monitors difficult, especially if several mics are in the same mix. Contrast that to mics like the Beyer M88 and M69, where you'll find a great deal of consistancy from unit to unit. In fact Beyer used to guarantee that any two mics of a given model chosen at random could be used as a matched stereo pair! I don't know it they still do or not. They also used to furnish individual serial numbered pen graph plots with each mic, but they no longer do that. You'll nothice that Shure does not even bother serial numbering their Beta and SM series mics.
There appears to be something of a design problem with Neodymium in mic magnets, as several companies seem to have similar problems with their neodymium designs. About the only company I can think of (whose mics I've used to any extent) is EV; some of their neo mics seem quite nice, although I have not used all of them by any means and am wary of those I have not. I've heard that their neo take on the RE-20 is not as good, for example, but I have no personal experience with that model.
That's fair. I've done extensive Live shows of a huge variety and have used Shure mics a lot often due to thats what everyone has(cheap). I've never had issues with making things sound good FOH with either one. But then again, I'm used to just making it work and sounding as best it can with the crap set in front of me..which often isn't good haha Yes Shures are the default. Everybody (almost) in live sound is used to them and don't look any further. And they're rugged. But since they don't look beryond Shure they don't realise what poor mics they really are. When I started working for Bill Graham's FM Productions sound I discovered thaty they didn't use Shure for much of anything. They used Beyer. FM engaged in extensive independent testing of the gear they used (part of my job as bench tech was essentially trying to blow up amplifiers submitted to us by mqanufacturer's reps) and one thing they did was send out a whole lot of mics from all the major manufacturers for frequency response testing of around half a dozen or so mics of each model tested. The Shure SM57 and SM58 came out on the bottom for unit to unit consistancy and adherence to the published frequency response chart. Beyers came out on the top. At the time FM productions was regarded as one of the most cutting edge sound reinforcement companies in the world.
The main problem with Beyers at the time was that the windscreens were rather fragile, which Beyer later fixed with the introduction of the TG series.
We had Beyer (we used so many they got a dealership), high end AKG, some EV, some Sennheiser, but no Shure to speak of. I think there were a couple 58s in the road boxes for singers who absolutely insisted on a 58 or who were very rough on mics (think Roger Daltry) but our main vocal mic was the Beyer M69 and the M88 was used for the more demanding vocalists.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 15, 2018 16:07:06 GMT -6
Live a Beta 57 on a nasally singer, and a Beta 58 on an average singer is 1000% better than a regular 57 or 58 . . . which suck the life out of just about everything
But one the recording world, a 57 works fine on a guitar cabinet. And an OG Beta 57 is a pretty good snare microphone..,,. much better than a Beta 57a or whatnot.
JMHO, YMMV, 30 minutes or your pizza is free.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 15, 2018 16:12:01 GMT -6
svart, I ought to have thanked you earlier for your "words of wisdom", regarding gear selection. I was fortunate in being correct, that the value of certain dynamic microphones (like "Made in USA" Shure 57/546/56 & EV RE15/RE16/666) were bound to go up in value significantly.
My primary interest in self-recording, has been to keep improving as a live vocalist-Partly by being a "late bloomer" vocally. Experimenting with various vocal microphones, certainly helped reveal what was going well, and (ahem) what wasn't quite ready for prime time.
The AKG D790 I mentioned earlier, happens to be a Neodymium based design. It's smoother than the Shure Beta 58a, and a nice alternative to the M88 (particularly in a heavy mix). Now that my ears are a bit more "learned", however, I seem to recall my M88TG somewhat smoother (though brighter) in the top end. This is why I'd prefer my U195 (in FAT mode), or Oktava 219, on a ballad. (out of what I presently have)
In any event, I miss having a M88 (so forgiving of domestic recording & great live!)-Which may end up being my X-Mas present to myself.
The best sounding band that used Shure Beta 57's for vocals, that I can think of, were the mighty Allman Brothers. But... Maybe in spite of the Beta's, not because of them! Chris
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 15, 2018 18:59:29 GMT -6
Live a Beta 57 on a nasally singer, and a Beta 58 on an average singer is 1000% better than a regular 57 or 58 . . . which suck the life out of just about everything But one the recording world, a 57 works fine on a guitar cabinet. And an OG Beta 57 is a pretty good snare microphone..,,. much better than a Beta 57a or whatnot. JMHO, YMMV, 30 minutes or your pizza is free. No. Icepicks in the eardrums. Totally unnatural sound. At least the regular SMs sound half-assed normal-ish.
It doesn't matter if the pizza is free if it's inedible.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 15, 2018 19:39:53 GMT -6
Live a Beta 57 on a nasally singer, and a Beta 58 on an average singer is 1000% better than a regular 57 or 58 . . . which suck the life out of just about everything But one the recording world, a 57 works fine on a guitar cabinet. And an OG Beta 57 is a pretty good snare microphone..,,. much better than a Beta 57a or whatnot. JMHO, YMMV, 30 minutes or your pizza is free. No. Icepicks in the eardrums. Totally unnatural sound. At least the regular SMs sound half-assed normal-ish.
It doesn't matter if the pizza is free if it's inedible.
Goddamnit, I stayed off your grass!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 15, 2018 22:00:32 GMT -6
No. Icepicks in the eardrums. Totally unnatural sound. At least the regular SMs sound half-assed normal-ish.
It doesn't matter if the pizza is free if it's inedible.
Goddamnit, I stayed off your grass! You didn't MOW!
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 16, 2018 10:48:03 GMT -6
Goddamnit, I stayed off your grass! You didn't MOW! Only cos your remote control mower was broken
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 16, 2018 12:32:42 GMT -6
Only cos your remote control mower was broken Use the push mower, it always works. Lazy kids!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Jun 18, 2018 7:48:35 GMT -6
i reckon a good mic reveals itself in about 3 seconds flat. Yes and no. A good mic doesn't reveal itself at all. it's like a freshly cleaned window that you can see through without having to look around fingerprints and smudges. But a good mic can also be the wrong mic for a job too, which is why there are many choices to use among the pro level mics available. More window analogies: You might want a nice clean window for one thing, but a magnifying glass for another. Both could have fingerprints that hurt you more than help.. The problem is all mics reveal themselves, come on you know the mic is the source of the most distortion in the recording chain! I mic should be a window, but in reality it’s a mic with shades, or drapes, the choice of mic, is choosing a window somebody else dressed that will give the tone you want. Sometimes a mic I absolutely hate, hate is the right. Choice for somebody else and gets a tone I’m not thrilled with, but damn if it’s not a perfect fit in a mix!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Jun 18, 2018 8:09:10 GMT -6
Chris One other way to look at any loss on the flip is as an educational expense. The only way to learn if you like a mic is by using it, the cost of rental for any period of time or buying something new and flipping is going to be significantly more. You can.. But my experience with this has been negative. I wish I had heeded the wisdom that you "buy right, buy once". I really wish I hadn't been so bullheaded about "doing it my way" and listened to those who had suggested that I save up and buy the right gear at the outset. I probably spent ten thousand dollars on cheap gear that I ended up selling and regreting. I rarely broke even, and in most cases lost money. But looking back, I think the thing I'm most upset about is the years I spent "learning" how to record with gear that made me work 4x harder to get the same sounds. Today I think back on the hours and hours I'd spend trying different mics, preamps, mixing tricks, settings, etc and still not getting "the sound" while the next guy sets up a mic and records and it's "just right" within minutes. I'd spend more hours and hours tweaking EQ, compression, etc, to fix issues that others just didn't have. I learned to work around the issues of my gear through effort, rather than learning to record with care and compassion for the material. I spent more time fretting about some nasal frequencies than getting the right takes down. In the end I was frustrated and well behind in skillset simply because I didn't think or care about my cheapness and shortcuts actually hurting me in the long run. When I moved the studio ten years ago, I sold tons of gear, mostly cheap stuff, and vowed to start again. My process started by listing out what I had in my studio, and then listing out the most common pro level gear that all the big guys used.. 1176, LA2A, SSL bus, U47/87/67, SM57/58, 1073/1084/1272, 312, etc.. All listed over and over from engineer to engineer.. And the pattern was clear... The pros used the same gear between each other, not just because that was what was available to them, but also because it was integral to the professional sound. And once I sold all the cheap junk and started using the common gear, the sound just fell into place as it should have done ten years prior. It's humbling to realize that "it's the ear, not the gear" is pure egotistical fantasy that someone says to convince themselves that their being cheap is justified. It's not. Don't go cheap. Buy professional gear once. Let your skills blossom from the solid foundation of professional gear. Don't try to cheap out and "get one over on the man" by believing you'll be the one to make a 100$ mic sound like a 2000$ mic. It just doesn't work regardless of what the marketing folks tell you. What makes gear professional? That pros use it ? Well that means just about every mic is pro because at some point somebody has been paid to use it ! It was used on a hit ? Well I can probably find a hit that has just about every mic on it if I dig deep enough! With the decline of the top and mid level rooms of the past more and more are sticking to the classics and emulations if those classics and stuff sounds more and more the same. In my early days the fun wasn’t walking into a big or good mid level room and using the Neve pre 1176 and U87 it was finding time to fool around with the stuff I had never used before! This was an out growth of coming up in shitty rooms and shitty clubs and being broke, you had to have some of your own kit to get by, learning the value of some off label Beyer 201’s EV variable D’s was a life saver and over time learning these were the secret sauce many pro’s used. It’s funny I own my AKG D1000’s & 1200’s that I think I paid less than $40ea for because a guy in Houston with a Platinum and Gold records loved them on drums and snare, my Sony’s after conversations with the Sony Crew that did most of the MTV unplugged and Dave Hewitt. Be gutsy don’t be a sheep be your own man find your own tone. I mean has anybody gut the guts to tell Dave Rawlings he should ditch that pawnshop special and grab a Martin?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Jun 18, 2018 8:21:54 GMT -6
OT but how can you tell if a mic has good/bad off axis sound quality? What are you listening for here? 'Phaseiness' of things not in front of the mic? Or is it in the specs? (I must admit to never having grokked mic polar pattern diagrams, perhaps I should spend more time with them.) This is very situational, do I need rejection, Bleed or linearity? Polar charts are often printed so small and subject to so much smoothing that they are useless. The only real way to learn is by playing with the mics, when I was youn and energetic that meant putting up a mic and walking around it and moving in and out with headphones on while talking, or using some percussion instrument you can learn a lot that way. With LDC’s you will notice the body and metal mesh can effect HF response off axis so turning them on their Sid and doing the walking trick can teach you a lot. Even what room noise a mic is picking up can be a good learning tool. But the best test is always using it in a real world situation, moving it around and seeing what it brings to the party. Drum micing of a kit is very educational in how different mics work together, Piano is the acid test for ribbons and condensers.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Jun 18, 2018 8:24:47 GMT -6
Could you use a 57 and a U87 to record distorted guitar? Sure, and both would have a good starting point, but the U87 would be too boomy and fizzy and without the pronounced midrange the 57 has. You'd end up using a lot more EQ on the U87 than the 57 to get it to fit in the mix IMHO. So while both are pro level mics, one would fit the job better than the other I think. why not use both? At Sound Summit / MusicHead there was a particular 545 and 47 FET taped together that were used on all kinds of things and if you ever tried to tear them apart you would have had your hand cut off!
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 18, 2018 23:42:20 GMT -6
Thanks Eric. Chris
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 19, 2018 15:22:32 GMT -6
Yes and no. A good mic doesn't reveal itself at all. it's like a freshly cleaned window that you can see through without having to look around fingerprints and smudges. But a good mic can also be the wrong mic for a job too, which is why there are many choices to use among the pro level mics available. More window analogies: You might want a nice clean window for one thing, but a magnifying glass for another. Both could have fingerprints that hurt you more than help.. The problem is all mics reveal themselves, come on you know the mic is the source of the most distortion in the recording chain! I mic should be a window, but in reality it’s a mic with shades, or drapes, the choice of mic, is choosing a window somebody else dressed that will give the tone you want. Sometimes a mic I absolutely hate, hate is the right. Choice for somebody else and gets a tone I’m not thrilled with, but damn if it’s not a perfect fit in a mix! I'mm gonna have to differ just a wee bit with you here.
The MOST distortion in the recording chain? Isn't that exaggerating just a bit? if it's a great mic it shouldn't contrtibute more distortion than many other components, notably compressors and EQs,. which "distort" the signal by the very nature of what they do. Not to mention transformers, any preamp that has a "sound" or "character", etc, etc.
Granted, mics do put some sort of impression on the music, since mics don't "hear" in quite the same way that ears do, but the effect of that is difficult to quantify. (Then again, how do we know that what I hear is really what you hear? Perhaps the ear adds the most distortion?)
A good mic should be and essentially is a window, no shades or drapes. Maybe tinted glass though, or glass with subtle optical distortions.
A not-so-good mic, OTOH....
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Jun 19, 2018 15:34:03 GMT -6
The problem is all mics reveal themselves, come on you know the mic is the source of the most distortion in the recording chain! I mic should be a window, but in reality it’s a mic with shades, or drapes, the choice of mic, is choosing a window somebody else dressed that will give the tone you want. Sometimes a mic I absolutely hate, hate is the right. Choice for somebody else and gets a tone I’m not thrilled with, but damn if it’s not a perfect fit in a mix! I'mm gonna have to differ just a wee bit with you here.
The MOST distortion in the recording chain? Isn't that exaggerating just a bit? if it's a great mic it shouldn't contrtibute more didtortion than many other components, notably compressors and EQs,. which "distort" the signal by the very nature of what they do. Not to mention transformers, any preamp that has a "sound" or "character", etc, etc.
Granted, miocs do put some sort of impression on the music, since mics don't "hear" in quite the same way that ears do, but the effect of that is difficult to quantify.
A good mic should be and essentially is a window, no shades or drapes. Maybe tinted glass though, or glass with subtle optical distortions.
A not-so-good mic, OTOH....
Transducers even the best are always the largest producer of distortion, not opinion, not theory, fact unfortunately one can argue speakers are higher distortion but I’ll argue that’s monitoring not recording chain.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 19, 2018 16:05:17 GMT -6
I'mm gonna have to differ just a wee bit with you here.
The MOST distortion in the recording chain? Isn't that exaggerating just a bit? if it's a great mic it shouldn't contrtibute more didtortion than many other components, notably compressors and EQs,. which "distort" the signal by the very nature of what they do. Not to mention transformers, any preamp that has a "sound" or "character", etc, etc.
Granted, mics do put some sort of impression on the music, since mics don't "hear" in quite the same way that ears do, but the effect of that is difficult to quantify.
A good mic should be and essentially is a window, no shades or drapes. Maybe tinted glass though, or glass with subtle optical distortions.
A not-so-good mic, OTOH....
Transducers even the best are always the largest producer of distortion, not opinion, not theory, fact unfortunately one can argue speakers are higher distortion but I’ll argue that’s monitoring not recording chain. Well, that's the conventional way of looking at it, I suppose - but it's a bit in the realm of "who really knows" because if transducers are always the greatest source of distortion, what yardstick do you have to measure against? Another transducer? Even if you could plug directly into the human neural system that's just another transducer, isn't it? Doesn't it ultimately come down to a question of logic and, er, faith? How do you KNOW?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 19, 2018 16:08:12 GMT -6
And opinion is always a HUGE source of distortion.....
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Jun 19, 2018 17:20:59 GMT -6
Transducers even the best are always the largest producer of distortion, not opinion, not theory, fact unfortunately one can argue speakers are higher distortion but I’ll argue that’s monitoring not recording chain. Well, that's the conventional way of looking at it, I suppose - but it's a bit in the realm of "who really knows" because if transducers are always the greatest source of distortion, what yardstick do you have to measure against? Another transducer? Even if you could plug directly into the human neural system that's just another transducer, isn't it? Doesn't it ultimately come down to a question of logic and, er, faith? How do you KNOW?
Not really, you design a transducer where one type of distortion is minimal to measure that type of distortion since that’s all it’s going to be used for been done that way for years.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 20, 2018 0:33:08 GMT -6
Well, that's the conventional way of looking at it, I suppose - but it's a bit in the realm of "who really knows" because if transducers are always the greatest source of distortion, what yardstick do you have to measure against? Another transducer? Even if you could plug directly into the human neural system that's just another transducer, isn't it? Doesn't it ultimately come down to a question of logic and, er, faith? How do you KNOW?
Not really, you design a transducer where one type of distortion is minimal to measure that type of distortion since that’s all it’s going to be used for been done that way for years. But (and I'll admit to playing devil's advocate here) if transducers are known to be the greatest sources of distortion in a system how do you know that your minimal distortion transducer is really minimal? How do you determine that your standard is a standard if you can't be sure that your source for a measurement standard is really clean? Maybe what you think is "distortion" is really in the source? Or maybe your minimal distortion measurement transducer is just "different"?
It seems kinda like the story of the blind men and the elephant*.... Or perhaps the ourboros....
* - "The Elephant is like a wall!" "The Elephant is like a tree!" "The Elephant is like a snake!" "The Elephant is like a fan!" "The Elephant is like a rope!" "he Elephant is like a catapult! I tried to use the rope to climb the wall and the tree kicked me over the fence!"
oops....
|
|