Just found this video about a new microphone. Santa Clause should bring me one.
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
Driver Extreme DX656 Mic Review & Comparison
- Thread starter Shadetree Mechanic
- Start date
@Shadetree Mechanic my friend I think your long hours on the job are causing you to kiss the news. There was a thread on here with a forum member that had brought that mic up several months back. It thread went nowhere and his review wasn't too favorable either.
I must have missed it. But now I think I might have even replied to the thread. Yes long hours for sure, I have been looking for a Christmas present to buy myself with all the overtime money.
Ive been buying stuff with toshibas in them...
i watched that with headphones and honestly the difference between all the mics was so slight i would call them all the same. sounded like the typical cb mic. 300hz - 5khz (or) 10khz with that nasty sounding spike around 2khz or so giving it that thin, sibilance laden sound that most cb mics have. and the plosive's are there too which are very hard to listen to. gotta love the cheap mic elements manufacturers use. horrible sounding.
The testing conducted was less than accurate or revealing in that video.
LOTS of other variables too, most of them which could have been controlled much better. It would have been better to monitor the total output of the mic & radio combo over the air using another rig. This would have been apples to apples in terms of what one actually hears over the air, allowing one to see & hear differences in tonality, clarity, modulated drive levels & real world performance.
As to the design of the mic itself, it has a built in diffuser to minimize the "spittiness" of sibilance. This was designed to block & diffuse pressure to the center of the dome. The smaller size was chosen to allow as much of the user's voice to directly modulate the element. The diffuser itself is removable and / or could be modified / added to if one preferred.
The mic element itself was chosen for linearity over the widest bandwidth & was designed to be as "neutral" as possible. Multiple different mic elements were tested with controlled listening tests & measurements taken. Frequency sweeps were taken & used to fine tune for a neutral response of the finished product. Amplitude output of the individual element was also factored into the equation.
As shipped, the DX656 tends to be somewhat warmer & fuller sounding. This was done to achieve greater high frequency noise cancelling. If one has a deeper voice & uses proper mic technique AND / OR the radio has been heavily modified, the extended bass response of the element in the tuned cavity can make it sound a little thick, possibly even muddy. Much of this is due to proximity effect. Backing off the lip guard just a bit reduces proximity effect & thins the tonality, but may cost a bit of output in the process.
If this is the case AND / OR someone simply prefers a slightly thinner sound with slightly hotter output, one can easily achieve this. The mic was designed with a removable foam acoustic damping material "donut" inside the tuned mic cavity. By removing that piece of foam, the frequency response of the mic becomes slightly leaner with a more "open" sound. Noise cancelling is slightly reduced at the same time though, due to the reduction of damping material in the cavity & surrounding the mic element.
If something between those two tonal extremes is desired, that was also taken into account. By replacing a portion of the foam "donut" in the element cavity, you can fine tune both the tonality & noise cancelling of the mic. The more foam, the warmer the sound with greater noise cancelling. The less foam, the thinner the sound with less noise cancelling.
My suggestion is to cut the thickness of the foam donut in half, giving you two donuts. Then take one half & cut that thickness in half again. You can now vary the quantity of the foam. This can range from no foam, 25% foam (one thin layer), 50% foam (thicker half), 75% foam ( thicker half & one thin layer) & 100% (the entire original foam ring). All of this by simply adding or removing portions of the foam. The allows you to tailor the response for any given voice and / or radio combo. If you retain the foam that isn't used, you can then add or remove to fine tune if & when you change radios.
As to the ergonomics, the mic was designed to be a cross between the older original Turner RK56 & the Astatic 636. This is why it was named the 656, as the best of both worlds were trying to be achieved. It still has the familiar "push button" feel of the RK while retaining the familiar "push bar" feel of the 636. Neither is a perfect facsimile, but presents a good blend of the two.
The raised height grille is closer to that of the 636 while utilizing the shape of the 56. The distance from the grille & the element were also taking into account here, as that effects both output & potential for sibilance aka "spittiness" when talking directly into the mic. This spacing allowed the fine tuning of the type, density & placement of the specific acoustic damping foam used too.
As to the noise cancelling, there are no active OR passive circuits involved. More science & controlled testing had to be applied rather than just adding complications & components to the circuit. That means less to fail, come apart or change value over time. This gives everyone a more long term & consistent product. All of this was done trying to keep things as simple & reliable as possible using common but high grade materials.
That same thought was given to the strain relief at the mic and at the plug end. The lengths, designs & types of materials used were all tested & compared until the desired results were achieved. After all, what good is a mic that sounds & looks good but constantly has wiring issues?
LOTS of other variables too, most of them which could have been controlled much better. It would have been better to monitor the total output of the mic & radio combo over the air using another rig. This would have been apples to apples in terms of what one actually hears over the air, allowing one to see & hear differences in tonality, clarity, modulated drive levels & real world performance.
As to the design of the mic itself, it has a built in diffuser to minimize the "spittiness" of sibilance. This was designed to block & diffuse pressure to the center of the dome. The smaller size was chosen to allow as much of the user's voice to directly modulate the element. The diffuser itself is removable and / or could be modified / added to if one preferred.
The mic element itself was chosen for linearity over the widest bandwidth & was designed to be as "neutral" as possible. Multiple different mic elements were tested with controlled listening tests & measurements taken. Frequency sweeps were taken & used to fine tune for a neutral response of the finished product. Amplitude output of the individual element was also factored into the equation.
As shipped, the DX656 tends to be somewhat warmer & fuller sounding. This was done to achieve greater high frequency noise cancelling. If one has a deeper voice & uses proper mic technique AND / OR the radio has been heavily modified, the extended bass response of the element in the tuned cavity can make it sound a little thick, possibly even muddy. Much of this is due to proximity effect. Backing off the lip guard just a bit reduces proximity effect & thins the tonality, but may cost a bit of output in the process.
If this is the case AND / OR someone simply prefers a slightly thinner sound with slightly hotter output, one can easily achieve this. The mic was designed with a removable foam acoustic damping material "donut" inside the tuned mic cavity. By removing that piece of foam, the frequency response of the mic becomes slightly leaner with a more "open" sound. Noise cancelling is slightly reduced at the same time though, due to the reduction of damping material in the cavity & surrounding the mic element.
If something between those two tonal extremes is desired, that was also taken into account. By replacing a portion of the foam "donut" in the element cavity, you can fine tune both the tonality & noise cancelling of the mic. The more foam, the warmer the sound with greater noise cancelling. The less foam, the thinner the sound with less noise cancelling.
My suggestion is to cut the thickness of the foam donut in half, giving you two donuts. Then take one half & cut that thickness in half again. You can now vary the quantity of the foam. This can range from no foam, 25% foam (one thin layer), 50% foam (thicker half), 75% foam ( thicker half & one thin layer) & 100% (the entire original foam ring). All of this by simply adding or removing portions of the foam. The allows you to tailor the response for any given voice and / or radio combo. If you retain the foam that isn't used, you can then add or remove to fine tune if & when you change radios.
As to the ergonomics, the mic was designed to be a cross between the older original Turner RK56 & the Astatic 636. This is why it was named the 656, as the best of both worlds were trying to be achieved. It still has the familiar "push button" feel of the RK while retaining the familiar "push bar" feel of the 636. Neither is a perfect facsimile, but presents a good blend of the two.
The raised height grille is closer to that of the 636 while utilizing the shape of the 56. The distance from the grille & the element were also taking into account here, as that effects both output & potential for sibilance aka "spittiness" when talking directly into the mic. This spacing allowed the fine tuning of the type, density & placement of the specific acoustic damping foam used too.
As to the noise cancelling, there are no active OR passive circuits involved. More science & controlled testing had to be applied rather than just adding complications & components to the circuit. That means less to fail, come apart or change value over time. This gives everyone a more long term & consistent product. All of this was done trying to keep things as simple & reliable as possible using common but high grade materials.
That same thought was given to the strain relief at the mic and at the plug end. The lengths, designs & types of materials used were all tested & compared until the desired results were achieved. After all, what good is a mic that sounds & looks good but constantly has wiring issues?
That review was by Handy Andy. Many of the problems attributed to the mic were actually in the radio, which he clarified elsewhere in other posts. He did make mention of modifying the mic, but never said specifically what was done or how to do it. I would love to see what he did & how he did it, as the mic itself is extremely straightforward & simple in design. It was designed for ease of modification if one so desired too, making things even less than difficult to do so.
I don't think it was @Handy Andy that I was referring to. It was someone here that had bought one, believe he may have been a driver if memory serves me right.
Now I'll have to hunt for that thread.
I asked my wife and she just gave me a silly look. Hahaha
You have two things going against ANY mic test...
The Radio - and the QUALITY of the recording for YT...
So to be fair, the radio sounds nice, but the test is already shaded... by those two given factors to make a true test.
The real test...is with the end user on the actual radio they will be using it on.
Someone has this mic by where I live - so I can say with some enthusiasm that I like this one!
The Element - yes, it is small - but they did not build this for FIDELITY, they built it for the SPEECH patterns and (as @Bigfoot 88 posted earlier - Syllabic and enunciation for pronunciation) [Good Heavens! ] so this is a voice mic element - and it does sound good has a lot things going for it.
But one small detail (several actually) - that you will hear in the backgrounds of some radios;
And...
IT has a real Plunger DPDT switch
HOORAY!!!
So, to listen to the comparisons - I find the RK56 has the higher tonal aspects
But to me I'm thrilled to see they fixed or went back to - a known good reliable yet durable switch design.
Cannot speak for the Switch itself - but to go back to the physical known good designs of yesteryear is a long ways in recovering the desires to own radio equipment again...
It's not a bad microphone to own - you have to make it work for your radio - so that may mean your tech has to undo some changes to make the old - mic sound Equalization back to OEM then tailor this mic to fit your new radios "sonic - profile"
The Radio - and the QUALITY of the recording for YT...
So to be fair, the radio sounds nice, but the test is already shaded... by those two given factors to make a true test.
The real test...is with the end user on the actual radio they will be using it on.
Someone has this mic by where I live - so I can say with some enthusiasm that I like this one!
