Issue link: http://digital.copcomm.com/i/1178376
64 F A L L 2 0 1 9 C A S Q U A R T E R L Y Aston has also included a unique shock mount that is literally built inside the microphone housing and made from Sorbothane, which "is a synthetic viscoelastic urethane polymer used as a vibration damper and acoustic shield used in computing, hi-fi and many industrial applications." The microphone also has a unique stand mount, which is quick-release. METHODOLOGY All four microphones were recorded at the same time through our SSL console with the internal preamps and recorded into Pro Tools at 48k/24- bit. Listening tests were done the following week. Since our students all had extensive experience with three of the four microphones, I informed them of the models of the four chosen, but asked them to identify them blindly in an ABCD comparative test. Listeners were played both the male voice and the female voice in our dub stage, which has excellent acoustics and Genelec monitors. In addition, I asked them to rate each microphone on a scale of 0-10, and to use any descriptive words they could think of to describe the sound. Of the 36 students, two were graduate students, 26 were seniors, and eight were juniors in our new accelerated curriculum. The descriptors come in handy, as one can quickly look at word clouds (on the left) to see what the listeners' thoughts were. RESULTS Interestingly, the microphone that the students correctly identified the most was the SM7B, with 50 percent of the listeners correct. Just under 50 percent correctly identified the RE20 and the U-87. Since none had heard the Aston before, I was not surprised to see that only 38 percent correctly identified it (through the process of elimination). In terms of numeric ratings, the Stealth was the weakest, garnering only a 6.89 rating. The SM7B rated 7.11, and the RE20 rated 7.41. I was not surprised that the U-87 rated the highest, although only an 8.04. Although only two students ranked it as their best-sounding microphone, another seven had it tied for their highest ranking. This puts 25 percent of listeners choosing it as their best or tied-for-best sounding microphone. The descriptors show off a few weaknesses of the Stealth. In the 48 V mode, it did have a little more noise than I expected. To be fair, the male vocalist in particular sang very softly. I personally did not hear much of a difference between the male and female voice settings on the microphone, but I would like to repeat the experiment with more singers and a wider range of musical styles. Also, turning the ring to choose the setting is much more difficult than it should be. They have made it difficult to turn the ring deliberately to prevent it from being changed accidentally, but if this were for on-stage use, the engineer might not be able to change it quickly. I also quickly tested the shock mount for on-stage handling. As soon as I took the microphone into my hand, it was uncomfortable. The microphone is cylindrical, and is 2.28" wide, which does not feel anything like a typical handheld (an SM58, for example). With active movement, there is still handling noise being passed through the electrical signal. I would probably never recommend this as a handheld microphone. U-87 of the models of the four chosen, but asked them to identify them blindly in an ABCD comparative test. Listeners were played both the male voice and the female voice in our dub stage, which has excellent acoustics and Genelec monitors. In addition, I asked them to rate each microphone on a scale of 0-10, and to use any descriptive words they could think of to describe the sound. Of the 36 students, two were graduate students, 26 were seniors, and eight were juniors in our new accelerated curriculum. The descriptors come in handy, as one can quickly look at word clouds (on Interestingly, the microphone that the students correctly identified the most was the SM7B, with 50 percent of the listeners correct. Just under 50 percent correctly identified the RE20 and the U-87. Since none had heard the Aston before, I was not surprised to see that only 38 percent correctly identified it (through the process of elimination). STEALTH RE-20 SM7B correctly identified it (through the process of elimination). In terms of numeric ratings, the Stealth was the weakest, garnering only a 6.89 rating. The SM7B rated 7.11, and the RE20 rated 7.41. I was not surprised that the U-87 rated the highest, although only an 8.04. Although only two students ranked it as their best-sounding microphone, another seven had it tied for their highest ranking. This puts 25 percent of listeners choosing it as their best or tied-for-best The descriptors show off a few weaknesses of the Stealth. In the 48 V mode, it did have a little more noise than I expected. To be fair, the male vocalist in particular sang very softly. I personally did not hear much of a difference between the male and female voice settings on the microphone, but I would like to repeat the experiment with more singers and a wider range of musical styles. Also, turning the ring to correctly identified it (through the process of elimination). In terms of numeric ratings, the Stealth was the weakest, garnering only a 6.89 rating. The SM7B rated 7.11, and the RE20 rated 7.41. I was STEALTH SM7B more singers and a wider range of musical styles. Also, turning the ring to choose the setting is much more difficult than it should be. They have made it difficult to turn the ring deliberately to prevent it from being changed accidentally, but if this were for on-stage use, the engineer might not be able to change it quickly. I also quickly tested the shock mount for on-stage handling. As soon as I took the microphone into my hand, it was uncomfortable. through the electrical signal. I would probably never recommend this as a handheld microphone. more singers and a wider range of musical styles. Also, turning the ring to choose the setting is much more difficult than it should be. They have made it difficult to turn the ring deliberately to prevent it from being changed accidentally, but if this were for on-stage use, the engineer might not