hello sound peeps,

in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.

SB

in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.



** Better go for the C42H.

A snare can easily exceed 135 dB SPL peak at that range.



......... Phil

wrote:

in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.

First of all, I don't think you'll exceed 135 dB SPL. Also you should note
that this is a spec _across the band_. It's worst case... midrange
frequencies can probably go well above that before the mike clips.

Then again, maybe clipping the snare a little might sharpen it up. That
was a typical 1980s trick.

Also try the Sennheiser 441 and the Audio-Technica N/D 468, too. They
don't sound the same, but they both are more directional and less crisp.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey"

in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.

First of all, I don't think you'll exceed 135 dB SPL. Also you should
note
that this is a spec _across the band_. It's worst case... midrange
frequencies can probably go well above that before the mike clips.



** Huh ??

More mindless drivel from the rubber band mechanic.

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Never.

The C42 is speced at 8.5mV / uBar and the C42 H is 0.8mV/ uBar - so, 135
dB SPL corresponds to an output of 0.95 volts from the C42 and 0.095 volts
from the C42H.




............ Phil

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:12:58 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** Huh ??

More mindless drivel from the rubber band mechanic.

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Never.

The C42 is speced at 8.5mV / uBar and the C42 H is 0.8mV/ uBar - so, 135
dB SPL corresponds to an output of 0.95 volts from the C42 and 0.095 volts
from the C42H.

PV=RT.

Chris Hornbeck

wrote:

hello sound peeps,

in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want.

What do you expect from an outdated piece of trash ?

Graham

"Pooh Bear"

What do you expect from an outdated piece of trash ?


** Graham Stevenon - describing himself.

Also a narcissist, plagiarist and posturing fake.





......... Phil

"Chris Hornbeck"

PV=RT.


** Must be an abbreviation for " PREVERT ".






.......... Phil

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 03:02:37 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

PV=RT

Isn't that the universal gas law? I always knew there was a lot of
hot air here!

Julian

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:12:58 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** Huh ??

More mindless drivel from the rubber band mechanic.

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Never.

The C42 is speced at 8.5mV / uBar and the C42 H is 0.8mV/ uBar - so, 135
dB SPL corresponds to an output of 0.95 volts from the C42 and 0.095 volts
from the C42H.

PV=RT.

On that mike, the capsule will hit maximum excursion before the pre-amp
clips. So the limiting factor for clipping is going to be the capsule.
This is why the clipping point is frequency-dependant.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
terms right.

Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article znr1122978389k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
terms right.

Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?

To make money for the manufacturer, of course!
--scott

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

OK if an SM-57 is outdated then a U-47 must be completely archaic and
should be sent to the scrap heap!

I'll gladly recycle everyone's outdated mics at no charge!

wrote:
OK if an SM-57 is outdated then a U-47 must be completely archaic and
should be sent to the scrap heap!

Well, the SM-57 is a useful microphone. But the notion that everything
used for PA has to have a presence peak, that IS archaic.

The presence peak on the SM-57 is what makes it a handy tool, and it is
also what makes it frustrating and annoying at times too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
terms right.

Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?


Ooh, ooh ... I think I know that one! To let some really high (z)
electrons on the capsule have muscle when dealing with some knarly
cable capacitance and depressed mic pre inputs (low z). Umm impedance
tranformation?

bobs
BS Studios
we organize chaos

In article , (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

In article znr1122978389k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
terms right.

Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?

To make money for the manufacturer, of course!
--scott

And they can make even more money by taking the electronics out again!

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
guitar.

I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
sound with one.

It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
or 80s?
later,
m

In article .com,
wrote:

I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
guitar.

I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
sound with one.

It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
or 80s?
later,
m


The SM-57 is quite sensitive to loading, so the choice of preamp makes a big
difference. They can sound pretty lifeless with a poor preamp. Also, there are
a lot of newer mics made using advanced materials with better frequency response
than the venerable SM-57 and sometimes those do sound better.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

wrote:

It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
or 80s?

The simple truth is that the '57 has a very coloured frequency response.
Technology has moved on since the days when that level of colouration was
considered acceptable.

Graham

wrote:

OK if an SM-57 is outdated then a U-47 must be completely archaic and
should be sent to the scrap heap!

Hint. It's not age that's the problem.

Graham

wrote:
I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
guitar.

I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
sound with one.

It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
or 80s?
later,
m

57's & 58's get bashed here constantly. Funny thing, though; U2's last
tour...they obviously could have used any mic in the world for
vocals...even mega-expensive studio jobs and just replaced them daily.

Guess what they chose?

jak

I hear what you're saying...I agree that the 57 has a coloured
frequency response. The thing is that it fits with a snare and
distorted electric guitar very nicely in most rock or pop situations.
I agree that there are mics that might sound better for some things. I
like a Beyer 201 on snares...sometimes. EV has some nice mics that
sound nice on distorted gtr amps....RE18 comes to mind. The Royer
121's are very nice on guitar amps too. But overall, for $80 for a 57,
you can't find a more versatile mic.
Yeah Jay, I agree with your loading statement too. When guys bash the
57, that's the first thing that I think of is that they just haven't
heard a snare drum mic'd with a 57 through an API pre. Or a guitar amp
through another top notch pre. These mics really come to life with a
nice pre.
later,
m

In article . com writes:

Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?

