Quantcast
Audix A127 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Audix A127
Old 1 week ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Audix A127

Hey microphone lovers.

I just happpened to find this (dpa-style) half-inch microphone, from Audix:

https://audixusa.com/introducing-a127/

Has anyone heard of it or know anything about it other than what is published at the audix website?

Curious about how this compares to other similar metal-diaphragm microphones.

::
Mads

Last edited by mljung; 1 week ago at 11:54 PM..
Old 4 days ago
  #2
Audix claims a selfnoise of only 7dBA. This must be a mistake, or they have re-invented acoustical laws. I have never seen any IEC 61094-4 compliant half inch capsule with such a low noise. Most half inch that measure 1Hz-40kHz have about a 20 to 22 dB self noise, and the capsules that are used in Sonordore, Josephson M617 and Gefell measure a 14 dB of self noise and that is because the audio band is limited to only 20.000 Hz and a max SPL of 146dB. Even when you do some tricks you cannot lower noise with 7 more dB's without getting into distortion problems. DPA's 4041 capsule that measures one inch has enough output to generate a selfnoise of 6dB, so what they claim at Audix is sensational, if it is true.
Old 3 days ago | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orgeltonmeister ➡️
Audix claims a selfnoise of only 7dBA. This must be a mistake, or they have re-invented acoustical laws. I have never seen any IEC 61094-4 compliant half inch capsule with such a low noise. Most half inch that measure 1Hz-40kHz have about a 20 to 22 dB self noise, and the capsules that are used in Sonordore, Josephson M617 and Gefell measure a 14 dB of self noise and that is because the audio band is limited to only 20.000 Hz and a max SPL of 146dB. Even when you do some tricks you cannot lower noise with 7 more dB's without getting into distortion problems. DPA's 4041 capsule that measures one inch has enough output to generate a selfnoise of 6dB, so what they claim at Audix is sensational, if it is true.
Absolutely - it's a bit like what Nevaton claimed regarding their MC-59 system (which still should be very good even if it remains a bit of a secret here on GS). I remain curious about this new metal diaphragm mic, it's origin (they probably didn't make the capsule themselves), material, quality and actual noise-figures. Would be interesting if someone from Audix chimed in.
::
Mads
Old 3 days ago
  #4
Lives for gear
 
norfolksoundman9's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
There's a review on Sound on Sound, which touches on the self-noise: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/audix-a127

Cheers,

Roland
Old 3 days ago | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolksoundman9 ➡️
There's a review on Sound on Sound, which touches on the self-noise: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/audix-a127

Cheers,

Roland
Great - that's the kind of information that are useful. It's a somewhat misleading not to publish self-noise specs for the full system, still 12dBA is very good (so why not just publish that).
Let's hope good comparisons comes out giving an idea of how it sounds head to head with DPA, Gefell, Neumann, Sonodore, Josephson and the like...


Thanks for the link Roland
::
Mads
Old 3 days ago | Show parent
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by mljung ➡️
Great - that's the kind of information that are useful. It's a somewhat misleading not to publish self-noise specs for the full system, still 12dBA is very good (so why not just publish that).
Let's hope good comparisons comes out giving an idea of how it sounds head to head with DPA, Gefell, Neumann, Sonodore, Josephson and the like...


Thanks for the link Roland
::
Mads
""The initial published specifications seemed too good to be true, and I suspect they referred only to the mic’s electronics; when I queried them, Audix reported that the true self‑noise of the complete mic measured acoustically is a more plausible but nevertheless hugely impressive 12dBA. ""

So you see, indeed they specify the noise and distortion of the electronics, not the capsule. And if that is so, a 7dB self noise for the electronics is by far not the best what could be achieved. B&K 4179 capsules are - 2dB, so yes..... minus 2 dB self noise is two decibels lower than our hearing threshold, that means the amplifier should be at least minus 6 or more.

Microphone design is mostly physics. B&K or DPA could have easily achieved a self noise of 12 to 14 dB with the 4006 instead of 16dB, but they did not choose for lowering the membrane tension as is done in the Josepson, Sonodore and Gefell type of microphones. The lower the membrane tension, the higher the output and thus the lower the self noise, but this also means a higher membrane distortion at higher signal levels. As you look at the specs the maximum allowed distortion is reached at about 147 dB for Gefells MK 221. The 4006 it is over 160 dB ! I do not trust any of the Audix specs.

What you also can see is that the Audix is a different kind of capsule than is used in Sonodore, Gefell and Josephson. It is shorter. The cavity behind the capsules is smaller, so it is a different design concept. The fact that the reviewer tells us that 20k is about minus 1.5 dB tells me the capsule is different. It looks a bit like the B&K 4188. Look at the double line etching at the bottom end of both the Audix and the B&K 4188 capsule ! The output of most B&K capsules are either 12.5mV or 50mV. The only one that is different is the 4188, which is 31.5mV. This is the most close to the Audix at 28mV. I am pretty sure the Audix is a B&K 4188 capsule or alike from a Japanese manufacturer or maybe from G.R.A.S.

https://www.bksv.com/-/media/literat...ta/bp2209.ashx
Old 3 days ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
surflounge's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
great info. I am in the market for pair of high end omnis for stereo performance capture on remote locations. Your discussion helps. Staying tuned to this thread for more.

Last edited by surflounge; 5 hours ago at 12:52 AM..
Old 3 days ago | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orgeltonmeister ➡️
""The initial published specifications seemed too good to be true, and I suspect they referred only to the mic’s electronics; when I queried them, Audix reported that the true self‑noise of the complete mic measured acoustically is a more plausible but nevertheless hugely impressive 12dBA. ""

So you see, indeed they specify the noise and distortion of the electronics, not the capsule. And if that is so, a 7dB self noise for the electronics is by far not the best what could be achieved. B&K 4179 capsules are - 2dB, so yes..... minus 2 dB self noise is two decibels lower than our hearing threshold, that means the amplifier should be at least minus 6 or more.

Microphone design is mostly physics. B&K or DPA could have easily achieved a self noise of 12 to 14 dB with the 4006 instead of 16dB, but they did not chose for lowering the membrane tension as is done in the Josepson, Sonodore and Gefell type of microphones. The lower the membrane tension, the higher the output and thus the lower the self noise, but this also means a higher membrane distortion at higher signal levels. As you look at the specs the maximum allowed distortion is reached at about 147 dB for Gefells MK 221. The 4006 it is over 160 dB ! The Audix has its max distortion on a much lower SPL level, but I do not trust any of the Audix specs.

What you also can see is that the Audix is a different kind of capsule than is used in Sonodore, Gefell and Josephson. It is shorter. The cavity behind the capsules is smaller, so it is a different design concept. The fact that the reviewer tells us that 20k is about minus 1.5 dB tells me the capsule is different. It looks a bit like the B&K 4188.

https://www.bksv.com/-/media/literat...ta/bp2209.ashx
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of the tension / noise / distortion relationship and the difference in cavity size between models. Interesting. I wonder what a smaller cavity will change sound-wise.

Since 160 dB isn't what at least I usually need, it may be a good compromise to lower the membrane tension, that is if it's just a question of distortion..!?
::
Mads
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump