Question on element vs mic material
OK Greg - in response to your request: there have been many 'discussions' on wood vs other comb materials regarding tone. As well, discussions around brass vs stainless steel reeds. How about mics used for harps?
For example, your Heumann element in a Bulletizer mic vs the Heumann element in one of your 'woodies'. Any differences? the same question regarding a Heumann element or a CM in the same mic regardless of the material on the construction of the mic or the make of the mic?
And finally (for now) why are there so many differences in the same type of element - you speak of going through many elements (say CM's) and finding some are 'hotter' or 'fatter' that others. Is this in the manufacturing ??
Maybe too many questions for one repsonse, but just thought I'd get something going
Thanks Greg - great informative answer and it sure points out that I better start wirking on that 80%!! Fascinating breakdown.
More questions to come. Happy New Year to you and yours.
Hank these are all good questions that many people ask so I'm happy to answer them here.
Of all of the factors that affect a mics's tone, the material the mic is made from is WAY down on the list. The mic shell does indeed resonate with sound, and can absorb or enhance some frequencies. However other shell-specific factors, such as the amount of airspace behind the element (dynamic elements only) and the distance of the element from the front of the mic - probably make bigger differences.
A bigger difference still is the ergonomics of a particular shell. Diameter, weight, surface texture, and shape all affect how easy the mic is to cup - and cupping technique is the single biggest factor of all in the difference between one player and another.
Do my wood mics affect tone? Yes - but probably more because their surface texture, diameter, weight and smoothness make them so much more comfortable to cup than many other shells. Turner shells have that "fin". Astatic JT30/Biscuit/200 shells have those bumps on the grill. Shure shells are very heavy. Astatic T3 shells have smaller diameter and are nice and smooth, but they also have very thin wall metal which deadens external sound less - consequently they feed back more. This is excaserbated when the crystal element has been replaced by a dynamic one. (Shure CM and CR elements are dynamic.) Dynamic elements care about what's behind them, and sound waves entering the rear tend to make feedback worse. The T3 (as well as other Astatic mics like the 10-DA that have that swivel connector stalk) have a rectangular slot where the stalk enters the shell - and this admits too much stage sound.
Wood is more acoustically absorbent than metal, so this does tend to warm up the tone of any element a little bit. Pro players with really good ears and lots of experience often tell me they feel the wood mic is a little warmer, all other things being equal. And that goes for ANY element. As for differences between elements - the older an element, the more human involvement there was in its production. That leads to variations among elements of the same model. How many turns of wire on the coil? How even are the windings? How much glue? All of these factors can have an effect on tone. Modern elements are mostly likely entirely robotically made, and thus extremely consistent from element to element.
With all that said, if I had to rank the key factors affecting tone, the list would start with the player (80%), then the amp (10%), the mic element itself (8%) and the remaining 2% would come from all of these other factors we're talking about.