Ooh, ooh ... I think I know that one! To let some really high (z)
electrons on the capsule have muscle when dealing with some knarly
cable capacitance and depressed mic pre inputs (low z). Umm impedance
tranformation?

Give that man a cigar!

Usually, for the conventional polarized capacitor microphone, the
voltage change vs. SPL at the capsule is greater than the voltage out
the electrical end of the mic, so you actually have a voltage loss in
the guts, not gain. Since the common use of the term "preamp,"
particularly when used in the context of microphones, is something
that has voltage gain. what's inside isn't a preamp. It does have
current gain, so it's an amplifier of sorts, but to call it a preamp
in this context is misleading.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

somebody better tell that to the guys that love API, Neve, 1176
compressors and just about every other piece of gear out there.
Oh, if you simply mean mics, don't all mics have a "sound"? I want the
characteristics of certain mics...sometimes. Sometimes I might reach
for the most un-coloured gear I've got. I think there's a place for
everything.
It's funny. I'll be the first to admit, a Royer 121 sounds more like
the amp in the room than a 57 when both used at the same time. More
often than not, I'll keep the 57 track b/c it sits better in the mix
and sounds like what I'm after. To me, that's the sound of rock and
roll. If I were recording jazz or classical, I doubt I'd use a 57 as
much.
later,
m

"Mike Rivers"

Phil Allison

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics.


** There is a pre-amp inside the mic in question and most condenser mics.

A very few use external pre-amps at the end of extension tubes.


That's almost never.


** **** off you parrot brained, autistic moron.


Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a condenser mic?


** To " pre amplify " the tiny power level coming from the capsule.

The power gain is about 10,000,000 times or 70 dB.



............ Phil

"Mike Rivers"


Usually, for the conventional polarized capacitor microphone, the
voltage change vs. SPL at the capsule is greater than the voltage out
the electrical end of the mic, so you actually have a voltage loss in
the guts, not gain. Since the common use of the term "preamp,"
particularly when used in the context of microphones, is something
that has voltage gain. what's inside isn't a preamp. It does have
current gain, so it's an amplifier of sorts, but to call it a preamp
in this context is misleading.



** That is utter bull**** - you asinine PARROT BRAINED MORON !!





........... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

** **** off you parrot brained, autistic moron.


Odd topic.

"Mike Rivers"

Usually, for the conventional polarized capacitor microphone, the
voltage change vs. SPL at the capsule is greater than the voltage out
the electrical end of the mic, so you actually have a voltage loss in
the guts, not gain. Since the common use of the term "preamp,"
particularly when used in the context of microphones, is something
that has voltage gain. what's inside isn't a preamp. It does have
current gain, so it's an amplifier of sorts, but to call it a preamp
in this context is misleading.



** The industry calls them " pre-amps" - you asinine POS !!!!

What does AKG call their model 451 ??

Why do AKG et alia refer to condenser mics as having " FET pre-amps " ??


Drop off your perch anytime - asshole.




........... Phil

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:25:13 -0400, david wrote:

I have older 57's around. Anyone know first hand if there's a sonic
difference between what Shure ships today and what they shipped 20 years
ago? I know the writing on them is different. Hows about what'sa inside?

The last time I bought 57s (5 of 'em) no two sounded alike. So It would
surprise the hell outta me if any of the five sounded like a randomly
selected 20 year old model.

But it'd probably be close enough for guitar work. (or drums)

Phil, if you're going to jump down peoples' throats, at least get your
technical act together.

The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's power level --
it's a voltage amplifier. The capsule's capacitance is so small that it is
essentially a hi-Z voltage source that must work into a high-impedance load.

Voltage gain is not properly measured in dB -- the dBs is, strictly
speaking, a power ratio.

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message


** **** off you parrot brained, autistic moron.



Odd topic.



Phil's pinin' for the fjords.

--
Les Cargill

"William Sommerwerck"


** Speaking of brainless ****ing idiots - guess who just popped up ?


Phil, if you're going to jump down peoples' throats, at least get your
technical act together.


** That criminal, know nothing, Mike Rivers POS tried to jump down my
throat - ****WIT !!


The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's power level --
it's a voltage amplifier.


** WRONG !!!

Condenser mic pre-amps typically have less than unity voltage gain.

The AKG 451 has an overall voltage gain of 0.45.



The capsule's capacitance is so small that it is
essentially a hi-Z voltage source that must work into a high-impedance
load.

Voltage gain is not properly measured in dB .....


** It is measured in dBs as a matter of regular practice - you pig
ignorant ass.


-- the dBs is, strictly speaking, a power ratio.


** And what did I say that you completely snipped out ???

YOU OVER SNIPPING CRIMINAL ****WIT !!!!



" To " pre amplify " the tiny power level coming from the capsule.

The power gain is about 10,000,000 times or 70 dB. "



GO LEARN TO READ - YOU PATHETIC ASS !!!




............ Phil

"Les Cargill" wrote in message...

Phil's pinin' for the fjords.


Are you sure he's not dowsing for the water on his brain?

On 8/2/05 10:16 PM, in article LNVHe.13608$kc6.2326@trnddc03, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:


"Phil Allison" wrote in message

** **** off you parrot brained, autistic moron.


Odd topic.


Without some sort of guiding punctuation, I'm not sure how to interpret
this...
Is it perhaps

Derisive Incredulity:
"I may be a crippled genius, but I have never defaulted on a challenge sir!
Behold... My Second!" and with this exclamation, Edmond brought forward a
medically-altered imbecile holding a fencing rapier, his head stitched to a
grotesque massive cockatiel pompaour.
D'artagnian exploded with derisive laughter saying, "What... A
Parrot-brained ****wit?"

Hmmm. Phil, as your physician, I strongly advise you to go back on your
medication as soon as possible. If your prescription has run out, I
will be happy to write you a new one. Call me.



In article ,
says...

"Mike Rivers"

Phil Allison

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics.


** There is a pre-amp inside the mic in question and most condenser mics.

A very few use external pre-amps at the end of extension tubes.


That's almost never.


** **** off you parrot brained, autistic moron.


Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a condenser mic?


** To " pre amplify " the tiny power level coming from the capsule.

The power gain is about 10,000,000 times or 70 dB.



........... Phil

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message


The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's
power level -- it's a voltage amplifier.

Examples:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~gwagner/u47.gif (Pentode
configured as a voltage amplifier)

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~gwagner/m249.gif (Triode
configured as a voltage amplifier)

http://www.triodeel.com/u67pre.gif (Pentode configured as
a voltage amplifier)

OTOH, these amplifiers also make a dramatic change in the
microphones ability to drive relatively low impedance loads.


The capsule's capacitance is so small that it is
essentially a hi-Z
voltage source that must work into a high-impedance load.

Agreed.

Voltage gain is not properly measured in dB -- the dBs
is, strictly speaking, a power ratio.

By convention we often presume that the input and the output
of the amp have the same impedance (e.g., 600 ohms) whether
its true or not, and use dB to characterize the gain.

"Arny Krueger"


http://members.ozemail.com.au/~gwagner/u47.gif (Pentode
configured as a voltage amplifier)

http://www.triodeel.com/u67pre.gif (Pentode configured as
a voltage amplifier)


** Actually, in both cases pentodes are wired as triodes.


OTOH, these amplifiers also make a dramatic change in the
microphones ability to drive relatively low impedance loads.


** Err - that would be because of the Hi-Z to Lo-Z transformers
following the tube stages.

These will have a primary impedance of circa 200 kohms - so a voltage
stepdown ratio of between 30 :1 and 60 :1.

So, the voltage gain of the whole pre-amp is likely to be no more than
unity.




........... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

So, the voltage gain of the whole pre-amp is likely to be no more than
unity.

IOW, an impedence converter. If you want to call that a
pre-amp, OK, but you'll be pretty much by yourself in so doing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

wow, what a crazy ride!

to all the people who talked about preamps, i've been using a great
river mp-4, API 3124, vintech 73i, among other things, and i have lavry
blue conversion. i am still disappointed with the sound of the cymbals
+ hat leaking into a 57 off axis.

when you want to EQ and squish to get the snare to a BRIGHT ass spankin
sound (to fight the raging marshalls), the trashy leakage of a 57 comes
up. a lot. yes, one can gate, but i often hate it, it sounds less
natural, though infrequently gating works. one thing that gating
doesn't solve: when a drummer is playing straight subdivisions on the
high hat (the usual case), and the hat leakage into the (close) snare
mic sounds like crap, gating doesn't change the fact that there is a
hashy, off-axis high hat note mixed in with any snare hit that occurs
on that same subdivision (most often the 2nd and the 4th quarter notes
of a 4/4 measure).

when you mondo high boost, even with a smooth EQ, that trashy hat
energy comes up to spoil what would otherwise be a useable snare sound.
even if it weren't trashy, with gating the hat will abruptly get
louder when the gate opens up; this is the main reason i think gating
sounds unnatural. the 2 solutions (without resorting to replacement)
to this are to ask the drummer not to play the hat when she hits the
snare, or to have a snare mic that is smooth off axis. a drummer who's
not Steve Gadd might not deliver as good a performance with solution
#1. now i know why Alan Parsons says he was never happy with anything
other than a km84 on snare.

is anyone feelin me?

anyone have peak snare SPL measurement experiences?


thanks everyone! i am thoroughly enjoying all the responses!

SB