Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #459978

Re: Microphone risk factors

Show all headers | View raw

Don Y:
> On 5/11/2017 7:01 AM, jrwalliker@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 11 May 2017 05:27:32 UTC+1, Don Y  wrote:
>>> "Average" quality -- cost and size being more significant criteria.
>>> (Think in terms of cell phones quality/cost/size)
>>>
>>> What sorts of issues affect reliability, failure modes, etc.?
>>>
>>> Any advantages to one technology over another?  Any issues
>>> specifically related to MEMS devices?
>>
>> Noise floor is generally higher than electrets, but they are not
>> significantly affected by high temperatures and humidity.
> 
> I spent ~5 hours at a buddy's studio, yesterday.  As expected,
> he could tell me why he mic's the top hat with a different
> microphone than the kicker or the sax -- or the lead vocalist.
> And, what "justifies" the differences in costs.
> 



> But, it was virtually impossible to push him off the "recording
> music" application to think of the microphone as a "audio frequency
> sound pressure/vibration transducer".
> 
> E.g., when I asked him how he might *alter* his selection of
> microphones (assume still recording a particular artist/group)
> to do so OUTSIDE IN THE RAIN, he quickly fell behind the
> avoidance of "the band wouldn't want to PERFORM in the rain,
> let alone sit for a studio session in it!"  I.e., he's too wed
> to the idea of human beings as being the source of the sounds
> he's capturing.  So, assumes the environment is OBVIOUSLY going
> to be acceptable for COMFORTABLE human occupation (e.g., "STP").
> 
>      "Lets assume a group *wanted* to be recorded in the rain.  Are
>      there any microphones you'd AVOID *using* in that environment?
>      And, if so, why -- would they just perform poorly?  Or, would
>      they risk being irreversibly damaged?"
> 
>      "If I wasn't planning on *using* them in the rain, but they
>      happened to be left on an outdoor table/bench and it suddenly
>      rained *on* them -- which would you regret most?"
> 
>      "If the rain had broken but the air was still really humid,
>      how does that affect the above?"
> 
> He finally offered that condenser mic's tend not to like humidity
> but that the effect is on performance and is temporary -- dry out
> the microphone (carefully!) and its no worse for the wear (though
> I suspect he doesn't REALLY believe this as he seemed hesitant
> to want to find himself in that situation!)
> 
> Rephrase the question with temperature:  could I use these to
> record the sounds on the Antartic tundra?  as its really cold,
> I probably wouldn't want to hang around while capturing those
> sounds -- could I leave the microphone set up for a month
> if I protected it from precipitation?  would it see restored
> joy when it was finally warmed back up?
> 
> What if I *fastened* it to the underside of that cow bell so
> every time the bell was struck, *it* was (effectively) struck,
> even if indirectly?
> 
> What if I fastened a pair of them to the heads in my car and
> used them to monitor rocker arm/lifter noise?  Would they
> be upset with the prolonged exposure to the heat of the
> engine compartment?  Which technology would be LEAST upset?
> 
>> MEMS devices can often be reflow soldered.  Electrets would
>> depolarize if heated to such temperatures.
> 
> He had nothing to offer on MEMS -- probably because it doesn't
> offer the predictable (as in "traditionally known") performance
> of the more established technologies.  It would *seem* that it
> should be relatively durable.  Yet, its not widely employed in the
> sorts of things that you might expect to find it due to its
> small size and level of integration.  E.g., I think most (?) cell
> phones use electret condensers (though I haven't taken many
> *different* makes/models apart to see how pervasive that claim).
> 
> What are the *downsides* of MEMS units?
> 
> What I'm looking for are guidelines that might be common to all
> such "transducers" with *specific* refinements that would
> apply to different technologies.  Most of the information I've
> found specifies those refinements in terms of cost or
> *signal* characteristics (use this for lots of dynamic range
> in signal; use that for a flat response; etc.)

There are so many different factors that affect reliability that it's
not possible to help without more information.

For example:
Many of the tiny mics (including most MEMS devices)  have very small
holes for the sound to get in - they are very susceptable to dirt. A
nice big traditional moving coil microphone with a 1.5" diameter is not
much upset by mouse crap sized particles but may  have other issues.

The MEMs mics are likely to be the most realible in terms of random
failures in benign conditions (because of the very automated and
controlled manufacturing process.)

So if you tell us what you want to do with it it may be possible to
help.

MK

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-10 21:27 -0700
  Re: Microphone risk factors Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 21:39 -0700
  Re: Microphone risk factors jrwalliker@gmail.com - 2017-05-11 07:01 -0700
    Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-11 11:06 -0700
      Re: Microphone risk factors piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-12 09:02 +0100
      Re: Microphone risk factors "Michael Kellett" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2017-05-12 16:02 +0100
        Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-12 09:37 -0700
          Re: Microphone risk factors "Michael Kellett" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2017-05-12 18:08 +0100
            Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-12 11:02 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 17:44 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors Terry Newton <nbill@bellsouth.net> - 2017-05-13 17:19 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 11:57 -0700
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-13 19:12 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 08:40 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 09:17 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 10:49 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors Terry Newton <nbill@bellsouth.net> - 2017-05-13 19:26 +0000
                Re: Microphone risk factors (OT -- long) Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 13:37 -0700
            Re: Microphone risk factors "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-13 11:06 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 12:11 -0700
              Re: Microphone risk factors krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:36 -0400

csiph-web