[muzician21]

Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50 & 200.

I'm not versed in electronics, does this mean it's not optimally
suited for this mic? I get sound out of it, I understand that a ribbon
sounds much different than a condenser and needs more boost, I don't
have a basis for comparison as to whether it sounds the way it's
supposed to.

Thanks

[PStamler]

On Dec 7, 10:12*am, muzician21 wrote:
Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50 & 200.

I'm not versed in electronics, does this mean it's not optimally
suited for this mic? I get sound out of it, I understand that a ribbon
sounds much different than a condenser and needs more boost, I don't
have a basis for comparison as to whether it sounds the way it's
supposed to.

Mics aren't operated into matching impedances. They're typically
designed to operate into an impedance about 10 times their own.

Your preamp has impedance settings of 50 and 200 ohms? Is there a
third setting, unlabeled or with some other kind of name on it? That's
probably something like 1500 ohms, and that's what you want for this
mic (and most others).

Peace,
Paul

[RENAGELBUY]

BUYING RENAGEL ONLINE

ORDERING GENERIC RENAGEL ONLINE

[Audio1]

On 12/7/2011 11:12 AM, muzician21 wrote:
Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50& 200.

I'm not versed in electronics, does this mean it's not optimally
suited for this mic? I get sound out of it, I understand that a ribbon
sounds much different than a condenser and needs more boost, I don't
have a basis for comparison as to whether it sounds the way it's
supposed to.

Thanks

Check your manual,
http://www.studioprojects.com/pdf/vtb1_manual.pdf

Page 4, 'Feature Control Description' mentions you should have the
50/200 switch set to 50 for 'low impedance ribbon mics.'

Myself, I'd try it in both positions and use the one *I* like the sound of.

[hank alrich]

PStamler wrote:

On Dec 7, 10:12 am, muzician21 wrote:
Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50 & 200.

I'm not versed in electronics, does this mean it's not optimally
suited for this mic? I get sound out of it, I understand that a ribbon
sounds much different than a condenser and needs more boost, I don't
have a basis for comparison as to whether it sounds the way it's
supposed to.

Mics aren't operated into matching impedances. They're typically
designed to operate into an impedance about 10 times their own.

Your preamp has impedance settings of 50 and 200 ohms? Is there a
third setting, unlabeled or with some other kind of name on it? That's
probably something like 1500 ohms, and that's what you want for this
mic (and most others).

Maybe those numbers apply to the impedance of the source, instead of to
the input?


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

muzician21 wrote:

Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50 & 200.

I'm not versed in electronics, does this mean it's not optimally
suited for this mic? I get sound out of it, I understand that a ribbon
sounds much different than a condenser and needs more boost, I don't
have a basis for comparison as to whether it sounds the way it's
supposed to.

Many ribbon and moving coil mics do need to be operated into
approximately the correct impedance (capacitor mics, in general do not).

In the case of moving coil mics, the terminating impdance damps down
some unavoidable resonances in the audio spectrum. If your termination
impedance is a long way off the manufacturer's recomendations, you could
get a slightly wonky frequency response.

In the case of ribbon mics, the sensitivity is low and the correct
matching is needed to transfer as much power as possible from the ribbon
to the input stage of the pre-amp. If the matching is badly wrong, you
could finish up with a less-than-optimum signal-to-noise ratio.

Having said that, the matching isn't critical and a moderate error will
make very little audible difference. In your case, the 200-ohm
termination is as close as you need for a nominally 250-ohm microphone -
in all probability the normal factory variations in the construction of
the mic and ribbon will cause at least as much error as that.

If this is your first experience of using a ribbon microphone, read the
AES paper "The Bidirectional Microphone: A Forgotten Patriarch" by
Ron Streicher & Wes Dooley, it is an excellent guide to the
understanding and the correct use of ribbons:

http://www.wesdooley.com/pdf/Bidirec...icrophones.pdf




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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/7/2011 11:12 AM, muzician21 wrote:
Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50& 200.

They do that just to confuse you. The microphone probably
has an output impedance of somewhere around 250 ohms. As far
as the preamp goes, the specs read:

Mic Input (Rear switch in 200 ohm position): 2000 ohms
Mic Input (Rear switch in 50 ohm position): 300 ohms

Now how is anyone supposed to make sense of that? What
Studio Projects means is that in the 200 ohm position, it's
suitable for connecting to a mic with an impedance of about
200 ohms (150 is more typical, yours at 250 is close enough)
BECAUSE it has an input impedance of 2000 ohms.

So misleading or "seems right, but for the wrong reason" as
it may be, the 200 ohm position is correct for your microphone.

I understand that a ribbon
sounds much different than a condenser and needs more boost,

Oh, poobah! It's true that classic ribbon mics do have a
somewhat lower output level for a given sound pressure level
than classic condenser mics, but because people like you
(nothing personal) come up with questions like this that
most dealers aren't smart enough to answer correctly,
they've sort of dumbed down most mics so modern condenser
mics are a little less sensitive than they used to be, and
with modern magnet materials, they're able to make ribbon
mics a little more sensitive than they used to be.

If you're recording a quiet source, you'll probably need to
run the gain pretty close to full up, maybe add some gain
with the Output Level control. Don't worry about it. You're
getting sound out of it, now go record something!


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[muzician21]

On Dec 7, 8:31*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/7/2011 11:12 AM, muzician21 wrote:

Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50& *200.

They do that just to confuse you. The microphone probably
has an output impedance of somewhere around 250 ohms. As far
as the preamp goes, the specs read:

Mic Input (Rear switch in 200 ohm position): 2000 ohms
Mic Input (Rear switch in 50 ohm position): 300 ohms

Now how is anyone supposed to make sense of that?


You anticipated my next question on that very point.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 01:06:33 -0500, muzician21 wrote
(in article
):

On Dec 7, 8:31*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/7/2011 11:12 AM, muzician21 wrote:

Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50& *200.

They do that just to confuse you. The microphone probably
has an output impedance of somewhere around 250 ohms. As far
as the preamp goes, the specs read:

Mic Input (Rear switch in 200 ohm position): 2000 ohms
Mic Input (Rear switch in 50 ohm position): 300 ohms

Now how is anyone supposed to make sense of that?


You anticipated my next question on that very point.


They obviously need better writers,,,,,,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:
Just got an MXL R40 ribbon mic. Never had a ribbon before. I see the
mic specs say 250 ohms. My VTB-1 pre has settings of 50 & 200.

The original RCA designs basically are designed to work into an infinitely
high impedance. You can present them with a lower than open circuit impedance
but the lower it is, the more the top end is affected.

Those MXLs are basically RCA copies, made by people who don't really understand
the physics or how to make high ratio transformers, so I would expect the
loading problems to be similar or worse. So use the highest impedance you
can get.

The odds are the "200 ohm" setting on the VTB-1 is an impedance of a couple
kiloohms, designed for mikes with a 200 ohm output impedance. You really
want more than that for a ribbon if you want good top end detail, but try
it and listen and see for yourself.

I'm not versed in electronics, does this mean it's not optimally
suited for this mic? I get sound out of it, I understand that a ribbon
sounds much different than a condenser and needs more boost, I don't
have a basis for comparison as to whether it sounds the way it's
supposed to.

Same effect that you get with an SM-57.... decrease the input impedance, you
increase the current load on the mike, so the damping on the diaphragm is
increased. It's like reducing the tension on a string or a drum head.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/8/2011 8:57 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

They obviously need better writers,,,,,,

They know where to find me.

Actually, what they need is better people to design the
labels for the controls so people won't be confused. Or just
leave the switch off entirely and sell the preamp for $5
less. You have more mileage than I do so you may have
encountered more mics that really sound better with a low
impedance load, but I've only had one here that did, a CAD
Trion ribbon which sounded flabby (best word I could use to
describe it) on the low end until I switched the Mackie 800R
to 300 ohms. Then it cleaned up nicely.

I don't know why any preamp manufacturers looking for a
gimmick haven't included an "SM-57" switch with a 600 ohm
load that Paul Stamler wrote about several years back. But
they all seem to skip over that number.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[PStamler]

On Dec 9, 7:05*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/8/2011 8:57 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

They obviously need better writers,,,,,,

They know where to find me.

Actually, what they need is better people to design the
labels for the controls so people won't be confused. Or just
leave the switch off entirely and sell the preamp for $5
less. You have more mileage than I do so you may have
encountered more mics that really sound better with a low
impedance load, but I've only had one here that did, a CAD
Trion ribbon which sounded flabby (best word I could use to
describe it) on the low end until I switched the Mackie 800R
to 300 ohms. Then it cleaned up nicely.

I don't know why any preamp manufacturers looking for a
gimmick haven't included an "SM-57" switch with a 600 ohm
load that Paul Stamler wrote about several years back. But
they all seem to skip over that number.

I think Presonus had it on the ADL-600 preamp that Anthony De Maria
designed for them several years ago. But the input impedances were
actually different from what the labels said.

By the way, Mike, I had the occasion to transfer a recording you did
from LP to the computer and thence toCD a couple of days ago -- Mike
Seeger's "New Freedom March". Going to play it on the radio on New
Year's Day. Nice tune, nice recording!

