Re: Studio Projects B1 Vs. RCA 77D

[Chris Del Faro]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> Barton > wrote:
> >I do voiceovers and have heard really good comments on the Studio Projects
> >B1. At the moment the two mics I use are the EV RE20 and an RCA 77D (been
> >reworked by Clarence Kane @ ENak). I use the RE20 for the punchier stuff
> >and the RCA for the more mellow delivery.
> >
> >I don't own a condenser mic and was wondering what the B1 would give me
> >that the RCA or RE20 wouldn't? Would a condenser be a good 'middle ground'
> >between the two? I'm the only one using the studio, so other voices are not
> >an issue..at least not at the moment.
>
> It will give you a very different top end, a lot more forward up there
> than either the RE-20 or the 77DX. It's worth auditioning one. It will
> be much more punchy than the RE-20, and far more so than the 77DX.
> --scott

Tha B1 is more "forward" and "punchy" compared to my closest reference point,
the Electro-Voice RE16, as Scott said.
Been getting a good vocal sound with it by cutting around 2 dB @ 200 Hz with
a shelf type EQ. It has a strong proximity effect and picks up the low end in
a voice well.
The build quality on the B1 is fine IMHO.

Chris

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
>Ty Ford > wrote:
>>
>>Let's be electronically and historically accurate. The 77DX was primarily
>>used before FM radio. AM radio's constrained (until the recent iboc HD
>>radio) frequency response made a 77DX a good match.
>
>Huh? Before the stupid NRSC standards, AM stations could run a full 15 KC
>bandwidth if they were in a clear spot on the band and didn't have adjacent
>channel rejection problems. (If this was causing interference, they had
>to reduce bandwith, but a lot of daytimers in areas where stations were
>sparse on the ground had excellent wideband audio). Standardizing the
>emphasis curve was well overdue, in in many locations the NRSC standards
>were NOT an improvement.

Scott,

Yes and "could" is the operative word.

Everyone knows what AM souds like versus FM. Your preference to make a
technical point is appreciated, but short of those GE super radios and their
like, the majority of AM receivers ain't passing much. Certainly not as much
as FM.

I was working in both AM and FM during the crossover period when FM
penetration first became a factor. I know what I heard.


Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford > wrote:
>Everyone knows what AM souds like versus FM. Your preference to make a
>technical point is appreciated, but short of those GE super radios and their
>like, the majority of AM receivers ain't passing much. Certainly not as much
>as FM.

Right, most AM radios don't pass any more than 4 KC tops, and a lot of them
don't even pass that much very well. But this is the fault of the radios
being crappy.

The stations get crappy only because the folks running the station figure
that the radios are crappy anyway so why should they bother making things
sound good?

>I was working in both AM and FM during the crossover period when FM
>penetration first became a factor. I know what I heard.

Yup, and the difference between AM and FM today is about the same, because
BOTH sound crappier than they did back then. And that is a pity, and one
that IBOC won't fix.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."