What is this microphone?

http://www.gizmag.com/mxl-worlds-first-usb-ribbon-microphone/18560/  What is this trying to be, and what does this mean?:
 

complemented by low noise, high dynamic range modern circuitry with 16-bit 44.1-48 kHz Delta Sigma analog-to-digital conversion and a 20Hz - 20kHz frequency response

Shouldn't that be happening elsewhere, and why only "CD" quality? Oh, and why USB?

Is this nonsense or do I just not understand microphones? - Most likely the latter I fear 

I googled and the results left me more confused than before I started. Is it cardioid or figure of 8? At least one spec sheet says different things in different places.

I can see some point in cheap usb mics, but not in something like this.

OT: In my virtual travels, I did come across http://www.wesdooley.com/pdf/Bidirectional%20Microphones.pdf , which describes some classic ribbon mics. I found it quite interesting

You can make a classic ribbon figure-8 response look rather more like a cardioid by blocking up, or partly blocking up, the rear of it. Reslo did that with some of their ribbon mics. If you want to see what one like this looks like, I can take a pic and show you, as I have a couple of them here.

No I can't see what the point of all this 'it's got to be USB and all in one case with a headphone socket' malarky is either. Why on earth would you want to put a headphone socket there? All you are going to do is introduce extra movement, and therefore noise, into the mic case.

Oh, and in that paper it says "All microphones respond to the motion of air particles from which they generate analogous electric signals." Whilst I can see what they mean, that isn't strictly accurate, even just as an opening statement. A velocity-reacting microphone like a ribbon certainly does respond to the motion, and that's all - but all other mics have a response that takes account at least partially of the instantaneous pressure changes (ie, particle density), as well as the motion. Until you get to a truly omnidirectional mic, which only responds to pressure changes. Yes I know they went on to explain that - so why did they start with what amounts to a mistake???

Hmmm... I thnk this is just a case of a manufacturer jumping onto the USB mic bandwaggon.  It was only a matter of time before someone twigged that there are many people out there who think that it's only possible to make a good recording with a condenser* mic and this development was bound to happen.

Personally, I reckon I could find a lot better and more versatile mic for the $500 being asked for this one.

*  As angineer who was bought upon 'condensers' and had to learn to call them 'capacitors', I've always wondered why we don't call these things capacitor mics?

As an engineer who was bought upon 'condensers' and had to learn to call them 'capacitors', I've always wondered why we don't call these things capacitor mics?

Dunno. I've been told off for doing just that at least once. The only justification that I can think of for calling them 'condenser' mics is because of what happens to cause you to get a noisy one full of what was water vapour...

Well, in a home studio it could be usefull to record and give a feed back to the singer by the headphone socket while having only a single cable to the pc.

As for condensors and capacitors, the former is the older name for the latter.

As for condensors and capacitors, the former is the older name for the latter.

I'm sure that's what Graeme was alluding to. Being of a similar vintage* I'm in the same boat, having started using "condenser" and having to get used to "capacitor". As for condenser mikes, is that just another linguistic inconsistency?

*Actually I think I'm younger

I may be showing my age but I always think of "condenser" mics as the original valve (tube) mics such as the AKG C12. When newer FET mics, such as the C451, arrived on the scene I was happy to call them "capacitor" mics. Now with new retro tube ones I am all confused again.

*Actually I think I'm younger

Since neither of us has published our respective birthdays, we'll never know - but you're probably right

Well I suspect that as usual, the Yanks are to blame... just don't ask me how!

*update* I might have got a clue. There's a widely reported paper by Sessler and West going back to 1962 entitled "Self-biased condenser microphone with high capacitance". Even if they'd been called capacitor mics before, they probably weren't after this!

It looks like a nice mic at least.

Although I would tend to shy away from non standard audio interfaces with built in ADC, less flexible
and you are fixed by the audio quality produced by the internal ADC of the mix itself.

I would check and see if they have a traditional version.

cheers

SafeandSound
online mastering

Well I suspect that as usual, the Yanks are to blame... just don't ask me how!

Can't say I know why, but microphones identified as "condenser" far outnumber "capacitor" microphones in most USA catalogs and advertising.  It seems those called capacitor microphones tend to be the more expensive models, for whatever reason.  I think it's been this way for at least 50 years or so.  While audio pros may have been familiar with capacitor/condenser microphones, I don't think the term gained much awareness in the US until Sony introduced their relatively inexpensive "electret condenser" microphones, followed by a deluge of small, cheap microphones put into nearly everything that could use one.

I don't think the term gained much awareness in the US until Sony introduced their relatively inexpensive "electret condenser" microphones...

Good point. I don't ever recall them being called 'electret capacitor' microphones. Mind you, calling it an electret condenser like that is slightly misleading, because most people now assume that the electret is some sort of capacitor-like device - and it isn't. It's a condensor/capacitor-type mic but with the polarising potential provided by a permanently-charged electret device. So that  part's more like a high voltage cell.

...followed by a deluge of small, cheap microphones put into nearly everything that could use one.

Or even things which (right now) can't - like my Kindle 3, which has an entirely redundant microphone built in...

Og good,

at least I wasn't completely out of touch wondering what was going on. I never considered buying one, but it's always nice to know if one is missing something good!