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 12/8/2011 8:57 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

They obviously need better writers,,,,,,

They know where to find me.

Actually, what they need is better people to design the
labels for the controls so people won't be confused. Or just
leave the switch off entirely and sell the preamp for $5
less. You have more mileage than I do so you may have
encountered more mics that really sound better with a low
impedance load, but I've only had one here that did, a CAD
Trion ribbon which sounded flabby (best word I could use to
describe it) on the low end until I switched the Mackie 800R
to 300 ohms. Then it cleaned up nicely.

I don't know why any preamp manufacturers looking for a
gimmick haven't included an "SM-57" switch with a 600 ohm
load that Paul Stamler wrote about several years back. But
they all seem to skip over that number.

McQuilken built a touch of inductance into the RNP to mimic iron inputs
just so it would work well with the 57 and the 58.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

..

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

I don't know why any preamp manufacturers looking for a
gimmick haven't included an "SM-57" switch with a 600 ohm
load that Paul Stamler wrote about several years back. But
they all seem to skip over that number.

It is an oooooooooold microphone, just like the B&O's and RCA's I've just
been reading about how to deploy (Thanks Adrian!) and thus supposed to "go
legacy". But perhaps asking them to label it a "legacy" switch would be
better spin?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Peter Larsen" wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

I don't know why any preamp manufacturers looking for a
gimmick haven't included an "SM-57" switch with a 600 ohm
load that Paul Stamler wrote about several years back. But
they all seem to skip over that number.

It is an oooooooooold microphone, just like the B&O's and RCA's I've just
been reading about how to deploy (Thanks Adrian!) and thus supposed to
"go legacy". But perhaps asking them to label it a "legacy" switch would
be better spin?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

I've tried to remain on the sidelines for this thread. I thought it had
run its course, but no. "Legacy"? I think Scott Dorsey made it clear that
"oooooooooold" mics expected *NO* loading. When I climbed on the Audio
Systems Engineering bus the rule of thumb for preamp input impedances was
"2K ohm, or greater". As far as I can determine, that rule continues to be
valid today. Yes, the inductive impedance of transformer-coupled inputs
can modify performance in mysterious ways, but all-in-all, the rule stands.

The real problem here is a matter of words. Many published input
impedances are "Nominal". That means "Named"! *Actual* impedances tend
to be on the order of "times ten, or greater", the standard rule for
"bridging" A.K.A. "non-loading".

It pushes me over the edge to see that preamp makers are offering choices.
Oh, yeah, the SM57 sounds better with Paul Stamler's "gimmick" 600 ohm
load. That's because it is a mediocre mic that became successful largely
because it made an average PA system (with a 2K or greater input impedance)
sound a little better. Decades later we have learned that it really is not
a very good tool, and that there are many better choices in the same price
range.

Why, oh why, can't we overcome this "Legacy" problem and, instead, choose
the best that modern technology has to offer? Good grief! Aren't we using
Pro Tools because of the magic it delivers? Must we celebrate "Legacy" by
going back to using non-magnetic surgical scissors for cutting paper-backed
audio tape?

I know I'll take some flack from some readers. Shrug. I made my living
using my own brain to figure out what works best, not playing "monkey see,
monkey do" or using inferior "Legacy" tools when there were far better
modern choices.

Bring it on!

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

[...]

I've tried to remain on the sidelines for this thread. I thought it had
run its course, but no. "Legacy"? I think Scott Dorsey made it clear that
"oooooooooold" mics expected *NO* loading.

It is clear from all the literature published at the time, that most old
designs of microphone only gave their intended performance when they
were correctly loaded. I am not referring to sales literature, I am
talking about the research papers published by the designers of those
microphones.

Good quality mixing desks, in some cases, had tapped input transformers
to allow a range of different microphones to be use. In other cases,
such as the BBC, the types of microphone were standardised to one
particular impedance value and the mixers were designed accordingly.
When a 'foreign' mic had to be used, a separate matching transformer was
interposed to match it to the 'standard' impedance of the studio. It
was an expensive business, but it was necessary in order to meet
specification.

In those days it was far easier and cheaper to obtain really high input
impedances, straight into the grid of the first valve, than to use a
matching transformer. So if the no-loading approach had worked, they
certainly wouldn't have bothered with the bulk and expense of
transformers.



[...]
Why, oh why, can't we overcome this "Legacy" problem and, instead, choose
the best that modern technology has to offer?

One of the better aspects of 'legacy' technology was the necessity to
understand what you were doing in order to use it at all.

