Frequency Response
You mentioned in the shure 540 topic, the bandwidth that the mic has which really work for the harp. I looked that and 50 - 13,000 hz are the numbers posted for that mic. I have an electrovoice re 10 that claims 90 - 13,000hz. I understand what the numbers mean (sort of) but don't know the frequencies of harps and am assuming each of the different keys will have different bandwidth of frequencies. Is there some sort of chart or table or generality available?
I'm asking from two points of view. One to better understand what range different mics are better for and more so to understand how an equalizer (software of hardware) could be more effectively used. As I adjust the equalizer (31 band) in Garage Band, I can hear what its doing (I think increasing volume for that frequency??) but I have to go "by guess and by golly".
Wow, never thought I'd be asking questions like this!!!
Thanks Frank,
This is where the frames overlap and the images start to blur... Looking at the plotted response curve of a microphone is seeing a thumbnail sketch of what frequencies it is capable of sensing in relative levels -but not what it will actually sound like. It's a graphic representation. The proof is in the ear pudding... To site the response curves commonly found among the high-end condenser mics utilized by top recording studios and media centers you'd find 20-20K (good human hearing fades around 16K) as often as not. You might think that they would all sound pretty much "the same" given the range of their capability, yet engineers are adamant when it comes to their differences and their relative applications.
When it comes to Lord Microphone and The Tin Sandwich, the numbers and the sonic results will often seem to conflict. Example? Comparing the numbers of an ASTATIC MC-151 crystal and a SHURE CONTROLLED-MAGNETIC element you might expect to hear more bass from the MC-151 and a more pinch-nosed mid-range from the CM. In application, the results seem quite different.
Harmonicas in their differing keys cover a wide sonic range, but within the capability of most microphones likely to be chosen for the task. It comes down to the results of the interaction of the principal components: Player. harmonica, coupling to/between the microphone, cable, amp, environment -with allowance for individual variations.
The graphic EQ can be used as a problem solver (notching-out troublesome resonant frequencies) or creative devise (adding variations to the "color" of a signal).
The minutiae can be waaaay overwhelming -especially if you approach the subject expecting it to always make sense & play by the perceived sonic rules. Again, THE PROOF IS IN THE EAR PUDDING. -Fritz