Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
....My first Russian mic! Very excited, and... ...it sounds great stock: the bass end was close to the AT-4047, although not quite as full. And I just did the basic mods: silicone caulking in the body for damping, one layer of mesh removed, resonator disks removed from the capsule, high-pass and -10dB switch board removed, 680pF C2 replaced with a 1000pF orange polypropylene. I really should have recorded the mic after each step, so I can hear the effect of each step, but oh well. I can put the resonator disks back if I want. Many people like the original FET, so that will likely stay stock. Silicon is still drying....will keep you posted.... |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
Paul wrote:
....My first Russian mic! Very excited, and... ...it sounds great stock: the bass end was close to the AT-4047, although not quite as full. And I just did the basic mods: silicone caulking in the body for damping, one layer of mesh removed, resonator disks removed from the capsule, high-pass and -10dB switch board removed, 680pF C2 replaced with a 1000pF orange polypropylene. I really should have recorded the mic after each step, so I can hear the effect of each step, but oh well. I can put the resonator disks back if I want. Many people like the original FET, so that will likely stay stock. Silicon is still drying....will keep you posted.... Gosh, what a.... great microphone.... what is this, a Heathkit? Gary Eickmeier PS - I realize it is the silicone, not silicon drying, so I won't mention it.... heh |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/4/2013 7:13 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Paul wrote: ....My first Russian mic! Very excited, and... ...it sounds great stock: the bass end was close to the AT-4047, although not quite as full. And I just did the basic mods: silicone caulking in the body for damping, one layer of mesh removed, resonator disks removed from the capsule, high-pass and -10dB switch board removed, 680pF C2 replaced with a 1000pF orange polypropylene. I really should have recorded the mic after each step, so I can hear the effect of each step, but oh well. I can put the resonator disks back if I want. Many people like the original FET, so that will likely stay stock. Silicon is still drying....will keep you posted.... Gosh, what a.... great microphone.... what is this, a Heathkit? Gary Eickmeier PS - I realize it is the silicone, not silicon drying, so I won't mention it.... heh Not a Heathkit.....just some well-known modifications. Ok, just tested it out. I'll have to agreed with someone else who said the placebo effect, or the psychology of your expectations may affect how you hear a before and after comparison. But it does sound like the modded mic is less "congested" sounding, and a bit brighter. In theory, the removed layer of mesh is helping here, and the removed switches has taken away some of the parasitic capacitance at the capsule, so perhaps there is more high frequency detail now. In some ways, this modded 319 seems to have a bit more midrange than the AT4047. I'm not sure where it is exactly, but it's some sort of mid-range, or low-midrange bump. I'd say the stock 319 was significantly "warmer" sounding, and it might be better suited for certain situations. It could be that my ears are getting tired, but the modded mic may be a bit too bright for me now.....I'll take a rest and try later..... |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
Paul wrote:
... and the removed switches has taken away some of the parasitic capacitance at the capsule, so perhaps there is more high frequency detail now. In a capacitor mic, parasitic capacitance between the capsule wiring and earth reduces all signals equally, because the source is purely capacitive and you effectively have a capacitive divider. Parasitic capacitance on the output side would be too small to have any effect on the 200-ohm output circuit. To give even 1dB drop at 20Kc/s, you would need to have 20 nf across it. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/4/2013 8:56 AM, Paul wrote:
On 4/4/2013 7:13 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Paul wrote: ....My first Russian mic! Very excited, and... ...it sounds great stock: the bass end was close to the AT-4047, although not quite as full. And I just did the basic mods: silicone caulking in the body for damping, one layer of mesh removed, resonator disks removed from the capsule, high-pass and -10dB switch board removed, 680pF C2 replaced with a 1000pF orange polypropylene. I really should have recorded the mic after each step, so I can hear the effect of each step, but oh well. I can put the resonator disks back if I want. Many people like the original FET, so that will likely stay stock. Silicon is still drying....will keep you posted.... Gosh, what a.... great microphone.... what is this, a Heathkit? Gary Eickmeier PS - I realize it is the silicone, not silicon drying, so I won't mention it.... heh Not a Heathkit.....just some well-known modifications. Ok, just tested it out. I'll have to agreed with someone else who said the placebo effect, or the psychology of your expectations may affect how you hear a before and after comparison. But it does sound like the modded mic is less "congested" sounding, and a bit brighter. In theory, the removed layer of mesh is helping here, and the removed switches has taken away some of the parasitic capacitance at the capsule, so perhaps there is more high frequency detail now. In some ways, this modded 319 seems to have a bit more midrange than the AT4047. I'm not sure where it is exactly, but it's some sort of mid-range, or low-midrange bump. I'd say the stock 319 was significantly "warmer" sounding, and it might be better suited for certain situations. It could be that my ears are getting tired, but the modded mic may be a bit too bright for me now.....I'll take a rest and try later..... Ok, well certainly my ears do get fatigued, but there was definitely something I didn't like about the modded 319: a weird mid-range bump somewhere, almost like the mic was inside a cup, or a small hollow enclosure. It made both vocals and my acoustic guitar sound like crap: a very "bloated", bassy kind of sound. So I put the plastic resonator disks back in and.... it sounds great again....thank God! Incredible how much difference these little plastic disks with holes in them can make on the frequency response of the capsule. Effectively got rid of the hollow, bloated bump, and brought the high end back up, and flattened the whole response again. Again, thank God, because for a minute there, I thought about selling this mic back on Ebay! This was a good reminder that you shouldn't just do what everyone else is doing....you have to do what is right for YOUR particular microphone, your particular capsule, your voice, your guitar, etc... And ALWAYS keep all the parts you remove from a microphone...you might change your mind! :P |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
In article , Paul wrote:
On 4/4/2013 8:56 AM, Paul wrote: In some ways, this modded 319 seems to have a bit more midrange than the AT4047. I'm not sure where it is exactly, but it's some sort of mid-range, or low-midrange bump. This might have something to do with the 4047 having such extremely pumped up top and bottom end. The top end on the 4047 is enormously exaggerated. Just about anything is going to have more midrange. Ok, well certainly my ears do get fatigued, but there was definitely something I didn't like about the modded 319: a weird mid-range bump somewhere, almost like the mic was inside a cup, or a small hollow enclosure. It made both vocals and my acoustic guitar sound like crap: a very "bloated", bassy kind of sound. So I put the plastic resonator disks back in and.... it sounds great again....thank God! Did you read my article where I explain why you should not remove those? Unlike the capsules in those crappy Chinese microphones, the capsules in the Oktava microphones are actually designed by engineers who know what they are doing and who have a particular performance goal in mind. If you alter the tuning, they're going to be less accurate. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/5/2013 5:47 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: On 4/4/2013 8:56 AM, Paul wrote: In some ways, this modded 319 seems to have a bit more midrange than the AT4047. I'm not sure where it is exactly, but it's some sort of mid-range, or low-midrange bump. This might have something to do with the 4047 having such extremely pumped up top and bottom end. The top end on the 4047 is enormously exaggerated. Just about anything is going to have more midrange. Well, the top end my particular unit doesn't really sound exaggerated, but DEFINITELY the low end. It's almost too much low end for solo vocals, especially with headphones, but when you hear it in a mix, the low end totally helps bring the vocals out. The 4047 is an awesome vocal mic. Ok, well certainly my ears do get fatigued, but there was definitely something I didn't like about the modded 319: a weird mid-range bump somewhere, almost like the mic was inside a cup, or a small hollow enclosure. It made both vocals and my acoustic guitar sound like crap: a very "bloated", bassy kind of sound. So I put the plastic resonator disks back in and.... it sounds great again....thank God! Did you read my article where I explain why you should not remove those? Unlike the capsules in those crappy Chinese microphones, the capsules in the Oktava microphones are actually designed by engineers who know what they are doing and who have a particular performance goal in mind. If you alter the tuning, they're going to be less accurate. --scott Yes, you said it was "strictly optional" and "a matter of taste" as a final note, and you didn't recommend removing them "the first time around". If you read the mod threads and videos on the 319, some claim "most" people remove the resonators, but it definitely didn't work in my case. But as of last night, the mic works GREAT for my acoustic guitar! Definitely more low end body than the Jim Williams RK-47 mic. It also sounds very good for vocals, so can't wait to try it out in a real mix. And I still need to see how my 12-string sounds on it. A damn good used mic for $86..... **** YEAH! |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
"Paul" wrote in message
... This was a good reminder that you shouldn't just do what everyone else is doing.... What everyone else is doing is leaving their microphones as-is. That's probably a wise choice. Modifying a microphone is typically undertaken only for a very specific reason, with expert knowledge of how to do it, and what the consequences are. A small percentage of microphone owners may have good enough understanding, good enough skills, and a good enough reason to modify a microphone. Experimenting may be a good way to gain the understanding and skills. Applying a whole bunch of modifications at once (while ignoring expert advice from people with real understanding and experience) isn't experimenting; it's just dicking around. It's much less likely to actually yield much understanding. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/5/2013 3:28 PM, None wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message ... This was a good reminder that you shouldn't just do what everyone else is doing.... What everyone else is doing is leaving their microphones as-is. That's probably a wise choice. That's incorrect. Just look at all the mic modding threads and websites, and all the people charging money to do it. HOWEVER, I did make a test recording of the stock mic, and it does sound very good as-is. It's quite dark and warm stock. Modifying a microphone is typically undertaken only for a very specific reason, with expert knowledge of how to do it, and what the consequences are. A small percentage of microphone owners may have good enough understanding, good enough skills, and a good enough reason to modify a microphone. I'm a electrical engineer, so these mods were simple for me. Experimenting may be a good way to gain the understanding and skills. Applying a whole bunch of modifications at once (while ignoring expert advice from people with real understanding and experience) isn't experimenting; it's just dicking around. It's much less likely to actually yield much understanding. It's not "dicking around" if you learn something, end up with a better mic, and have fun doing it. Between removing the inner headbasket mesh, silicone damping in the body, a 1000pF polypropylene for C2, and disconnecting the switches, the mic sounds better now. More "open" and clearer sounding. But I'm glad I tried removing the resonator disks, because now I know how important they are! |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
"Paul" wrote in message
... On 4/5/2013 3:28 PM, None wrote: "Paul" wrote in message ... This was a good reminder that you shouldn't just do what everyone else is doing.... What everyone else is doing is leaving their microphones as-is. That's probably a wise choice. That's incorrect. Bull**** Just look at all the mic modding threads and websites, and all the people charging money to do it. My real world doesn't rely on cherry-picking "modding threads". The majority of professional microphone users choose microphones carefully, selecting those microphones designed with characteristics for the intended purpose. Hobbyists filling their microphones with silicone are a tiny minority. People who carefully select microphones to use, and use them as they are designed, don't show up in your "modding threads" or the website you apparently frequent, but they are by far the majority. What everyone else is doing is choosing microphones properly, and not making amateur modifications like removing critical components. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/5/2013 10:45 PM, None wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message ... On 4/5/2013 3:28 PM, None wrote: "Paul" wrote in message ... This was a good reminder that you shouldn't just do what everyone else is doing.... What everyone else is doing is leaving their microphones as-is. That's probably a wise choice. That's incorrect. Bull**** Just look at all the mic modding threads and websites, and all the people charging money to do it. My real world doesn't rely on cherry-picking "modding threads". The majority of professional microphone users choose microphones carefully, selecting those microphones designed with characteristics for the intended purpose. Hobbyists filling their microphones with silicone are a tiny minority. People who carefully select microphones to use, and use them as they are designed, don't show up in your "modding threads" or the website you apparently frequent, but they are by far the majority. What everyone else is doing is choosing microphones properly, and not making amateur modifications like removing critical components. You don't know ****. If you looked at the modding sites, you'll see many of the suggested mods were recommended by professional audio engineers, and specifically, microphone engineers. Some people don't have the cash or the luxury of picking out whatever they want. And additionally, like most dumb-****s, you are missing the point of mic modding completely: it's to learn more about how they work, and how to customize them to YOUR needs, not the teeming masses which are satisfied with a one-size-fits-all mentality. If you took your head out of your ass, you would see that SOME people prefer to have the resonator disks removed. It works better for them and their pre-amp, their voices, their guitars, their recording spaces, etc..... I found I preferred the disks, but again, I'm glad I tried the mic without them.... |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/5/2013 7:53 PM, Paul wrote:
What everyone else is doing is leaving their microphones as-is. That's probably a wise choice. That's incorrect. Just look at all the mic modding threads and websites, and all the people charging money to do it. It depends on what pool you're wading in. Web sites and forum threads are like that. People who modify cheap mics to make them a little better are performing a useful service for peole who can only afford cheap mics. Most of them aren't mic experts, though some may be experienced tinkerers or even legitimate designers (Jim Williams, for example). The people who modify professional grade mics usually start out learning the ins and outs of microphone design and manufacture by repairing them, and then experimenting to see what changes they can make successfully. But not every high-falootin' modification to a Neumann mic will pease every user. I'm a electrical engineer, so these mods were simple for me. Well, at least you're not an IT professional. g Although these days electrical engineers don't learn which end of the soldering iron to pick up. It's not "dicking around" if you learn something, end up with a better mic, and have fun doing it. Not at all. It's a great hobby. But it doesn't make you an expert, either in modifying mics or telling others that their cheap mics can be as good as great mics for just a few dollars worth of parts. Good that you learned about the importance of certain parts of your microphone. Now you need to learn why they're important and you'll be on your way to figuring out how they MIGHT be able to be improved (or not). -- "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 Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/6/2013 8:22 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/5/2013 7:53 PM, Paul wrote: What everyone else is doing is leaving their microphones as-is. That's probably a wise choice. That's incorrect. Just look at all the mic modding threads and websites, and all the people charging money to do it. It depends on what pool you're wading in. Web sites and forum threads are like that. People who modify cheap mics to make them a little better are performing a useful service for peole who can only afford cheap mics. Most of them aren't mic experts, though some may be experienced tinkerers or even legitimate designers (Jim Williams, for example). Almost all the mods I've done so far were based on recommendations by Jim Williams, Scott, ZAPNSPARK, among other people, so I'm only following what has already worked for other people. And most of it has worked for me as well. The people who modify professional grade mics usually start out learning the ins and outs of microphone design and manufacture by repairing them, and then experimenting to see what changes they can make successfully. But not every high-falootin' modification to a Neumann mic will pease every user. I'm a electrical engineer, so these mods were simple for me. Well, at least you're not an IT professional. g Although these days electrical engineers don't learn which end of the soldering iron to pick up. I'm more a real world "bench" engineer, than a simulation user, although I have used ADS and Microwave Office, etc. It's not "dicking around" if you learn something, end up with a better mic, and have fun doing it. Not at all. It's a great hobby. But it doesn't make you an expert, either in modifying mics or telling others that their cheap mics can be as good as great mics for just a few dollars worth of parts. Good that you learned about the importance of certain parts of your microphone. Now you need to learn why they're important and you'll be on your way to figuring out how they MIGHT be able to be improved (or not). A cheaper mic may in fact be better in a certain given situation than a more expensive one. But if I had spent tens of thousands on mics, I'd probably argue against that until I'm blue in the face... I never claimed to be an expert, but I do know what I personally like, and no "expert" can tell me that. I'm sure some people have used finite element analysis for microphone engineering, but I'll bet most of it is done by good old trial and error. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/6/2013 8:22 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/5/2013 7:53 PM, Paul wrote: What everyone else is doing is leaving their microphones as-is. That's probably a wise choice. That's incorrect. Just look at all the mic modding threads and websites, and all the people charging money to do it. It depends on what pool you're wading in. Web sites and forum threads are like that. People who modify cheap mics to make them a little better are performing a useful service for peole who can only afford cheap mics. Most of them aren't mic experts, though some may be experienced tinkerers or even legitimate designers (Jim Williams, for example). The people who modify professional grade mics usually start out learning the ins and outs of microphone design and manufacture by repairing them, and then experimenting to see what changes they can make successfully. But not every high-falootin' modification to a Neumann mic will pease every user. I'm a electrical engineer, so these mods were simple for me. Well, at least you're not an IT professional. g Although these days electrical engineers don't learn which end of the soldering iron to pick up. It's not "dicking around" if you learn something, end up with a better mic, and have fun doing it. Not at all. It's a great hobby. But it doesn't make you an expert, either in modifying mics or telling others that their cheap mics can be as good as great mics for just a few dollars worth of parts. Good that you learned about the importance of certain parts of your microphone. Now you need to learn why they're important and you'll be on your way to figuring out how they MIGHT be able to be improved (or not). You need to stop judging mics by how much you paid for them. My AT4047 is a great mic, but so is my Oktava 319, just in a different way. A new AT4047 retails for $700, and a new Oktava 319 is currently $400, so even by that measure, they are not the cheapest mics you can buy. But I lucked out on a like-new AT4047 for $260, and $86 for the used 319 on Ebay. Both AWESOME deals. I'll see if I can arrange a shoot-out with these against the world-class mics I just heard recently, and see if you all can tell the difference..... |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/6/2013 1:50 PM, Paul wrote:
You need to stop judging mics by how much you paid for them. Oh, I don't. I use SM-57s all the time, and I get some good use out of the MXL 991 that I picked up when doing a mic workshop to show the difference between a KM-84 and the MXL 991 in a few different applications. In some, the difference, though noticeable, was negligible, on others it was obvious to the whole group that the KM-84 would be the one to choose if it was available. There have always been inexpensive mics for applications that don't call for expensive mics. But it's only been in the last 10 or maybe 15 years that inexpensive COPIES of expensive mics have become available, leading inexperienced people to think that they're getting 90% of a U87 for 10% of the cost. Obviously you're not one of those, but there are millions who are, and are really happy with what they get, at least for a while. -- "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 Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/6/2013 12:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/6/2013 1:50 PM, Paul wrote: You need to stop judging mics by how much you paid for them. Oh, I don't. I use SM-57s all the time, and I get some good use out of the MXL 991 that I picked up when doing a mic workshop to show the difference between a KM-84 and the MXL 991 in a few different applications. In some, the difference, though noticeable, was negligible, on others it was obvious to the whole group that the KM-84 would be the one to choose if it was available. Fair enough. I just used an SM-57 on a snare, and it's perfect. $45 for the MXL 991? http://www.pixelproaudio.com/all/mxl....UWB7sT czTcs Jesus, don't dangle these carrots in front of me! Have you tried modifying the MXL 991s? http://www.audioimprov.com/AudioImpr...e_MXL_991.html "No, they don’t sound just like KM84s, but they are “84-ish”, excellent mics in their own right." There have always been inexpensive mics for applications that don't call for expensive mics. But it's only been in the last 10 or maybe 15 years that inexpensive COPIES of expensive mics have become available, leading inexperienced people to think that they're getting 90% of a U87 for 10% of the cost. Obviously you're not one of those, but there are millions who are, and are really happy with what they get, at least for a while. But you have to admit that the precision of modern manufacturing techniques (CNC, etc.), along with the lower SINAD of modern A/D, D/A converters and software, has leveled the playing field considerably. "Dark Side of the Moon" used to be an audiophile standard, but not anymore. Tons of tape hiss, etc. It still sounds good, but I'm getting cleaner recordings here at my apartment. Pretty shocking to say the least. Some people don't even like the U87 anyways. The lead engineer at the studio I just visited didn't, although he had equally expensive tastes with other mics. He felt that the U87 hype was applicable to the tape world, but is outdated in the modern digital studio, which he felt was better served with the U47. I noticed even with my AT4047, that I'm still adding a small 10kHz presence bump of about 5 dB, just to bring out the vocals a bit more. It's not much, but if some of the cheaper, modern condensers are a bit bright, maybe they sit better in the mix without EQing the high end. So perhaps the "ideal", totally flat frequency response is not necessarily what a given individual wants/needs in a microphone. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
Paul wrote:
I noticed even with my AT4047, that I'm still adding a small 10kHz presence bump of about 5 dB 10 kHz presence is a nonsensical wording, 10 kHz is treble. A small bump is 0.5 dB, 1 dB is a bump, 2 dB is about it and no more, 5 dB is a mountain by any definition. Learn to listen. Go to some chamber music concerts and learn the real sound of violins. just to bring out the vocals a bit more. It's not much, but if some of the cheaper, modern condensers are a bit bright, maybe they sit better in the mix without EQing the high end. Courtesy of the laws of nature and something called "druckstau" in german almost all microphones exhibit a 2 to 4 dB bump somewhere between 5 and 16 kHz depending on capsule diameter. So perhaps the "ideal", totally flat frequency response is not necessarily what a given individual wants/needs in a microphone. Flat is almost meaningless in the real world of directional microphones where it is about "total pickup of room energy" combined with "frequency response in relevant direction". One influences direct sound and the other reverberant sound, and both can be defined as "the frequency response". Neither is or both are. Which is why there really is no alternative to listening as the final arbiter of quality. Since you work with 5 dB increments perhaps you should consider what listening tools you have available. KEF Q15's are very good and have a proper tonal balance for playback of chamber music but sound boring with boring pop music ... which is wny I was able to purchase a pair second hand at a very good price. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
Paul writes:
- snips - I noticed even with my AT4047, that I'm still adding a small 10kHz presence bump of about 5 dB, just to bring out the vocals +5 dB? That's potentially huge under a lot of conditions. How wide is your Q? In not all but many instances I'd tend to think of a wider Q with a boost of +0.5 to +1.0 as a "presence bump". I assume you're checking your mixes on other monitors? (In the bad old days of lousy monitoring, I too poured on a lot of top end. Going back to the old recordings now, with better monitoring in a much better room, can be interesting. Well balanced overall, but often aggressively bright. But part of that was to overcome the limits of tape.) These days of digital a lot of my eq is +/- 0.5-2.0 db, with only the occasional "correction" EQ exceeding plus or minus 5 dB. It does happen, but rarely. A good chunk of "EQ" can be done with mic selection and placement, time alignment if comb filtering is an issue, the room, and oh yes, a good player/singer with a good instrument/voice. A good arrangement really helps too, more than you might imagine until you've experienced the difference in a mix session. without EQing the high end. So perhaps the "ideal", totally flat frequency response is not necessarily what a given individual wants/needs in a microphone. Very true. Much depends on the type of music, the room, the players, etc. Even in classical recording, a blind desire for a "flat" mic doesn't always fill the bill. In fact, strike me down for blasphemy, but I've never liked a "ruler flat" stereo. Seems like there's always something to touch up. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/6/2013 4:32 PM, Paul wrote:
$45 for the MXL 991? I think I paid $69 for the 990/991 kit from Guitar Center but that was more than 10 years ago. Have you tried modifying the MXL 991s? No. To me it's more useful as an example of a "pretty good, inexpensive condenser mic." If I show it to someone it's going to be someone who wouldn't be capable of making those mechanical or electrical modifications so he might as well have an idea of what to expect from it when he opens the box. But you have to admit that the precision of modern manufacturing techniques (CNC, etc.) . . . . That's what's enabled the Chinese companies to make these mics at all. But not being designers, they don't always understand what's important in the machining. Before Stephen Paul died, he was working with the Studio Projects folks on the design and production of his idea of the ultimate mic. Stephen was one of the hot studio mic modifiers in the 80s and 90s. The problem that they had at the time was that they had tried several Chinese manufacturing firms and none of them were able to keep the tolerances that were required in his design. Some people don't even like the U87 anyways. Sure, but there was a time when that was the best mic going and all studios that were making records and making money had a pile of them. Today we have more choices so it's easy for there to be better mics for specific things. In the early U87 days, we didn't have vocal mics and drum mics and bass mics and sax mics and such, we had mics (period). I noticed even with my AT4047, that I'm still adding a small 10kHz presence bump of about 5 dB, just to bring out the vocals a bit more. See, if you used a U87, you wouldn't have to do that. It's not much, but if some of the cheaper, modern condensers are a bit bright, maybe they sit better in the mix without EQing the high end. So perhaps the "ideal", totally flat frequency response is not necessarily what a given individual wants/needs in a microphone. The industry is always years behind the forum posters. When the first under $1,000 condenser mics started to appear, they didn't go to commercial studios who were looking for alternatives to their U87s and such, they went to project studios who could never afford a condenser mic. And their perception of a condenser was oe that was brighter and more open than the dynamic mics that they had. So the mic manufacturers made sure that's what they heard when they tried the mic on familiar sources. Remember, too, that most of the recording was still on tape in those days, and there was an expectation of some high frequency loss, if not on the first pass, after a day's worth of overdubs. So in a sense the bright mics were compensating for a weakness in the recording medium. Now that we have pretty good digital recording pretty cheap, what comes out of the mic, unless you change it with EQ, is preserved pretty accurately to be heard over and over and over. .We really could use some more inexpensive flat mics, particularly cardioids that sound good off to the side, but I guess the cheap mic industry hasn't found it important to create the demand for it yet. -- "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 Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/6/2013 3:33 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Paul writes: - snips - I noticed even with my AT4047, that I'm still adding a small 10kHz presence bump of about 5 dB, just to bring out the vocals +5 dB? That's potentially huge under a lot of conditions. How wide is your Q? In not all but many instances I'd tend to think of a wider Q with a boost of +0.5 to +1.0 as a "presence bump". In Cubase 5, it's Parametric II, a Q of 1.2, so I'd say medium wide. If you all think 5 dB is huge, I suppose I just personally prefer a brighter sound, which actually supports my assertion that the cheaper, brighter mics might be preferable in some situations for some people. I listened to it with the EQing off, and it's acceptable, but the presence bump gives that extra sibilant detail. Enunciation clarity. I assume you're checking your mixes on other monitors? (In the bad old days of lousy monitoring, I too poured on a lot of top end. Going back to the old recordings now, with better monitoring in a much better room, can be interesting. Well balanced overall, but often aggressively bright. But part of that was to overcome the limits of tape.) These days of digital a lot of my eq is +/- 0.5-2.0 db, with only the occasional "correction" EQ exceeding plus or minus 5 dB. It does happen, but rarely. A good chunk of "EQ" can be done with mic selection and placement, time alignment if comb filtering is an issue, the room, and oh yes, a good player/singer with a good instrument/voice. A good arrangement really helps too, more than you might imagine until you've experienced the difference in a mix session. without EQing the high end. So perhaps the "ideal", totally flat frequency response is not necessarily what a given individual wants/needs in a microphone. Very true. Much depends on the type of music, the room, the players, etc. Even in classical recording, a blind desire for a "flat" mic doesn't always fill the bill. In fact, strike me down for blasphemy, but I've never liked a "ruler flat" stereo. Seems like there's always something to touch up. OTOH, I can see the merit of starting with a completely neutral transfer function, and modifying from there. It couldn't hurt to start with how the source "really" sounds. But "reality" can be pretty damn boring, and I've recorded people and guitars that sounded quite dull, or were life-less in person, and it's only when you get them on "tape" can you actually make them sound decent! **** Reality! I want what sounds good! |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
Paul writes:
-snips But "reality" can be pretty damn boring, and I've recorded people and guitars that sounded quite dull, or were life-less in person, and it's only when you get them on "tape" can you actually make them sound decent! **** Reality! I want what sounds good! Agreed. It has always seemed a fool's errand to chase "perfectly flat" because much of what we do is "stage makeup" to compensate for the inherent unnaturalness of the entire recording process, whether 2 channels or 200. That being said, the occasional reality check -- by taking a second look at those channels with +12 dialed in, listening on other monitors, coming back fresh the next day, etc -- can be useful. The heat of the moment can get you used to something that later you won't like; or a room/monitor might be lying to you in some fashion. And we're often best at lying to ourselves. Many here probably have similar stories, but mine was with two obnoxious players who were just sure as hell they Knew Better. "Okay. YOU mix it," said the guy for whom I was second engineering, and he zero'd the EQs and pushed away from the console. To their credit, some of their balances were perhaps a bit better, but their EQ was a belly laugh. They kept going back and forth with one another, nodding, expressing great satisfaction at almost every EQ knob twist, with exclamations of, "yeah! that's it! perfect! Leave it right there!" An hour later, they had their mix, with something of a superior expression on thier faces. No one had the gumption to tell them that each and every one of the EQs were switched out of the circuit. When the engineer cleared the EQ for them, he really cleared the EQ. w The moral is how easy it is to fool ourselves. And while I would never suggest mixing to certain numerical limits in how much EQ you can or cannot use, extremes can be an alert, a sign that you need to confirm what you're doing and perhaps understand why. Wrong mic? Bad placement? Something about the song or other parts of the mix? Good luck with it, Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote: On 4/6/2013 4:32 PM, Paul wrote: $45 for the MXL 991? I think I paid $69 for the 990/991 kit from Guitar Center but that was more than 10 years ago. Have you tried modifying the MXL 991s? No. To me it's more useful as an example of a "pretty good, inexpensive condenser mic." If I show it to someone it's going to be someone who wouldn't be capable of making those mechanical or electrical modifications so he might as well have an idea of what to expect from it when he opens the box. The MXL 991 is anotherr one of the various mikes based on a Chinese copy of the KM84 capsule. The problems are basically that this design is a very difficult one to make well, and that the Chinese have made a lot of adaptations to make it easier to manufacture with no understanding of what they do to the performance. When these mikes first started appearing on US shores, it was a year or two after the cheap U87 clones started flooding in, and I took a look at them with the intention of doing an upgrade article like I did for the Shanghai U87 clones. But... the designs were just so bad and the manufacturing precision was so awful I pretty much gave up on the idea. But you have to admit that the precision of modern manufacturing techniques (CNC, etc.) . . . . Unfortunately the two hardest parts, tensioning the diaphram and machining the backplate, are still being done by hand in China. Shure and AKG have automated diaphragm tensioning systems that are consistent and effective. The Shanghai factories are all basically using a method that Neumann abandoned in the 1950s. It is possible for very skilled technicians to make well-tensioned mikes with the old trampoline method, but it is a slow and painstaking procedure that involves a lot of measurement and testing. The Chinese folks do not do this. That's what's enabled the Chinese companies to make these mics at all. But not being designers, they don't always understand what's important in the machining. Before Stephen Paul died, he was working with the Studio Projects folks on the design and production of his idea of the ultimate mic. Stephen was one of the hot studio mic modifiers in the 80s and 90s. The problem that they had at the time was that they had tried several Chinese manufacturing firms and none of them were able to keep the tolerances that were required in his design. Yes, and his design actually didn't require the degree of precision that a small diaphragm cardioid did, too. It is much harder to make a cardioid than an omni, much harder to make a figure-8 than a cardioid. It is much harder to make a small diaphragm capsule than a large one. So far only Schoeps and Sennheiser have managed to make small diaphragm figure-8s with good nulls, and Sennheiser did it only with some trickery and a lot of hand-tuning. I noticed even with my AT4047, that I'm still adding a small 10kHz presence bump of about 5 dB, just to bring out the vocals a bit more. See, if you used a U87, you wouldn't have to do that. Actually, the 4047 has a much more exaggerated top end than a U87. If you're adding 5 dB (and 5 dB is NOT a small amount, it is a freaking gargantuan amount) at 10kc to a 4047, it is going to be sounding like someone is hammering railroad spikes into your ears. I would check your monitoring. You may not be getting any top end at all through your monitors which is why you're doing this sort of thing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/8/2013 7:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote: On 4/6/2013 4:32 PM, Paul wrote: $45 for the MXL 991? I think I paid $69 for the 990/991 kit from Guitar Center but that was more than 10 years ago. Have you tried modifying the MXL 991s? No. To me it's more useful as an example of a "pretty good, inexpensive condenser mic." If I show it to someone it's going to be someone who wouldn't be capable of making those mechanical or electrical modifications so he might as well have an idea of what to expect from it when he opens the box. The MXL 991 is anotherr one of the various mikes based on a Chinese copy of the KM84 capsule. The problems are basically that this design is a very difficult one to make well, and that the Chinese have made a lot of adaptations to make it easier to manufacture with no understanding of what they do to the performance. When these mikes first started appearing on US shores, it was a year or two after the cheap U87 clones started flooding in, and I took a look at them with the intention of doing an upgrade article like I did for the Shanghai U87 clones. But... the designs were just so bad and the manufacturing precision was so awful I pretty much gave up on the idea. But you have to admit that the precision of modern manufacturing techniques (CNC, etc.) . . . . Unfortunately the two hardest parts, tensioning the diaphram and machining the backplate, are still being done by hand in China. Shure and AKG have