Modern technology does not need a deeper understanding of what you are
doing. It gives better average results with less effort in an average
situation when used by an average person. (It does not help much in a
difficult situation unless it is backed by good fundamental
understanding of the relevant disciplines: physics, electronics etc.).
It works even better in skilled hands and can can give phenomenally
accurate results, far better than anything legacy equipment offered, if
that is what you want.

Legacy equipment used properly by a skilled operator can also give
excellent results, but it take a bit more effort on the part of the
user. Sometimes it's shortcomings can actually be turned to advantage
to produce a pleasing sound quality which is lost with 'better'
equipment.

However, legacy equipment used as part of a cult by the unskilled or
technologically-ignorant operator gives the worst of all worlds. I
think it is that aspect of 'Legacy' which gives it a bad name.



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

[Mike Rivers]

Mike Rivers wrote:
I don't know why any preamp manufacturers looking for a
gimmick haven't included an "SM-57" switch with a 600 ohm
load that Paul Stamler wrote about several years back.

"Peter wrote:
It is an oooooooooold microphone, just like the B&O's and RCA's I've just
been reading about how to deploy (Thanks Adrian!) and thus supposed to
"go legacy". But perhaps asking them to label it a "legacy" switch would
be better spin?

On 12/18/2011 8:43 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote:

I've tried to remain on the sidelines for this thread. I thought it had
run its course, but no. "Legacy"? I think Scott Dorsey made it clear that
"oooooooooold" mics expected *NO* loading.

I hardly consider the SM57 a "legacy" microphone, though I
exoect that Shure would be proud of that designation. It's
still a very popular mic, both among old and new users. RCA
"legacy" ribbons indeed work best into a high impedance load
but most of today's preamps that provide a choice of input
impedance rarely go above 3k Ohms, but often go as low as
500 or even 300 Ohms based on the "ribbon mics are very low
impedance" myth (which is true for the element, but not of
the microphone).

When I climbed on the Audio
Systems Engineering bus the rule of thumb for preamp input impedances was
"2K ohm, or greater". As far as I can determine, that rule continues to be
valid today.

Yes, it does. I've run across some preamps in the past year
that have a (fixed) input impedance around 5k Ohms. This
tends to sound pretty good with modern transformerless
condenser mics and puts the preamp and mic on a pretty even
price-and-quality match. It's probably a good choice for
someone who is going out to the music store today to equip
his first studio. But it may not be such a great choice for
someone who has been acquiring mics over a 25 year period
and has the itch to buy a new preamp.

The real problem here is a matter of words. Many published input
impedances are "Nominal". That means "Named"! *Actual* impedances tend
to be on the order of "times ten, or greater", the standard rule for
"bridging" A.K.A. "non-loading".

This is indeed something that confuses newcomers. Some mic
manufacturers swing both ways and state something like
"Impedance 200 Ohms, suitable for preamps with an input
impedance of 2000 ohms." Most, but not all, preamp
manufacturers usually just specify the input impedance.

Oh, yeah, the SM57 sounds better with Paul Stamler's "gimmick" 600 ohm
load. That's because it is a mediocre mic that became successful largely
because it made an average PA system (with a 2K or greater input impedance)
sound a little better. Decades later we have learned that it really is not
a very good tool, and that there are many better choices in the same price
range.

Who's this "we?" While today I would advise someone setting
up a home studio fir the first time to look further than an
SM57 for his first mic, I'd suggest that a band putting
together their first PA system get a couple of SM57s because
they're just so useful. But, on the other hand, you don't
usually look at the impedance of the mic inputs on a PA mixer.

Why, oh why, can't we overcome this "Legacy" problem and, instead, choose
the best that modern technology has to offer? Good grief!

What "Legacy" problem?

Aren't we using Pro Tools because of the magic it delivers?

We who? What magic? I don't use Pro Tools. I don't believe
in magic when it comes to audio or software. Sure, I
appreciate editing on a computer rather than with a razor
blade, and hard drives save money over magnetic tape. But
that's not magic, it's progress.

Pro Tools is rapidly becoming the SM57 of DAWs. Let the
clamor begin!




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Legacy equipment used properly by a skilled operator can also give
excellent results, but it take a bit more effort on the part of the
user. Sometimes it's shortcomings can actually be turned to advantage
to produce a pleasing sound quality which is lost with 'better'
equipment.

However, legacy equipment used as part of a cult by the unskilled or
technologically-ignorant operator gives the worst of all worlds. I
think it is that aspect of 'Legacy' which gives it a bad name.

Spot on, Adrian. Ignorance may be bliss, right up until it plugs an SM58
into a Mackie 1202.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri