[Nate Najar]

I was doing a little demo session with a singer this afternoon and I threw up one of my RE15's on the acoustic guitar. The output was even more weak than usual and transients made a little low mid freq popping noise. I know there isn't much that can go wrong with these mics- I have 3 of them and though I got them at varying times, they all sounded very close. Do you think it's repairable/what do you think it is? Or is it time to thank it for its service.....

N

[[email protected]]

Check your 48V power supply.

[None]

thekma @ thekma.dum wrote in message
...
Check your 48V power supply.

Dumb ****.

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2015 05:04, Nate Najar wrote:
I was doing a little demo session with a singer this afternoon and I threw up one of my RE15's on the acoustic guitar. The output was even more weak than usual and transients made a little low mid freq popping noise. I know there isn't much that can go wrong with these mics- I have 3 of them and though I got them at varying times, they all sounded very close. Do you think it's repairable/what do you think it is? Or is it time to thank it for its service.....

N

Have you tried a different cable and/ or turning off the phantom power
on that channel? And using a different channel? All obvious stuff, but
you never know.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/1/2015 6:53 AM, wrote:
Check your 48V power supply.

No need. They're wind-powered.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/1/2015 7:36 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Have you tried a different cable and/ or turning off the phantom power
on that channel? And using a different channel?

I'm sure you know that the RE-15 does not require phantom power.

If it was connected with a shorted cable with phantom power turned on,
the mic could have been damaged. But by then, it would be too late.
Turning off phantom power would provide no further information.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Phil W[_3_]]

Mike Rivers:
On 4/1/2015 6:53 AM, wrote:

Check your 48V power supply.

No need. They're wind-powered.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Maybe our loudness wars-troll´s try to make an April´s fools day joke?

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2015 13:06, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/1/2015 7:36 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Have you tried a different cable and/ or turning off the phantom power
on that channel? And using a different channel?

I'm sure you know that the RE-15 does not require phantom power.

If it was connected with a shorted cable with phantom power turned on,
the mic could have been damaged. But by then, it would be too late.
Turning off phantom power would provide no further information.

Unless the problem's in the mixer?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar wrote:
I was doing a little demo session with a singer this afternoon and I threw =
up one of my RE15's on the acoustic guitar. The output was even more weak =
than usual and transients made a little low mid freq popping noise. I know=
there isn't much that can go wrong with these mics- I have 3 of them and t=
hough I got them at varying times, they all sounded very close. Do you thi=
nk it's repairable/what do you think it is? Or is it time to thank it for i=
ts service.....

The bad news is that EV won't fix them for free like they used to.

The good news is there's probably just tramp metal in there.

Call EV, see what they charge to fix them now, it's worth it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Phil W:

I did my research before suggesting phantom check,
and the sites I went to all confirmed RE-15 is a
condensor.

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2015 14:33, wrote:
Phil W:

I did my research before suggesting phantom check,
and the sites I went to all confirmed RE-15 is a
condensor.

It's such a shame it's a dynamic microphone, then.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/1/2015 9:33 AM, wrote:
I did my research before suggesting phantom check,
and the sites I went to all confirmed RE-15 is a
condensor.

Which RE-15 are you talking about? If you know Nate and his
applications, you would know that he's talking about the Electro-Voice
RE-15. It's pretty much become understood throughout the industry that
this is what's meant by "RE-15."

I wouldn't be surprised if some other microphone company is using that
model number for a different product. If so, I'd like to know who. E-V
would probably like to know, too. Maybe it's a good condenser mic.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

Phil W:

I did my research before suggesting phantom check,
and the sites I went to all confirmed RE-15 is a
condensor.

Just shows how much mis-information exists on the web, then -- at least on some
sites (btw, which sites? Might be a hoot to go visit).

EV's "RE" series has been around for a half century, maybe longer, and they were
dominate in many areas of audio for some time (tv/radio, reinforcement/PA, etc).

Always dynamic, all the time.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Nate Najar]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:04:52 AM UTC-4, Nate Najar wrote:
I was doing a little demo session with a singer this afternoon and I threw up one of my RE15's on the acoustic guitar. The output was even more weak than usual and transients made a little low mid freq popping noise. I know there isn't much that can go wrong with these mics- I have 3 of them and though I got them at varying times, they all sounded very close. Do you think it's repairable/what do you think it is? Or is it time to thank it for its service.....

N

ok I just got off the phone with Bosch support. They have to call me back and let me know if they can fix it. Flat rate for an re16 repair is $155 (!!!!!!!!). Theoretically if they fix 16's they can fix a 15, but she has to call me back to let me know if they'll accept the 15 for repair.

Man big business has the ability to screw up all kinds of things!

[PStamler]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:28:49 AM UTC-6, Frank Stearns wrote:


EV's "RE" series has been around for a half century, maybe longer, and they were
dominate in many areas of audio for some time (tv/radio, reinforcement/PA, etc).

Always dynamic, all the time.


The RE-15 was always dynamic, yes. But the RE series included some condenser mics. I have a couple of RE-200s in my kit -- my favorite mics for guitar amps, bar none. They're transformerless condensers with 3/4" diaphragms.

Peace,
Paul

[Luxey]

�реда, 01. април 2015. 17..28.49 UTC+2, Frank Stearns је напи�ао/ла:

Just shows how much mis-information exists on the web, then -- at least on some
sites (btw, which sites? Might be a hoot to go visit).

I don't think that's the case. Something's got broken in thekma's head, he
missunderstood "electro-voice" for "phantom powered", or something equally
stupid. It is virtually impossible to google for microphone RE 15 and get any
other result but correct one.

It's funny how he was fast to spill out expertise, as per own admission, after
searching the web for couple of minutes.
What is not funny, now he learned something, so he will go to some other group
and pose as an expert.

Or indeed he made an april fool, but I doubt his capabilities.

[Frank Stearns]

PStamler writes:

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:28:49 AM UTC-6, Frank Stearns wrote:


EV's "RE" series has been around for a half century, maybe longer, and they were
dominate in many areas of audio for some time (tv/radio, reinforcement/PA, etc).

Always dynamic, all the time.


The RE-15 was always dynamic, yes. But the RE series included some condenser mics.
I have a couple of RE-200s in my kit -- my favorite mics for guitar amps, bar none.
They're transformerless condensers with 3/4" diaphragms.

Really!? Didn't know that; thanks for the correction! (I was thinking mainly of RE
15s, 16s, 20s, 55s, et al.)

Do you know when the 200 came out? True condenser or are they electrets? What was
the approximate price point compared to, say, a Neumann KM184 (US$700-900, last time
I checked).

Inquiring minds (now you've got me curious; time for a websearch!)

Thanks,
Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[None]

theckma @ dumb.fuk wrote in message
...
Phil W:

I did my research before suggesting phantom check,
and the sites I went to all confirmed RE-15 is a
condensor.

Name a site that "confirmed" that the RE-15 is a "condensor". I triple
dog dare you.

[None]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...
Or indeed he made an april fool, but I doubt his capabilities.

Thekma the dumb**** is the poster child for the first of April.

[PStamler]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:08:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Stearns wrote:
PStamler writes:

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:28:49 AM UTC-6, Frank Stearns wrote:


EV's "RE" series has been around for a half century, maybe longer, and they were
dominate in many areas of audio for some time (tv/radio, reinforcement/PA, etc).

Always dynamic, all the time.


The RE-15 was always dynamic, yes. But the RE series included some condenser mics.
I have a couple of RE-200s in my kit -- my favorite mics for guitar amps, bar none.
They're transformerless condensers with 3/4" diaphragms.

Really!? Didn't know that; thanks for the correction! (I was thinking mainly of RE
15s, 16s, 20s, 55s, et al.)

Do you know when the 200 came out?

Well, I reviewed it in the April 1997 issue of Recording, and it was pretty new when I wrote the review, which would have been in November or December of 1996. By the way, I note in my spreadsheet that E-V had another condenser mic which I reviewed around then, the RE1000. As I recall, I didn't like it that much.

