Hi all,

Anyone here using these Beyer SD condensers? Has anyone compared them to
the usual suspects (KM140/184, AKG 480, Schoeps etc.)?

Daniel

Daniel Fuchs wrote:

Anyone here using these Beyer SD condensers?

Noone...? Seriously...?


D.

Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Daniel Fuchs wrote:

Anyone here using these Beyer SD condensers?

Noone...? Seriously...?

I have seen them in the catalogue but they don't seem to sell them in the US
at all. They are higher priced than the competition, and nobody at the trade
shows seems really want to talk about them much. They might be great mikes,
but they don't promote them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:13:43 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Daniel Fuchs wrote:

Anyone here using these Beyer SD condensers?

Noone...? Seriously...?

I have seen them in the catalogue but they don't seem to sell them in the US
at all. They are higher priced than the competition, and nobody at the trade
shows seems really want to talk about them much. They might be great mikes,
but they don't promote them.
--scott


Do they promote ANY mics anymore?

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Ty Ford wrote:

Do they promote ANY mics anymore?

There's been an ad for the M-160 and M-130 running in the mags
recently. Every couple of years a new rep shows up at an AES or NAMM
show and says that they're really going to do a better job of
distribution in the US.

But there are too many mics. I think that Beyer's best bet is to push
their ribbon mics since ribbons seem to be this era's "LDC" and leave
the SM-58 and U-87 replacements to the more MI-oriented brands. It
would be nice if more people knew about the M-88, however. This one
seems to be released and discontinued and released and discontinued and
.. . . I don't know if there are new ones available today.

Ty Ford wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:13:43 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote

I have seen them in the catalogue but they don't seem to sell them in the US
at all. They are higher priced than the competition, and nobody at the trade
shows seems really want to talk about them much. They might be great mikes,
but they don't promote them.

Do they promote ANY mics anymore?

I think I saw an ad for the M160 and M130 in Mix recently. Not a very big
one, though.

I have seen full-page ads for the TG-series dynamics here and there.
--scott

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

Do they NEED to promote the 160 anymore?

Interestingly, I just ordered one and the factory told my dealer they were
starting a new production batch in a week or so - they were effectively out
of stock.

JP

"Scott Dorsey" a écrit dans le message de
...
Ty Ford wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:13:43 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote

I have seen them in the catalogue but they don't seem to sell them in
the US
at all. They are higher priced than the competition, and nobody at the
trade
shows seems really want to talk about them much. They might be great
mikes,
but they don't promote them.

Do they promote ANY mics anymore?

I think I saw an ad for the M160 and M130 in Mix recently. Not a very big
one, though.

I have seen full-page ads for the TG-series dynamics here and there.
--scott

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

JP Gerard wrote:
Do they NEED to promote the 160 anymore?

I dunno. It's one of those things that everybody used to use, but there
is a new generation of kids coming of age now who have never seen it.

Same goes for things like the Sennheiser 441 (which I think is the best
dynamic mike ever made, even if Sennheiser wishes they could discontinue it).
Lots of folks coming up today have never seen one.

Interestingly, I just ordered one and the factory told my dealer they were
starting a new production batch in a week or so - they were effectively out
of stock.

It's a great mike, and I am happy to see more sold. I wish they'd put the
low end back on the 260, though.
--scott

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

JP Gerard wrote:
Do they NEED to promote the 160 anymore?

Yes, for two reasons:

1. Ribbon mics are a hot item these days, in case you haven't noticed.
2. It doesn't look like what people think a ribbon mic looks like.

I dunno. It's one of those things that everybody used to use, but there
is a new generation of kids coming of age now who have never seen it.

True... but I don't really recall Beyer really pushing anything anyway.

Same goes for things like the Sennheiser 441 (which I think is the best
dynamic mike ever made, even if Sennheiser wishes they could discontinue
it).

Sennheiser, they're so weird. Why discontinue the 441? The thing is a
classic.

Lots of folks coming up today have never seen one.

And the RE20, the SM7, let alone the old RCAs... but younguns can learn,
too...

It's a great mike, and I am happy to see more sold. I wish they'd put the
low end back on the 260, though.

The real question is why did they take it away in the first place? Beats me!

JP

1. I have...
2. And what would that be???

JP


"Mike Rivers" a écrit dans le message de
oups.com...

JP Gerard wrote:
Do they NEED to promote the 160 anymore?

Yes, for two reasons:

1. Ribbon mics are a hot item these days, in case you haven't noticed.
2. It doesn't look like what people think a ribbon mic looks like.

JP Gerard wrote:

Same goes for things like the Sennheiser 441 (which I think is the best
dynamic mike ever made, even if Sennheiser wishes they could discontinue
it).

Sennheiser, they're so weird. Why discontinue the 441? The thing is a
classic.

I have no idea. Why did they replace the 421 with the 421 II, with the
nasty presence peak? The great thing about the old 421 was the lack of
presence peak.

It's a great mike, and I am happy to see more sold. I wish they'd put the
low end back on the 260, though.

The real question is why did they take it away in the first place? Beats me!

I bet a nickel it was to make the transformer cheaper to build. But I
may be wrong.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I have no idea. Why did they replace the 421 with the 421 II, with the
nasty presence peak? The great thing about the old 421 was the lack of
presence peak.

Probably because some dealers todl them they need a "more aggressive sound"
to compete with the SM57.

I bet a nickel it was to make the transformer cheaper to build. But I
may be wrong.