The Element - yes, it is small - but they did not build this for FIDELITY, they built it for the SPEECH patterns and (as @Bigfoot 88 posted earlier - Syllabic and enunciation for pronunciation) [Good Heavens! ] so this is a voice mic element - and it does sound good has a lot things going for it.
But one small detail (several actually) - that you will hear in the backgrounds of some radios;
- - a "ringing" effect causing by the higher tone passages that that foam windscreen cannot remove completely - so any vibrations of trim or change in the travel cups - will be heard
- The "cup" that houses the element - places the element too far back for some people whom tend to need the mic "hot and there" so they don't have to speak loudly and allow the tonal inflections of the subtler nuances of soft-spoken people, many just don't like to shout.
- It's why they go to the power mikes, but their "whiskers" generate so much of a scraping effect it takes away the enjoyability of natural sounding speech.
- - these are tiny minuscule details but this mic tries to offset this by being more directional with its "crosshair" cradle.
- This is part of the problem - the cradle "resonance" is not the best - it's needing less rigidity to develop a better "Bass tone" versus the overriding treble overtones this thing wants to add on top of the foam windscreen "dullness"
And...
IT has a real Plunger DPDT switch
HOORAY!!!
So, to listen to the comparisons - I find the RK56 has the higher tonal aspects
But to me I'm thrilled to see they fixed or went back to - a known good reliable yet durable switch design.
Cannot speak for the Switch itself - but to go back to the physical known good designs of yesteryear is a long ways in recovering the desires to own radio equipment again...
It's not a bad microphone to own - you have to make it work for your radio - so that may mean your tech has to undo some changes to make the old - mic sound Equalization back to OEM then tailor this mic to fit your new radios "sonic - profile"
Last edited:
The mic was designed to be spoken directly into, hence the use of the lip guard. Lip guards should be pressed directly above the upper lip. This maintains a consistent distance from the element in terms of proximity effect and assures full amplitude input directed at the diaphragm. If one doesn't want to talk directly into the mic, why buy a mic designed & marketed as a noise cancelling mic?
So as to reduce the potential for "spittiness" aka sibilance, I incorporated a diffusor. Any speech related pressure directed towards the center of the element is deflected, reducing the potential for the element to bottom.
As I mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads, splitting the foam "donut" used as damping material into sections can allow you to fine tune the response. Both in terms of amplitude & tonal balance. Cut the thickness of the foam damping material in half. Then cut one of those halves in half again. You can now fine the amount of damping within the chamber, reducing the potential for reflections within the mic. No foam, 25% foam, 50% foam, 75% foam or 100% using all of the foam.
If one REALLY wants to play games with tonality & attack characteristics of the element, take note that the back end of the element is resistively vented. In effect, it's working somewhat like a slightly resistive open baffle speaker aka "dipole". Having said that, the front wave is damped & sealed from reaching the back wave, so it may be closer to an open backed infinite baffle design. I don't know how many of you guys are audiophiles, but I am!
If you look at the push bar aka "keying lever", i made sure that it was reinforced. Some folks do not know how to properly use a lever & tend to push too low on the bar. This ends up with stress cracks. As such, I did what I could in terms of introducing reinforcement where breakage might occur. Trying to make the mic as rugged & good performing as I could. That is, with the materials that I had to work with.
As far as handling noise goes, that's an issue that I struggled with & finally gave up on. I can't begin to tell you how many revisions it took before the actual production model came back relatively close to what I had designed. Even with every aspect i.e. physical, electrical, acoustical properties documented AND they were given a physical sample, it was VERY frustrating trying to bring this project to completion.
So as to reduce the potential for "spittiness" aka sibilance, I incorporated a diffusor. Any speech related pressure directed towards the center of the element is deflected, reducing the potential for the element to bottom.
As I mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads, splitting the foam "donut" used as damping material into sections can allow you to fine tune the response. Both in terms of amplitude & tonal balance. Cut the thickness of the foam damping material in half. Then cut one of those halves in half again. You can now fine the amount of damping within the chamber, reducing the potential for reflections within the mic. No foam, 25% foam, 50% foam, 75% foam or 100% using all of the foam.
If one REALLY wants to play games with tonality & attack characteristics of the element, take note that the back end of the element is resistively vented. In effect, it's working somewhat like a slightly resistive open baffle speaker aka "dipole". Having said that, the front wave is damped & sealed from reaching the back wave, so it may be closer to an open backed infinite baffle design. I don't know how many of you guys are audiophiles, but I am!
If you look at the push bar aka "keying lever", i made sure that it was reinforced. Some folks do not know how to properly use a lever & tend to push too low on the bar. This ends up with stress cracks. As such, I did what I could in terms of introducing reinforcement where breakage might occur. Trying to make the mic as rugged & good performing as I could. That is, with the materials that I had to work with.
As far as handling noise goes, that's an issue that I struggled with & finally gave up on. I can't begin to tell you how many revisions it took before the actual production model came back relatively close to what I had designed. Even with every aspect i.e. physical, electrical, acoustical properties documented AND they were given a physical sample, it was VERY frustrating trying to bring this project to completion.