True condenser or are they electrets?

True condenser, according to E-V.

What was
the approximate price point compared to, say, a Neumann KM184 (US$700-900, last time
I checked).

It's still available; Full Compass sells it for $350.

I talk about the RE200 in the First Steps series now running in Recording, as an example of a microphone that I'd never use as a general-purpose mic; it's a two-trick pony for me, with a huge treble spike. That makes it useful for picking up the skin sound on a bodhran, dumbek or other hand drum, and for putting a little sparkle in the sound of a guitar speaker just where it's starting to crap out on top. It's so good for those two things that I bought two of them, and used one to record the bass amp in the clip that goes with the First Steps series. I don't use them for anything else; just bodhrans and guitar/bass speakers.

Peace,
Paul

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

wrote:
Phil W:

I did my research before suggesting phantom check,
and the sites I went to all confirmed RE-15 is a
condensor.

Are you connected to a different Internet than the rest of us, by chance?

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

F.Y.I. ~

EV introduced the Research Engineering series beginning with the RE15 in
August 1967. There is no "space" or hyphen after the "RE". Lou Burroughs
said he would not allow a new condenser mic unless it could perform at
least as well as EV's finest dynamic models. "System C" (for Condenser)
hearlded EV's re-entry into the world of condenser mics. It included Omni,
Cardioid, Hypercardioid and Line (shotgun) models. The hypercardioid CH15S
is 4" long and outperforms the 10"+connector Sennheiser 416 with the same
pattern. Burroughs never would have allowed the later entries that have
rather poor charts.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
F.Y.I. ~

EV introduced the Research Engineering series beginning with the RE15 in
August 1967. There is no "space" or hyphen after the "RE". Lou Burroughs
said he would not allow a new condenser mic unless it could perform at
least as well as EV's finest dynamic models. "System C" (for Condenser)
hearlded EV's re-entry into the world of condenser mics. It included Omni,
Cardioid, Hypercardioid and Line (shotgun) models. The hypercardioid CH15S
is 4" long and outperforms the 10"+connector Sennheiser 416 with the same
pattern. Burroughs never would have allowed the later entries that have
rather poor charts.

I think Burroughs wouldn't have approved of a lot of things that have
happened at EV... they took over Altec and that was fine, but then they
junked all of the old Altec drawing documentation that was in the Altec
records office.

But the discontinuing of the RE-55 was the saddest thing...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
F.Y.I. ~

EV introduced the Research Engineering series beginning with the RE15 in
August 1967. There is no "space" or hyphen after the "RE". Lou
Burroughs said he would not allow a new condenser mic unless it could
perform at least as well as EV's finest dynamic models. "System C" (for
Condenser) hearlded EV's re-entry into the world of condenser mics. It
included Omni, Cardioid, Hypercardioid and Line (shotgun) models. The
hypercardioid CH15S is 4" long and outperforms the 10"+connector
Sennheiser 416 with the same pattern. Burroughs never would have
allowed the later entries that have rather poor charts.

I think Burroughs wouldn't have approved of a lot of things that have
happened at EV... they took over Altec and that was fine, but then they
junked all of the old Altec drawing documentation that was in the Altec
records office.

But the discontinuing of the RE-55 was the saddest thing...
--scott

Er ... That would be "RE55", and I agree! The RE55, DO54 and PL9 share the
same element. They deliver smooth, linear HF performance that gives
"silkiness" a new meaning.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Nate Najar]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:04:52 AM UTC-4, Nate Najar wrote:
I was doing a little demo session with a singer this afternoon and I threw up one of my RE15's on the acoustic guitar. The output was even more weak than usual and transients made a little low mid freq popping noise. I know there isn't much that can go wrong with these mics- I have 3 of them and though I got them at varying times, they all sounded very close. Do you think it's repairable/what do you think it is? Or is it time to thank it for its service.....

