Page 3 - Recording Performance Tests
While general users may not need a dedicated microphone in their everyday lives, there are definitely a growing number of use cases as working from home becomes more normalized and the growth of digital careers continues to expand. We have tested microphones in various contexts in the past, and the results have ranged from “I would rather just call them on my phone” or “this is actually quite clear”. While we could just say that the microphone works or does not work, there are some audio tests we can do to see how it actually performs. Furthermore, we can also test different use cases for a microphone, whether it means speaking for recording podcasts or instruments and singing for recording. A single product may not work for every situation, but this will be a demonstration of the GAMDIAS Pheme M1’s capabilities.
As previously mentioned, the GAMDIAS Pheme M1 captures sound with a super-cardioid polar pattern. This means the microphone is most sensitive to sound coming in at the front and least sensitive from the back. Compared to a normal cardioid microphone, super-cardioids have a narrower angle of sensitivity. As you move to the sides and especially back, there is a reduction in volume as well as a change in its sound properties. In our off-axis pickup tests, we recorded how the microphone deals with sounds that are not directly facing the diaphragm to look for any distortion or change in quality. The Pheme M1 was very clear when speaking from the front as we may expect. Moving to the sides, we notice a significant decrease in sound and felt somewhat distant. On the back, the audio was slightly louder than the sides, but still noticeably quieter compared to the front. These characteristics make sense for a super-cardioid microphone.
For some more technical tests, we tested the GAMDIAS Pheme M1 for how it handled plosive and background noises. Plosive sounds traditionally refer to a speech sound where the vocal tract is blocked, and airflow stops right before the pronunciation of these sounds. If you try making sounds like p, k, t, d, b, or g, you will notice right before you say these letters, your airflow will have stopped. Afterwards, this produces a "puff" or immediate contrast in air pressure. When it comes to microphones, this air pressure change can result in an unpleasant sound. As for background noises, this is affected by the pickup pattern of the microphone as well as the off axis capturing behavior. We also tested the electronic noise cancellation, or ENC, that is available with the Pheme M1 in the background test.
For plosives, the GAMDIAS Pheme M1 was decently capable of reducing plosive sounds. With quite a full frequency response range of 20Hz to 20kHz, I did not encounter many unpleasant noises when using the foam windscreen. Once the windscreen was removed, the audio did end up peaking at times, but it was not overly uncomfortable. The characteristics observed are perfectly satisfactory in minimizing recording the air pressure on the hard “p” sounds.
Moving on to the background noises, the GAMDIAS Pheme M1 did pick up quite a bit of background noises, including both my mouse and keyboard. In the recording, you can hear the resonant sound that comes from the vibration between the table and the keyboard with ENC off. I was surprised I was able to hear the hollowness of my IKEA Linnmon desk. As for clicking noises from my mouse, those were also quite noticeable, even while I was speaking. My voice still did take precedence over the background noises, but they are still undeniably there. With the ENC turned on, characteristics of the audio became a bit more muffled and more in and out. You may notice that my voice sounded like it was getting closer and further away from the microphone despite me not moving at all. While reduced, keyboard noises were still present, albeit muffled in the background. The sound of mouse clicks was actually removed for the most part, which was nice. When I stopped talking, the sounds produced from my keyboard were much quieter. I personally am not fond of the ENC functionality as my voice became much harder to hear, but the performance itself was to be expected as it is hard to remove unwanted noises without distorting my voice.
Vibrations are another aspect that we will test to see how well the stand and base work to reduce noises. Our testing method here is to tap on different surfaces around the GAMDIAS Pheme M1 to hear what noises were accepted and rejected. The expectation for this test is to still be able to hear the tapping, but the hope is to minimize the resonant noise produced. As previously mentioned, with the base attached, the microphone weighs in at 373g. When tapping on the table, you can quite obviously hear the thuds. The taps on the base produced a much higher pitched ping, which could be showing more of the capsule moving. This is something the Pheme M1 can work on as all noises were fairly pronounced and you could even hear the resonance between my keyboard and desk, while using a desk mat, in the previous background test.
With all recordings, a good microphone should capture the source in a natural way. For the spoken word test, I recorded a section from the GAMDIAS Pheme M1’s product page. My voice sounded quite natural, as the Pheme M1 has a frequency response wide enough to capture my voice and its intonation. This performance definitely showed good promise for capturing voices and miles ahead of a standard headphone microphone. I would be comfortable with using the Pheme M1 for voice calls, but if you are in a meeting, they will definitely be able to hear any background noise from your end.
The next recording is of me playing my digital piano. I placed the microphone about 5 inches away from the right speaker and tilted it to focus onto it. My digital piano was set to about one-third of its maximum volume to not disturb anyone in my house and not be too loud for the recording. As I am not musically talented, I will play chopsticks in a way that will leave you with mixed feelings.
Overall, the digital piano was recorded well despite picking up the sound of the weighted keys. Similar to the results of the spoken word test, we observe a full capture of the audio source and its surroundings. The audio was quite natural in sound, but was quieter than expected. This is likely due to the microphone having super-cardioid polar patterns, making it difficult to pick up the full sounds from a larger instrument. Something like a guitar would likely be picked up much better. Nonetheless, the recording quality was quite good and able to pick up all audible noises, whether you like it or not.
Page Index
1. Introduction, Packaging, Specifications
2. Physical Look - Hardware
3. Recording Performance Tests
4. Conclusion
