Let’s now turn to the microphone, because this is unfortunately neglected far too often even in many, considerably more expensive headsets. The small electret capsule needs a slight bias, of course, which could go wrong with some older onboard sound solutions (too quiet, slight hiss). The microphone is then at its best with a proper sound card or even the in-house Gaming DAC Pro.
I measured it without pop protection, while voice recording was then done with the foam rubber nub. Nevertheless, you really have to test beforehand where the microphone opening points. With the help of the short gooseneck (2-3 cm more length would have been quite good here), the opening for the capsule can then be placed bite-sized.
First, we also measure the frequency range of the microphone if desired to accommodate reader feedback. For this purpose, we again use our measuring room, but virtually reverse the process. Of course, a true reciprocity calibration as a baseline is beyond our current capabilities and the effort would far exceed the benefit. That’s why we were looking for a compromise. However, since we have a calibrated measurement microphone, a comparative measurement and the elimination of the differences can at least produce a curve that is well usable for our purpose. Thus, it is not the exact frequency response of the microphone, which we would not even presume, but a meaningful approximation, which also supports our subjective impression.
There is a low cut below 100 Hz, which is good and reduces popping. The lower mids are very present, which gives the sound a very warm and full-bodied note. You can hate or like this, but the speech intelligibility does not suffer from it. From about 8 kHz there is a slight drop in level, above 12 kHz it becomes thinner. Only the treble is more than sufficient even for the sibilants and other blowout events. Let’s first take a look at the measured frequency response, which also roughly confirms the values of the data sheet. However, I smoothed the curve to 1 octave to somewhat conceal the peculiarities of the room. We see a bit of a bathtub, with upper and lower limits being easily exceeded and undercut, respectively. That looks pretty good for now.
And how does the whole thing sound then compared to a proper podcast microphone with large-diaphragm condenser and cardioid pickup pattern? The SGH50 sounds a bit “flatter” and more compressed than the t.bone , but allows speech to come through more clearly.
Microphone SGH50
In comparison, the t.bone now offers a larger dynamic range, but also captures the room atmosphere more and even adds a bit more noise:
The t.bone SC450USB
The SGH50 thus cuts quite a good figure, which the other users in Teamspeak and Zoom were happy to attest to.
65 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Veteran
1
Neuling
Veteran
Mitglied
Urgestein
Urgestein
1
1
Urgestein
1
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Moderator
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →