Hello, this is a multi-part question. Any info will be appreciated.

These days I plan to record acoustic performances, mostly operatic
voice audition CD's which are just accompanied by piano. I also do
Pipe Organ, Orchestra/voice and or orchestra/soloist (concerti).

I use portable equipment based on a Toshiba Laptop with an RME
Multiface/Cardbuss and an RNP mic Pre. (more than 2 mics can be used if
necessary)

For the most part, I use just one stereo pair of Oktava 012's
(Cardioids, not matched nor Modified) Depending on the size of the
group and how far away the mic position needs to be, I use either an
ORTF or an XY setup. For Pipe Organ or if the room sounds really good,
I use an Earthworks matched set of spaced Omnis. (I need to buy or make
a baffle light enough to be held by the mic stand.)

I find that even though my 012 condensers sound good (I like them a lot
for the money), they have a slightly hyped sound that can be
unflattering to strings and operatic voice when placed close enough
(=/ 10ft or so?) to get a more direct or dry sound.
(I've heard of 012 mods, can anyone save me time and direct me to a
link or explain them...)

NOW, the real question: I would like to get a more classic, warm,
smooth sound that I believe is associated with ribbon mics. I've been
watching Ebay and Googled this site for ribbon mic pointers and advice.
Considering portability and ease of setup, I would really like to find
a deal on a stereo ribbon such as one of the Royers or the AEA R88.
I've also bid UNSUCCESSFULLY on a couple Bang & Olfsen which I planned
to have modded. Would that work for me (with my RNP?) Are there any
other stereo Ribbon mics worth looking at/for?

Given that over half my time is spent on audition tapes, the highest
grade mic is not really necessary but if a cheap ribbon won't sound as
good as what I use now, then I don't want to waste my money just to
find this out. I know... "you get what you pay for." A while back I
decided it was better to buy one great piece of equipment rather than
3 or 4 cheap ones that will just loose value while the great piece
holds or appreciates in value.

That said, has anyone yet tried the "cheap" new Nady and APEX ribbons?
The New Oktavas or older ML19's? One mic that looks intriguing is the
American 332... Can any of these be upgraded with transformers and
ribbons for a cost that makes them a better buy than an AEA? And in
the case of the American DR330/32, can the high end be extended by any
mods?

What's my most cost effective route? One idea I have is to use a
cardioid or figure 8 ribbon as the "Mid" section of a Mid-side setup.
(a Beyer ribbon? which models?) I could then use one of my other
figure-8 condensers (AT4050 or CAD E200) as the "side" element or even
space my omnis like outriggers. I've noticed that many ribbons have a
severe roll-off between 10k and 15k. Would this Mid-side or outrigger
idea compensate a little for the roll-off w/o losing the ribbon warmth?

The AEA looks like a good deal next to Royer's high price tag but given
size and portability, the Royer seems perfect (except for price).
I have not been able to find a used Royer Stereo ribbon but given how
delicate ribbons are and how expensive a Royer would be, I wonder
about the advisability of buying one used?

Thanks for any advice!
Dale

wrote in message

I find that even though my 012 condensers sound good (I like them a lot
for the money), they have a slightly hyped sound that can be
unflattering to strings and operatic voice when placed close enough
(=/ 10ft or so?) to get a more direct or dry sound.
(I've heard of 012 mods, can anyone save me time and direct me to a
link or explain them...)

I suggest that the effects you are hearing are more to do with the room(s).
For a more direct sound, move closer. Or experiment with XY v. ORTF and
angles withing those setups.


NOW, the real question: I would like to get a more classic, warm,
smooth sound that I believe is associated with ribbon mics. I've been
watching Ebay and Googled this site for ribbon mic pointers and advice.
Considering portability and ease of setup, I would really like to find
a deal on a stereo ribbon such as one of the Royers or the AEA R88.
I've also bid UNSUCCESSFULLY on a couple Bang & Olfsen which I planned
to have modded. Would that work for me (with my RNP?) Are there any
other stereo Ribbon mics worth looking at/for?