Here's a story for you:
I bought a 260.80, new, beg. of last year.
An 8 foot fall killed the ribbon.
Off to S. Sank.
I won't go into the details but I ended up ordering a new motor from my
local Beyer dealer in January.
They say no problem, solder two wires and you're done
I ask how the hell I'm supposed to replace the original assembly because it
looks like the motor assembly must come in two parts and then needs to be
reassembled around the grille... They repeat that it's an easy job for "any
competent tech" (which I'm apparently not).
And... the morons send me an M500 ass'y.
So at that point I'm looking at the gutted M260.80 and the M500 motor and
luckily it will almost fit but:
A) I can't see how you could replace an M260.80 motor if the grille isn't
already attached to the bottom of the magnet - if you've seen one before,
you'll know what I mean. Then you're really just replacing the HOUSING and
XLR connector. Huh?
B) The M500 assembly is longer than the M260's, so I decide to saw about an
inch off the brass tube that's part of the acoustic delay network. Now it
fits fine.

So I solder the infamous "two wires" and take a listen.
Well, I'll be damned, the mic sounds like an M260 with plenty of low end,
almost comparable to my AEA R84.
I was expecting the typical M500 presence peak and rolled off low end - but
no, none of that. Sounds like an M260 with deeper bass.

So what's going on???

The transfo of the M500 is obviously capable of delivering a deep low end.
To me, it looks like most of the frequency tailoring in the M series is
achieved acoustically.
And indeed, the ribbon assemblies look identical. I'm almost certain that
the ribbons are all the same.

So, I'm not saying that the Xfo is not responsible for the low cut of the
M260.80 but it could just be an internal tweak to the acoustic delay network
that rolls off the low end.

This is all extrapolation, I know... food for tought nonetheless.

JP

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Same goes for things like the Sennheiser 441 (which I think is the best
dynamic mike ever made, even if Sennheiser wishes they could discontinue it).
Lots of folks coming up today have never seen one.


And why, oh why, did they dump the 409, only to change it completely
and bring it back all *******ized as the 609?? Ok, the gold front on
the 409 was probably driving up the cost, but I'd love to have some
409s with a plain steel or aluminum grill. The gold looked nice, but
didn't make it sound any better. The 409 was my favorite mic on a
bunch of things, most notably harmonica and Robert Randolph's pedal
steel.

-glenn

JP Gerard wrote:

So I solder the infamous "two wires" and take a listen.
Well, I'll be damned, the mic sounds like an M260 with plenty of low end,
almost comparable to my AEA R84.
I was expecting the typical M500 presence peak and rolled off low end - but
no, none of that. Sounds like an M260 with deeper bass.

So what's going on???

Hey, good on ya for improvising. If it sounds great, then your efforts
paid off. Be happy!

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:06:27 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

JP Gerard wrote:
Do they NEED to promote the 160 anymore?

I dunno. It's one of those things that everybody used to use, but there
is a new generation of kids coming of age now who have never seen it.

I've had one since 1973, but I think I've only used i three times in that
period. In theory, It sounds like a great idea, but I've always found better
choices.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Ty Ford wrote:

Do they NEED to promote the 160 anymore?

I dunno. It's one of those things that everybody used to use, but there
is a new generation of kids coming of age now who have never seen it.


I've had one since 1973, but I think I've only used i three times in that
period. In theory, It sounds like a great idea, but I've always found better
choices.

Ty Ford

I never had it, but I once had an M500. Thought it sounded dull and
lifeless.

Dull and Lifeless... not really how I would describe my 500...

Present and punchy, yes!

JP

"Dr. Dolittle" a écrit dans le message de
...


Ty Ford wrote:

Do they NEED to promote the 160 anymore?

I dunno. It's one of those things that everybody used to use, but there
is a new generation of kids coming of age now who have never seen it.


I've had one since 1973, but I think I've only used i three times in
that
period. In theory, It sounds like a great idea, but I've always found
better
choices.

Ty Ford

I never had it, but I once had an M500. Thought it sounded dull and
lifeless.

It does, and I am...

JP

"Dr. Dolittle" a écrit dans le message de
...


JP Gerard wrote:

So I solder the infamous "two wires" and take a listen.
Well, I'll be damned, the mic sounds like an M260 with plenty of low
end,
almost comparable to my AEA R84.
I was expecting the typical M500 presence peak and rolled off low end -
but
no, none of that. Sounds like an M260 with deeper bass.

So what's going on???

Hey, good on ya for improvising. If it sounds great, then your efforts
paid off. Be happy!

Since noone else seems to know these mics, I went ahead and bought two
803s (card) and an 805 (hyper) off ebay at somewhere between a third and
half of their original price. I've always been curious about these and
wanted to have them in my collection. At the price I paid, they are
definitely a bargain, but even without considering money, they are quite
nice indeed, as far as I can tell from some initial testing.

An MKH 50 is audibly less noisy (no noise at all, to be precise...) and
less ambient than the 805 (noticeable when recording a voice in a
relatively small room), and the 805 is a tad brighter. But nothing
obviuosly wrong with its sound. The Beyers are very sensitive (even a
bit louder than the MKH at 30 mV/pA for the 805) and the self noise is
only 13 dB-A.
The 803 is somewhat less noisy than my AKG 480, and comparable to a KM
140 and 184. Soundwise, there is nothing that would make either of these
far superior or inferior to the others, and the Beyers definitely don't
sound bad at all. Unfortunately, I don't have the classic "acoustic
guitar" at hand for a test, and no Schoeps MK41 to compare to, either...
I may have a chance to compare it to the Schoeps with a harpsichord,
though. And I'll try the 803s as choir spot mics in a Buxtehude Oratorio
on Sunday...


So, if you come across one of these at a good price, grab it. Definitely
better than any chinese SDC which might cost as much as a second-hand
Beyer, I'd say. Quite heavy and solid also. Wonder why Beyer
discontinued them.


Oh, and if anyone has a pair of the Beyer CK 1 omni capsules that they'd
be willing to sell, let me know... (Not to be confused with AKG CK 1)


Daniel