N

well they don't want to repair the re15. it works well enough for talkback, I'll just have to keep it labeled so it doesn't get put into use. what a drag. They'll repair a 16, but not a 15, because the 16 is a current product. Thanks Bosch. Also, the bech fee to repair a 16 is $150. for that you may as well just buy a new one!

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/7/2015 1:06 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
They'll repair a 16, but not a 15, because the 16 is a current product. Thanks Bosch.

Sure glad not every company has that policy. Don't the RE15 and RE16
have the same guts, just a different case? I can see them not being able
to replace a smashed grill or broken shaft, but I'd hazard a guess that
you could put an RE16 capsule into an RE15 case and have an RE15 - and
vice versa. Anybody know that for sure?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Nate Najar]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:23:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/7/2015 1:06 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
They'll repair a 16, but not a 15, because the 16 is a current product. Thanks Bosch.

Sure glad not every company has that policy. Don't the RE15 and RE16
have the same guts, just a different case? I can see them not being able
to replace a smashed grill or broken shaft, but I'd hazard a guess that
you could put an RE16 capsule into an RE15 case and have an RE15 - and
vice versa. Anybody know that for sure?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

yes same thing. It's a policy thing and the girl on the phone even told me as much.

N

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:23:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/7/2015 1:06 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
They'll repair a 16, but not a 15, because the 16 is a current product. Thanks Bosch.

Sure glad not every company has that policy. Don't the RE15 and RE16
have the same guts, just a different case? I can see them not being able
to replace a smashed grill or broken shaft, but I'd hazard a guess that
you could put an RE16 capsule into an RE15 case and have an RE15 - and
vice versa. Anybody know that for sure?

yes same thing. It's a policy thing and the girl on the phone even told me as much.

This is positively shameful for a company that used to pride itself for
so long on support for older products.

You should be able to buy the RE16 element and put it in. You might try
calling Richard at Land's Audio in Nashville... he did dynamic mike repairs
for AKG for many years and knows all the AKG line, but he can probably
buy an RE16 element and put it in too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Nate Najar wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:23:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/7/2015 1:06 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
They'll repair a 16, but not a 15, because the 16 is a current
product. Thanks Bosch.

Sure glad not every company has that policy. Don't the RE15 and RE16
have the same guts, just a different case? I can see them not being
able to replace a smashed grill or broken shaft, but I'd hazard a
guess that you could put an RE16 capsule into an RE15 case and have an
RE15 - and vice versa. Anybody know that for sure?

yes same thing. It's a policy thing and the girl on the phone even told
me as much.

This is positively shameful for a company that used to pride itself for
so long on support for older products.

You should be able to buy the RE16 element and put it in. You might try
calling Richard at Land's Audio in Nashville... he did dynamic mike
repairs for AKG for many years and knows all the AKG line, but he can
probably buy an RE16 element and put it in too.
--scott

Indeed, the RE16 uses the same element as the '15. Further, they use the
same body. One could lose the screens, machine (or cut/grind) the spider,
throw on a foam wind screen and tell folks it's an RE15 ... it really is!

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Neil[_9_]]

On 4/7/2015 3:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/7/2015 1:06 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
They'll repair a 16, but not a 15, because the 16 is a current
product. Thanks Bosch.

Sure glad not every company has that policy. Don't the RE15 and RE16
have the same guts, just a different case? I can see them not being able
to replace a smashed grill or broken shaft, but I'd hazard a guess that
you could put an RE16 capsule into an RE15 case and have an RE15 - and
vice versa. Anybody know that for sure?

During the mid '70s I was a pro audio dealer, and carried the EV line of
studio products. The RE11 is structurally equivalent to the RE16, and
the RE10 is structurally equivalent to the RE15. The difference between
these was quality control, with the more expensive versions (RE16 and
RE15) being more critically matched to the same models in the line.

BTW - I had to refresh my memory before posting this, and this info is
on-line on EV's site.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Nate Najar wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:23:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/7/2015 1:06 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
They'll repair a 16, but not a 15, because the 16 is a current
product. Thanks Bosch.

Sure glad not every company has that policy. Don't the RE15 and RE16
have the same guts, just a different case? I can see them not being
able to replace a smashed grill or broken shaft, but I'd hazard a
guess that you could put an RE16 capsule into an RE15 case and have
an RE15 - and vice versa. Anybody know that for sure?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

yes same thing. It's a policy thing and the girl on the phone even
told me as much.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but there is
little hope that the repaired mic will match the performance specs of your
other RE15 mics, so I think you already have your solution in hand by not
trying to use it paired with the others.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" wrote:

RE15 v. RE16 parts.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but there is
little hope that the repaired mic will match the performance specs of
your other RE15 mics, so I think you already have your solution in hand
by not trying to use it paired with the others.

Neil ~ From the beginning I have understood the two to have the same
element. What your the basis for saying they do not?

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:
RE15 v. RE16 parts.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but there is
little hope that the repaired mic will match the performance specs of
your other RE15 mics, so I think you already have your solution in hand
by not trying to use it paired with the others.

Neil ~ From the beginning I have understood the two to have the same
element. What your the basis for saying they do not?

The SM57 and SM58 have the same element but the part numbers in the catalogue
are different so they can keep track of how many replacements people are doing
on each model. They may do something like that as well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil[_9_]]

On 4/8/2015 11:08 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:

RE15 v. RE16 parts.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but there is
little hope that the repaired mic will match the performance specs of
your other RE15 mics, so I think you already have your solution in hand
by not trying to use it paired with the others.

Neil ~ From the beginning I have understood the two to have the same
element. What your the basis for saying they do not?

Whether or not they have the same element, they are not equivalent mics,
and therefore can not be expected to meet the same specs. In my reply to
Mike, I explained that the structurally equivalent mics are the RE10 &
RE15, and RE11 & RE16. What that means is that they have the same body,
elements, screens, etc. The difference between the RE10 and RE15 is that
the RE15 meets a tighter performance tolerance, allowing them to be
matched. Comparatively, the RE10 is "out of spec", and though it is
still a very good mic, it is unlikely to match the specs of either an
RE15 or another RE10.

The implication when repairing an RE15 with some other part such as an
RE16 element is that it is unlikely to meet the original spec.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Neil wrote:
On 4/8/2015 11:08 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:

RE15 v. RE16 parts.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but there
is little hope that the repaired mic will match the performance specs
of your other RE15 mics, so I think you already have your solution in
hand by not trying to use it paired with the others.

Neil ~ From the beginning I have understood the two to have the same
element. What your the basis for saying they do not?

Whether or not they have the same element, they are not equivalent mics,
and therefore can not be expected to meet the same specs. In my reply to
Mike, I explained that the structurally equivalent mics are the RE10 &
RE15, and RE11 & RE16. What that means is that they have the same body,
elements, screens, etc. The difference between the RE10 and RE15 is that
the RE15 meets a tighter performance tolerance, allowing them to be
matched. Comparatively, the RE10 is "out of spec", and though it is
still a very good mic, it is unlikely to match the specs of either an
RE15 or another RE10.

The implication when repairing an RE15 with some other part such as an
RE16 element is that it is unlikely to meet the original spec.

Neil ~ The QC differences between the '10/'11 and the '15/'16 are
understood. That does not support your stated "implication". I don't know
if EV uses different numbers to track production. My best recollection is
Lou Burroughs saying something like "It's the same mic, with a windscreen
added." I have taken these things apart. Inside a '16/'11 there is a
complete '15/'10 *minus* the spider, foam and screen. I wonder if EV/Bosch
has any remaining inventory of these bits.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Neil Gould]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 4/8/2015 11:08 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:

RE15 v. RE16 parts.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but
there is little hope that the repaired mic will match the
performance specs of your other RE15 mics, so I think you already
have your solution in hand by not trying to use it paired with the
others.

Neil ~ From the beginning I have understood the two to have the same
element. What your the basis for saying they do not?

Whether or not they have the same element, they are not equivalent
mics, and therefore can not be expected to meet the same specs. In
my reply to Mike, I explained that the structurally equivalent mics
are the RE10 & RE15, and RE11 & RE16. What that means is that they
have the same body, elements, screens, etc. The difference between
the RE10 and RE15 is that the RE15 meets a tighter performance
tolerance, allowing them to be matched. Comparatively, the RE10 is
"out of spec", and though it is still a very good mic, it is
unlikely to match the specs of either an RE15 or another RE10.

The implication when repairing an RE15 with some other part such as
an RE16 element is that it is unlikely to meet the original spec.

Neil ~ The QC differences between the '10/'11 and the '15/'16 are
understood. That does not support your stated "implication". I
don't know if EV uses different numbers to track production. My best
recollection is Lou Burroughs saying something like "It's the same
mic, with a windscreen added." I have taken these things apart.
Inside a '16/'11 there is a complete '15/'10 *minus* the spider, foam
and screen. I wonder if EV/Bosch has any remaining inventory of
these bits.

Roy, since you understand the differences between 10/15 which use exactly
the same parts but perform differently, I find it curious that you would
think it reasonable to expect mics built to different standards, i.e. 15/16,
to meet spec if their parts are swapped. In fact, that notion of yours does
not explain why Bosch won't repair a 15 but will repair the 16. If your
notion was correct, there would be little reason for that. OTOH, my
"implication" is one possible explanation for their refusal without need to
speculate on other factors.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:

Roy, since you understand the differences between 10/15 which use exactly
the same parts but perform differently, I find it curious that you would
think it reasonable to expect mics built to different standards, i.e. 15/16,
to meet spec if their parts are swapped. In fact, that notion of yours does
not explain why Bosch won't repair a 15 but will repair the 16. If your
notion was correct, there would be little reason for that. OTOH, my
"implication" is one possible explanation for their refusal without need to
speculate on other factors.

I can't speculate other than to say that if the parts people at Bosch confirm
that they are the same part, as the original poster claims, they probably are
the same part.

Just swap the damn thing, send me the mike and I'll put it in the chamber with
an old one of mine and tell you have different they are.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 4/8/2015 11:08 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:

RE15 v. RE16 parts.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but
there is little hope that the repaired mic will match the
performance specs of your other RE15 mics, so I think you already
have your solution in hand by not trying to use it paired with the
others.

Neil ~ From the beginning I have understood the two to have the same
element. What your the basis for saying they do not?

Whether or not they have the same element, they are not equivalent
mics, and therefore can not be expected to meet the same specs. In
my reply to Mike, I explained that the structurally equivalent mics
are the RE10 & RE15, and RE11 & RE16. What that means is that they
have the same body, elements, screens, etc. The difference between
the RE10 and RE15 is that the RE15 meets a tighter performance
tolerance, allowing them to be matched. Comparatively, the RE10 is
"out of spec", and though it is still a very good mic, it is
unlikely to match the specs of either an RE15 or another RE10.

The implication when repairing an RE15 with some other part such as
an RE16 element is that it is unlikely to meet the original spec.

Neil ~ The QC differences between the '10/'11 and the '15/'16 are
understood. That does not support your stated "implication". I
don't know if EV uses different numbers to track production. My best
recollection is Lou Burroughs saying something like "It's the same
mic, with a windscreen added." I have taken these things apart.
Inside a '16/'11 there is a complete '15/'10 *minus* the spider, foam
and screen. I wonder if EV/Bosch has any remaining inventory of
these bits.

Roy, since you understand the differences between 10/15 which use exactly
the same parts but perform differently, I find it curious that you would
think it reasonable to expect mics built to different standards, i.e.
15/16, to meet spec if their parts are swapped. In fact, that notion of
yours does not explain why Bosch won't repair a 15 but will repair the
16. If your notion was correct, there would be little reason for that.
OTOH, my "implication" is one possible explanation for their refusal
without need to speculate on other factors.

The idea that the '10/'11 use "exactly the same parts" as the '15/'16 "but
perform differently" is intrinsically difficult. Were they "exactly the
same" there would be no performance difference. I understand the
difference to be in the area of Quality Control. A pair of '15/'16s will
match, while a pair of '10/'11s might not. I make no effort to explain why
Bosch does what it does (or does not).

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Neil[_9_]]

On 4/9/2015 11:46 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 4/8/2015 11:08 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:

RE15 v. RE16 parts.

They're not the same thing... they may have parts that fit, but
there is little hope that the repaired mic will match the
performance specs of your other RE15 mics, so I think you already
have your solution in hand by not trying to use it paired with the
others.

Neil ~ From the beginning I have understood the two to have the same
element. What your the basis for saying they do not?

Whether or not they have the same element, they are not equivalent
mics, and therefore can not be expected to meet the same specs. In
my reply to Mike, I explained that the structurally equivalent mics
are the RE10 & RE15, and RE11 & RE16. What that means is that they
have the same body, elements, screens, etc. The difference between
the RE10 and RE15 is that the RE15 meets a tighter performance
tolerance, allowing them to be matched. Comparatively, the RE10 is
"out of spec", and though it is still a very good mic, it is
unlikely to match the specs of either an RE15 or another RE10.

The implication when repairing an RE15 with some other part such as
an RE16 element is that it is unlikely to meet the original spec.

Neil ~ The QC differences between the '10/'11 and the '15/'16 are
understood. That does not support your stated "implication". I
don't know if EV uses different numbers to track production. My best
recollection is Lou Burroughs saying something like "It's the same
mic, with a windscreen added." I have taken these things apart.
Inside a '16/'11 there is a complete '15/'10 *minus* the spider, foam
and screen. I wonder if EV/Bosch has any remaining inventory of
these bits.

Roy, since you understand the differences between 10/15 which use exactly
the same parts but perform differently, I find it curious that you would
think it reasonable to expect mics built to different standards, i.e.
15/16, to meet spec if their parts are swapped. In fact, that notion of
yours does not explain why Bosch won't repair a 15 but will repair the
16. If your notion was correct, there would be little reason for that.
OTOH, my "implication" is one possible explanation for their refusal
without need to speculate on other factors.

The idea that the '10/'11 use "exactly the same parts" as the '15/'16 "but
perform differently" is intrinsically difficult.

I did NOT say that the 10/11 use the same parts as the 15/16. The 10/15
use the same parts, and the 11/16 use the same parts. Since the only
differences between a 10/15 and 11/16 is whether they meet the spec
closely enough to be matched, it may give one reason to wonder what
those differences may be. Anyone familiar with manufacturing can
reasonably exclude the barrel, screen, plugs and wiring as parts that
significantly alter the mic's performance. The remaining part is the mic
element, and it's quite reasonable to think that it is the production
variations inherent in manufacturing that part that result in the mic
meeting spec.

Nate stated that Bosch would repair the RE16 because it is a model still
in production. If all one had to do was put the RE16 mic element into an
RE15 and it would then meet spec, there would be no reason at all for
Bosch's reluctance to repair that model, whether or not it is currently
in production.

Were they "exactly the
same" there would be no performance difference.

Which is why I stated in the post to which you replied, "they are not
the same".

I understand the
difference to be in the area of Quality Control. A pair of '15/'16s will
match, while a pair of '10/'11s might not. I make no effort to explain why
Bosch does what it does (or does not).

the key is to understand _why_ a pair of RE15s will match. I've tried to
explain this, based on my direct experience with the manufacturer,
albeit from decades ago. You can also download the data sheets for these
mics and extrapolate much the same conclusion.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
The idea that the '10/'11 use "exactly the same parts" as the '15/'16 "but
perform differently" is intrinsically difficult. Were they "exactly the
same" there would be no performance difference. I understand the
difference to be in the area of Quality Control. A pair of '15/'16s will
match, while a pair of '10/'11s might not. I make no effort to explain why
Bosch does what it does (or does not).

I believe that the difference was one in quality control, but that these
differences have become moot in the modern era where production machining
is much better.

I know that there was a long time when the Shure 545 got the marginal reject
elements from SM57 production... but these days there are no marginal rejects
and so they just use the same capsule.
--scott

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