Ribbon mics having a very low output transducer are not really suited to
distance-miking applications. But you could hire some/one and try them for
yourself.



That said, has anyone yet tried the "cheap" new Nady and APEX ribbons?
The New Oktavas or older ML19's? One mic that looks intriguing is the
American 332... Can any of these be upgraded with transformers and
ribbons for a cost that makes them a better buy than an AEA? And in
the case of the American DR330/32, can the high end be extended by any
mods?

Why not just get the right mic in the first place ? Or maybe you already
have them...


geoff

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

I find that even though my 012 condensers sound good (I like them a lot
for the money), they have a slightly hyped sound that can be
unflattering to strings and operatic voice when placed close enough
(=/ 10ft or so?) to get a more direct or dry sound.
(I've heard of 012 mods, can anyone save me time and direct me to a
link or explain them...)

I suggest that the effects you are hearing are more to do with the
room(s).
For a more direct sound, move closer. Or experiment with XY v. ORTF and
angles withing those setups.

Well, he said that when he moves closer, he doesn't like the high end of the
012s. In this sort of recording, that's been my experience as well; they're
very nice farther away.

I agree with the other poster: rent some ribbons and experiment. Oh, you
might also try using the hypercardioid capsules on the 012s; I've found
those to have less hype on the top than the cardioids.

Peace,
Paul

wrote:


For the most part, I use just one stereo pair of Oktava 012's
[...]
NOW, the real question: I would like to get a more classic, warm,
smooth sound that I believe is associated with ribbon mics.

The length of the ribbon reduces the clarity of response to reflected
sound coming from above and below the plane of pickup. Your mics are
probably picking up hard, clear reflections from these directions. You
might try carpeting the floor between the mic and the performers and
hanging some sort of baffle or padded screen a foot or two above the
mics to block out ceiling reflections from the direction of the
performers.

Alternatively, try angling the mics about 45 degrees (or more) downwards
towards a carpet on the floor. Only the the LF and MF sound will be
reflected from the floor to augment the direct sound; and some of the
ceiling reflection will be attenuated by the cardioid characteristic.
The direct sound from the instruments will be impinging on the
diaphragms at an angle and will beneficially loose a little of the HF.

The angled direct sound. would be comb-filtered at HF by a large
diaphragm mic, but there shouldn't be any significant problems with this
on Oktava 012s.

These expedients just might give the effect you want - at least the
second one will cost you almost nothing to try.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

wrote:

I find that even though my 012 condensers sound good (I like them a lot
for the money), they have a slightly hyped sound that can be
unflattering to strings and operatic voice when placed close enough
(=/ 10ft or so?) to get a more direct or dry sound.
(I've heard of 012 mods, can anyone save me time and direct me to a
link or explain them...)

The article is in the September 2003 issue of Recording magazine. It is
worth checking out, and details various electronics upgrades. The
mikes will still be peaky up-close... but so will any accurate mike,
because that's the way strings sound up close.

NOW, the real question: I would like to get a more classic, warm,
smooth sound that I believe is associated with ribbon mics. I've been
watching Ebay and Googled this site for ribbon mic pointers and advice.
Considering portability and ease of setup, I would really like to find
a deal on a stereo ribbon such as one of the Royers or the AEA R88.
I've also bid UNSUCCESSFULLY on a couple Bang & Olfsen which I planned
to have modded. Would that work for me (with my RNP?) Are there any
other stereo Ribbon mics worth looking at/for?

The B&O is unusable for distance miking beause it is so phenomenally
noisy. I'd strongly suggest looking at the Coles 4040 if you want to
try a ribbon mike. The output is high enough that you could use it with
the RNP, and the top end is much more extended than anything else you
will find with a ribbon.

For less money, the Beyer M130 is also worth checking out, but the output
level is much lower and the top end will be less detailed.

That said, has anyone yet tried the "cheap" new Nady and APEX ribbons?
The New Oktavas or older ML19's? One mic that looks intriguing is the
American 332... Can any of these be upgraded with transformers and
ribbons for a cost that makes them a better buy than an AEA? And in
the case of the American DR330/32, can the high end be extended by any
mods?

The July 2005 issue of Recording has a review I did of the Nady design.
It is... very surprising. I haven't seen the old American mikes in
decades... where are you seeing them? Do you see any of the American
omni dynamics that used to be so popular for TV work? I'd love to have
a pair of those in he kit.
--scott


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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The article is in the September 2003 issue of Recording magazine. It is
worth checking out, and details various electronics upgrades. The
mikes will still be peaky up-close... but so will any accurate mike,
because that's the way strings sound up close.

This confirms my suspicion and is the reason I began looking at
ribbons.
I have been listenng to vintage recordings and really in awe of the
great sounds recorded as long ago as pre WWII. If anyone can check it
out, listen to the German recordings of Fritz Wunderlich (German
tenor). They are incredible!
I think they used ribbons? The only issue I see with these old
recordings is the high end roll-off.

Makes me wonder... are ribbons really smoother at closer distances or
do we just associate them with old analog recordings that were
rolled-off and had lots of analog tape compression anyway.

In other words, will a modern ribbon which has a flatter, higher
response (than the vintage ribbons) also sound edgy or peaky on strings
and operatic voices at close distances?


NOW, the real question: I would like to get a more classic, warm,
smooth sound that I believe is associated with ribbon mics.

The B&O is unusable for distance miking beause it is so phenomenally
noisy.

Wow! I'm glad I found that out b4 I bought one!

I'd strongly suggest looking at the Coles 4040 if you want to
try a ribbon mike. The output is high enough that you could use it with
the RNP, and the top end is much more extended than anything else you
will find with a ribbon.

For less money, the Beyer M130 is also worth checking out, but the output
level is much lower and the top end will be less detailed.

Thanks, I'll check these out. Would you recommend getting the m130
overhauled and/or re-ribboned with an RCA ribbon?

The July 2005 issue of Recording has a review I did of the Nady design.
It is... very surprising.

I'll try to check out the back issue but any hints on what "very
surprizing" means?

I haven't seen the old American mikes in
decades... where are you seeing them? Do you see any of the American
omni dynamics that used to be so popular for TV work? I'd love to have
a pair of those in he kit.
--scott

There WERE two Amnerican DR332's on Ebay (from seperate sellers)
recently and each went for about $275.00 I checked and these mics
roll-off at arround 10k. I assumed they would need to be modded for my
use. Right now, there is another similar American model with a much
higher reserve and I've seen some smaller models that may be what
you're looking for.

Geoff Wood Oct 17, 9:42 pm Wrote:

Ribbon mics having a very low output transducer are not really suited to
distance-miking applications. But you could hire some/one and try them for
yourself.

This is why I want to try ribbons, so I can use them closer w/o sound
harsh.

Paul Stamler Wrote:
I agree with the other poster: rent some ribbons and experiment. Oh, you
might also try using the hypercardioid capsules on the 012s; I've found
those to have less hype on the top than the cardioids.

Thanks for the suggestion: I guess I could use hypercardioids from a
greater distance and still get a dryer sound but I have never had much
luck with this patern in accoustic recordings that are supposed to
sound natural.

The slight angle adjustments sound promising for taking off some edge.

gdk wrote:

I have been listenng to vintage recordings and really in awe of the
great sounds recorded as long ago as pre WWII. If anyone can check it
out, listen to the German recordings of Fritz Wunderlich (German
tenor). They are incredible!
I think they used ribbons?

I think they also tracked in a good spcae and didn't closely mic
instruments.

--
ha

On 18 Oct 2005 18:39:13 -0700, wrote:

I have been listenng to vintage recordings and really in awe of the
great sounds recorded as long ago as pre WWII. If anyone can check it
out, listen to the German recordings of Fritz Wunderlich (German
tenor). They are incredible!

Wunderbar(lich) indeed. Do you also like Richard Tauber?
A favorite of mine since childhood.

I think they used ribbons? The only issue I see with these old
recordings is the high end roll-off.

In the era these recordings were made, no real high pitches
could be recorded, compared to modern recordings. It's
a difficult issue to distinguish between our admiration
for classic performances and our desire to reproduce
their magic, and the secondary technical issues of
capturing that magic.

IOW, perhaps the magic wasn't in the technology...

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

hank alrich Oct 18, 8:15 pm Wrote:
I think they also tracked in a good spcae and didn't closely mic
instruments.

I understand space is extremely important but I've seen old film of a
few vintage recordings and the main vocal mic could be anywhere from 3
to 10ft.

Especially when the room is not too good (ussually too live), it is a
necessity to get the mic close enough to prevent too much room sound.
In this case, my condensors seem too edgy and my earthworks omnis pick
up too much room. In a good room, I can get a good recording with most
any of my mics. However, I get paid to get results, I'm looking for
tools to increase the quality of the results under various conditions.

If there is a concensus here that ribbon mics are not better for my
application, then I'd like to know this? I could use mic emulation
software if nobody here thinks ribbons are worth the trouble.

Chris Hornbeck Oct 18, 8:51 pm Wrote:

Wunderbar(lich) indeed. Do you also like Richard Tauber?
A favorite of mine since childhood.

Tauber, Gigli, Bjorling, Tucker, Vickers, Bergonzi...

I think they used ribbons? The only issue I see with these old
recordings is the high end roll-off.

In the era these recordings were made, no real high pitches
could be recorded, compared to modern recordings. It's
a difficult issue to distinguish between our admiration
for classic performances and our desire to reproduce
their magic, and the secondary technical issues of
capturing that magic.

IOW, perhaps the magic wasn't in the technology...

If anyone has seen the really old film of Bobby Jones instructional
series called "How I Play Golf" you saw Bobby Jones hit shot after
unbelievable shot with hickory-wood shafted and extremely unforgiving
bladed clubs and balls that were hardly round, much less consistent in
today's realm. But he had the magic. I think that today's recording
and especially editing equipment is so far advanced over those old days
that many engineers don't pay attention to detail like they used to.

However, my concern is in uderstanding the diferences in the tools
available. Unfortunately, I don't ussually have the authority to pick
the room and as far as a magical performance, I can't sing or play for
the client. I try to put them at ease and stay out of the way.

My premise was that if I wanted to emulate a vintage sound, maybe a
ribbon would help? So far, I still don't know that answer.

Thanks

On 18 Oct 2005 21:53:40 -0700, wrote:

My premise was that if I wanted to emulate a vintage sound, maybe a
ribbon would help? So far, I still don't know that answer.

Me, neither. Most likely can't hurt. My only caveat
is that the essential (maybe!) ingredient is Mister
Peabody's WayBack machine. But maybe not; however,
all the best,

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Paul Stamler Wrote:
I agree with the other poster: rent some ribbons and experiment. Oh, you
might also try using the hypercardioid capsules on the 012s; I've found
those to have less hype on the top than the cardioids.

Thanks for the suggestion: I guess I could use hypercardioids from a
greater distance and still get a dryer sound but I have never had much
luck with this patern in accoustic recordings that are supposed to
sound natural.

Try them in a crossed pair at the same distance, perhaps with the angle
decreased to 90 degrees. The capsules are less bright on top at any given
distance than the cardioids, at least mine are. (That last clause is usually
necessary with Oktavas.)

Peace,
Paul

wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The article is in the September 2003 issue of Recording magazine. It is
worth checking out, and details various electronics upgrades. The
mikes will still be peaky up-close... but so will any accurate mike,
because that's the way strings sound up close.

This confirms my suspicion and is the reason I began looking at
ribbons.
I have been listenng to vintage recordings and really in awe of the
great sounds recorded as long ago as pre WWII. If anyone can check it
out, listen to the German recordings of Fritz Wunderlich (German
tenor). They are incredible!
I think they used ribbons?

In pre-war Germany, I would have expected a German record company to use
condenser microphones. If they were a branch of "The Gramophone
Company" they would most likely be using either Western Electric kit or
Blumlein/Columbia moving coil mics, the wax will bear symbols which tell
you.

In those days they strove to do less to the sound, rather than more. A
lesson to be learned.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

wrote:
If there is a concensus here that ribbon mics are not better for my
application, then I'd like to know this?

We can't get inside your head, so we can't tell what sound you are
looking for. All we can suggest is you rent some time in a studio
with a good mike cabinet, or listen to one of the microphone sampler
CDs out there so you can get a sense of what kind of sounds you can
get from various kinds of mikes.

I could use mic emulation
software if nobody here thinks ribbons are worth the trouble.

If you did, you'd be horribly disappointed. The idea is basically not
a good one, but it sure has good marketing behind it.
--scott

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

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

The article is in the September 2003 issue of Recording magazine. It is
worth checking out, and details various electronics upgrades. The
mikes will still be peaky up-close... but so will any accurate mike,
because that's the way strings sound up close.

This confirms my suspicion and is the reason I began looking at
ribbons.

You may want to consider pulling back. Stringed instruments produce a
lot of different sounds from different directions. The sound you hear in
the concert hall is a mixture of all of the different sounds, blended
together by the room.

I think they used ribbons? The only issue I see with these old
recordings is the high end roll-off.

If you roll off the high end, EVERYTHING sounds smooth. But this is
cheating.

Makes me wonder... are ribbons really smoother at closer distances or
do we just associate them with old analog recordings that were
rolled-off and had lots of analog tape compression anyway.

Ribbons are smoother at close distances because they roll off the top
end and also exhibit some slew-limiting as well, because the ribbon cannot
move as fast as the air going past it.

There WERE two Amnerican DR332's on Ebay (from seperate sellers)
recently and each went for about $275.00 I checked and these mics
roll-off at arround 10k. I assumed they would need to be modded for my
use. Right now, there is another similar American model with a much
higher reserve and I've seen some smaller models that may be what
you're looking for.

Those are basically communications grade mikes. $275 seems kind of high
to me, personally, but the vintage mike market is crazy these days.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Hi Scott,

I'm confused by the statement you made regarding ribbon mics...

Ribbons are smoother at close distances because they roll off the top
end and also exhibit some slew-limiting as well, because the ribbon cannot
move as fast as the air going past it.

My limited understanding of the physics of ribbon mics indicates that the
response of this style mic is not limited by the mass of the ribbon. The
effect of increasing mass yields lower output voltage, but no change in
frequency response. The limiting factor in response has to do with the
geometry of the ribbon mounting method. There is a null that occurs when f
= c/l where c is the speed of sound in m/s and l is the effective radius of
the baffling. The basic equations for the ribbon mic can be found in
"Fundamentals of Acoustics" by Kinsler and Frey.

Here is a link to a DIY ribbon mic web site with some simple explanations of
the physics involved

http://make_a_ribbon_mic.tripod.com/id7.html

Am I missing something here?

Mark

Mark Robinson wrote:
I'm confused by the statement you made regarding ribbon mics...

Ribbons are smoother at close distances because they roll off the top
end and also exhibit some slew-limiting as well, because the ribbon cannot
move as fast as the air going past it.

My limited understanding of the physics of ribbon mics indicates that the
response of this style mic is not limited by the mass of the ribbon. The
effect of increasing mass yields lower output voltage, but no change in
frequency response. The limiting factor in response has to do with the
geometry of the ribbon mounting method. There is a null that occurs when f
= c/l where c is the speed of sound in m/s and l is the effective radius of
the baffling. The basic equations for the ribbon mic can be found in
"Fundamentals of Acoustics" by Kinsler and Frey.

Yes, this is absolutely true. What limits the ability of the ribbon to
track the air velocity _is_ mostly baffling due to the mounting method
(although the resonance of the ribbon itself may affect the top end
response in some designs as well). But the end result is some degree of
bandlimiting and slew rate limiting.
--scott


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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

But the end result is some degree of
bandlimiting and slew rate limiting.

Please, Scott, let's not use the phrase "slew rate limiting" for a
mechanical process. It has a very specific meaning: the limitation in rise
time that takes place when an electronic circuit is trying to charge up a
capacitor and runs out of juice. Don't confuse the situation by applying the
term to a completely unrelated mechanism. Say "rise time limiting" or
"bandlimiting" or something of that nature when you're talking about
microphones.

Language can be fuzzy, or it can be tres, tres precis. It's easier to
communicate, most of the time, when it's the latter.

Peace,
Paul

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

But the end result is some degree of
bandlimiting and slew rate limiting.

Please, Scott, let's not use the phrase "slew rate limiting" for a
mechanical process. It has a very specific meaning: the limitation in rise
time that takes place when an electronic circuit is trying to charge up a
capacitor and runs out of juice. Don't confuse the situation by applying the
term to a completely unrelated mechanism. Say "rise time limiting" or
"bandlimiting" or something of that nature when you're talking about
microphones.

How about 'rate limiting?' I'll have to ask the ME across the hall
after lunch.

Language can be fuzzy, or it can be tres, tres precis. It's easier to
communicate, most of the time, when it's the latter.

I am not sure that I buy slew-limiting being an exclusively electrical
phenomenon, but okay.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

But the end result is some degree of
bandlimiting and slew rate limiting.

Please, Scott, let's not use the phrase "slew rate limiting" for a
mechanical process. It has a very specific meaning: the limitation in rise
time that takes place when an electronic circuit is trying to charge up a
capacitor and runs out of juice. Don't confuse the situation by applying the
term to a completely unrelated mechanism. Say "rise time limiting" or
"bandlimiting" or something of that nature when you're talking about
microphones.

How about 'rate limiting?' I'll have to ask the ME across the hall
after lunch.

Language can be fuzzy, or it can be tres, tres precis. It's easier to
communicate, most of the time, when it's the latter.

I am not sure that I buy slew-limiting being an exclusively electrical
phenomenon, but okay.

How about inertial impedance? g

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

But the end result is some degree of
bandlimiting and slew rate limiting.

Please, Scott, let's not use the phrase "slew rate limiting" for a
mechanical process. It has a very specific meaning: the limitation in rise
time that takes place when an electronic circuit is trying to charge up a
capacitor and runs out of juice. Don't confuse the situation by
applying the
term to a completely unrelated mechanism. Say "rise time limiting" or
"bandlimiting" or something of that nature when you're talking about
microphones.

How about 'rate limiting?' I'll have to ask the ME across the hall
after lunch.

Language can be fuzzy, or it can be tres, tres precis. It's easier to
communicate, most of the time, when it's the latter.

I am not sure that I buy slew-limiting being an exclusively electrical
phenomenon, but okay.

How about inertial impedance? g

For a flat frequency response, the force needed to move the ribbon mass
increases linearly with frequency. The force available to move the
ribbon mass also increases with frequency - but not linearly.

One of the forces acting on a ribbon is due to the the phase difference
caused by the path-length difference from one side of the ribbon to the
other. When this is short compared with the wavelength of the sound,
the force rises linearly with frequency.

As the half-wavelength approaches the path length difference, the force
falls off and, at the point where it equals the path length difference,
complete extinction occurs. This is designed to occur above the maximum
frequency at which the mic is required to work. If the path difference
is incresed by the use of baffles, the sensitivity goes up - but the
extinction frequency comes down.

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/mics.htm


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:40:39 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

How about inertial impedance? g

Yes, and all moving diaphragms, being heavier than the
surrounding air, have one, in the same units as an
inductor. Single pole rolloff, too.

Cool beans,

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

thanks Scott, what about the Coles 4038? How does it compare to the
4040?

In article .com,
wrote:
thanks Scott, what about the Coles 4038? How does it compare to the
4040?

I never liked the 4038. The output level is a lot lower than the 4040
(about like that of a 77), and the top end sounds very rolled-off to
me. The 4040 has at least an octave more extension up top and the output
is as high as an SM-57.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."