automated diaphragm tensioning systems that are consistent and effective. The Shanghai factories are all basically using a method that Neumann abandoned in the 1950s. It is possible for very skilled technicians to make well-tensioned mikes with the old trampoline method, but it is a slow and painstaking procedure that involves a lot of measurement and testing. The Chinese folks do not do this. That's what's enabled the Chinese companies to make these mics at all. But not being designers, they don't always understand what's important in the machining. Before Stephen Paul died, he was working with the Studio Projects folks on the design and production of his idea of the ultimate mic. Stephen was one of the hot studio mic modifiers in the 80s and 90s. The problem that they had at the time was that they had tried several Chinese manufacturing firms and none of them were able to keep the tolerances that were required in his design. Yes, and his design actually didn't require the degree of precision that a small diaphragm cardioid did, too. It is much harder to make a cardioid than an omni, much harder to make a figure-8 than a cardioid. It is much harder to make a small diaphragm capsule than a large one. So far only Schoeps and Sennheiser have managed to make small diaphragm figure-8s with good nulls, and Sennheiser did it only with some trickery and a lot of hand-tuning. I noticed even with my AT4047, that I'm still adding a small 10kHz presence bump of about 5 dB, just to bring out the vocals a bit more. See, if you used a U87, you wouldn't have to do that. Actually, the 4047 has a much more exaggerated top end than a U87. If you're adding 5 dB (and 5 dB is NOT a small amount, it is a freaking gargantuan amount) at 10kc to a 4047, it is going to be sounding like someone is hammering railroad spikes into your ears. I would check your monitoring. You may not be getting any top end at all through your monitors which is why you're doing this sort of thing. --scott It can't be a gargantuan amount, because I A/Bed it with and without the bump, and the difference is small audibly, on different monitors. It could be that 5dB in Cubase 5 in not totally accurate. But I have a question for you specifically. Will the output of the 319 vary by 20*Log(V1/V2) of the polarization voltage? This was suggested, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a gross over-simplification. I ask because I'd like to put a simple two resistor (1 Meg Ohm, and the closest standard value to 462k, or 470k) voltage divider on the polarization voltage, attached to R1 (680M, or 1Gig), so I can reclaim the -10dB pad function (recording saxophones, etc.). At first, I thought I would have to use a SPDT, but it was suggested I can re-use the magnetic-reed switch, and just switch the bottom resistor on and off, because the capsule doesn't draw any current, so there won't be a voltage drop on the top resistor (1 Meg). And at least stock, the -10dB seemed to be a huge drop in the signal. I'm not sure how accurate the -10dB was, but do you really need to drop the signal that much typically? Perhaps -6dB would suffice? I found some Toshiba 2SK170BL FETs on Ebay, and I know your article calls for R8 to be 2.0K, and R7 be 1.78K, but is there an o'scope method like this one: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8...da4f614a_c.jpg Where I can really dial an exact values in, with like a 5k pot? Injecting a signal and adjusting for simultaneous positive and negative clipping seems to me a more exact method than just measuring bias voltage. Thanks for your time.... |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
In article , Paul wrote:
I would check your monitoring. You may not be getting any top end at all through your monitors which is why you're doing this sort of thing. It can't be a gargantuan amount, because I A/Bed it with and without the bump, and the difference is small audibly, on different monitors. It could be that 5dB in Cubase 5 in not totally accurate. No, more likely you have two bad sets of monitors. But I have a question for you specifically. Will the output of the 319 vary by 20*Log(V1/V2) of the polarization voltage? This was suggested, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a gross over-simplification. It will more or less, but the frequency response and linearity will change also. Remember the electrostatic attraction is where part of the capsule tension comes from; change the voltage and you change the capsule tuning. I ask because I'd like to put a simple two resistor (1 Meg Ohm, and the closest standard value to 462k, or 470k) voltage divider on the polarization voltage, attached to R1 (680M, or 1Gig), so I can reclaim the -10dB pad function (recording saxophones, etc.). At first, I thought I would have to use a SPDT, but it was suggested I can re-use the magnetic-reed switch, and just switch the bottom resistor on and off, because the capsule doesn't draw any current, so there won't be a voltage drop on the top resistor (1 Meg). And at least stock, the -10dB seemed to be a huge drop in the signal. I'm not sure how accurate the -10dB was, but do you really need to drop the signal that much typically? Perhaps -6dB would suffice? Changing the polarization voltage won't change the output level in the way you want. Adding a shunt capacitance will, but the quality of the capacitor becomes a big issue and it never sounds as good anyway. Also, of course, it doesn't really buy you all that much since the capsule becomes nonlinear at levels not much higher than the electronics. I would just stay away from it. If you want to close-mike a horn, use an re-20 or something that is appropriate for the job. Buy some N/D 468s used for that kind of thing; they are tight, not horrible off-axis, cheap, and don't have a presence boost. I found some Toshiba 2SK170BL FETs on Ebay, and I know your article calls for R8 to be 2.0K, and R7 be 1.78K, but is there an o'scope method like this one: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8...da4f614a_c.jpg Where I can really dial an exact values in, with like a 5k pot? Injecting a signal and adjusting for simultaneous positive and negative clipping seems to me a more exact method than just measuring bias voltage. Sure, you can do that, but I already did and I can tell you what values are correct for the 2SK170BL. If you'd like to inject a signal from a signal generator through a 5G resistor or an electrostatic calibrator coupled to the capsule, look at the output on an FFT analyzer and adjust for the lowest second and third harmonic distortion, you can do that. A scope is too crude a tool; you won't see less than about 2% distortion on a sine wave with a scope. But I already did it so you don't have to. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/8/2013 12:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: I would check your monitoring. You may not be getting any top end at all through your monitors which is why you're doing this sort of thing. It can't be a gargantuan amount, because I A/Bed it with and without the bump, and the difference is small audibly, on different monitors. It could be that 5dB in Cubase 5 in not totally accurate. No, more likely you have two bad sets of monitors. But I have a question for you specifically. Will the output of the 319 vary by 20*Log(V1/V2) of the polarization voltage? This was suggested, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a gross over-simplification. It will more or less, but the frequency response and linearity will change also. Remember the electrostatic attraction is where part of the capsule tension comes from; change the voltage and you change the capsule tuning. I ask because I'd like to put a simple two resistor (1 Meg Ohm, and the closest standard value to 462k, or 470k) voltage divider on the polarization voltage, attached to R1 (680M, or 1Gig), so I can reclaim the -10dB pad function (recording saxophones, etc.). At first, I thought I would have to use a SPDT, but it was suggested I can re-use the magnetic-reed switch, and just switch the bottom resistor on and off, because the capsule doesn't draw any current, so there won't be a voltage drop on the top resistor (1 Meg). And at least stock, the -10dB seemed to be a huge drop in the signal. I'm not sure how accurate the -10dB was, but do you really need to drop the signal that much typically? Perhaps -6dB would suffice? Changing the polarization voltage won't change the output level in the way you want. Adding a shunt capacitance will, but the quality of the capacitor becomes a big issue and it never sounds as good anyway. Also, of course, it doesn't really buy you all that much since the capsule becomes nonlinear at levels not much higher than the electronics. I would just stay away from it. If you want to close-mike a horn, use an re-20 or something that is appropriate for the job. Buy some N/D 468s used for that kind of thing; they are tight, not horrible off-axis, cheap, and don't have a presence boost. $150 for a new N/D 468? http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-a...ent-microphone Damn Cheap! I found some Toshiba 2SK170BL FETs on Ebay, and I know your article calls for R8 to be 2.0K, and R7 be 1.78K, but is there an o'scope method like this one: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8...da4f614a_c.jpg Where I can really dial an exact values in, with like a 5k pot? Injecting a signal and adjusting for simultaneous positive and negative clipping seems to me a more exact method than just measuring bias voltage. Sure, you can do that, but I already did and I can tell you what values are correct for the 2SK170BL. If you'd like to inject a signal from a signal generator through a 5G resistor or an electrostatic calibrator coupled to the capsule, look at the output on an FFT analyzer and adjust for the lowest second and third harmonic distortion, you can do that. A scope is too crude a tool; you won't see less than about 2% distortion on a sine wave with a scope. But I already did it so you don't have to. --scott So the correct values are still R8=2.0K, and R7=1.78K ? Wafer-to-wafer, or lot variation of the die doesn't matter? Thanks for your time. Time to order some parts..... Is there such a thing as mic modding mania? |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/8/2013 12:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: I would check your monitoring. You may not be getting any top end at all through your monitors which is why you're doing this sort of thing. It can't be a gargantuan amount, because I A/Bed it with and without the bump, and the difference is small audibly, on different monitors. It could be that 5dB in Cubase 5 in not totally accurate. No, more likely you have two bad sets of monitors. But I have a question for you specifically. Will the output of the 319 vary by 20*Log(V1/V2) of the polarization voltage? This was suggested, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a gross over-simplification. It will more or less, but the frequency response and linearity will change also. Remember the electrostatic attraction is where part of the capsule tension comes from; change the voltage and you change the capsule tuning. I ask because I'd like to put a simple two resistor (1 Meg Ohm, and the closest standard value to 462k, or 470k) voltage divider on the polarization voltage, attached to R1 (680M, or 1Gig), so I can reclaim the -10dB pad function (recording saxophones, etc.). At first, I thought I would have to use a SPDT, but it was suggested I can re-use the magnetic-reed switch, and just switch the bottom resistor on and off, because the capsule doesn't draw any current, so there won't be a voltage drop on the top resistor (1 Meg). And at least stock, the -10dB seemed to be a huge drop in the signal. I'm not sure how accurate the -10dB was, but do you really need to drop the signal that much typically? Perhaps -6dB would suffice? Changing the polarization voltage won't change the output level in the way you want. Adding a shunt capacitance will, but the quality of the capacitor becomes a big issue and it never sounds as good anyway. Also, of course, it doesn't really buy you all that much since the capsule becomes nonlinear at levels not much higher than the electronics. I would just stay away from it. If you want to close-mike a horn, use an re-20 or something that is appropriate for the job. Buy some N/D 468s used for that kind of thing; they are tight, not horrible off-axis, cheap, and don't have a presence boost. "Rossi" from GroupDIY.com says this: "The polarization voltage plays only a small part in the diaphragm tension. When you do comparative measurements within the usable range of voltages (as I have done), there's hardly any change in frequency response. Which would be the case if the capsule resonance was seriously altered. Of course you are likely to encounter changes near to the voltage when the capsule collapses. But that's well above the usable voltage range. Pad implementation via polarization voltage is not my invention; it has been done in commercial microphones such as the TLM170. All known pad implementations are compromised in some way, but this one probably the least. One added benefit is that the capsule distortion is slightly reduced as the electrostatic attraction decreases. By comparison, a small cap in parallel with the capsule increases capsule distortion." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
In article , Paul wrote:
"The polarization voltage plays only a small part in the diaphragm tension. When you do comparative measurements within the usable range of voltages (as I have done), there's hardly any change in frequency response. Which would be the case if the capsule resonance was seriously altered. Of course you are likely to encounter changes near to the voltage when the capsule collapses. But that's well above the usable voltage range. It's not a huge difference, no. But it's a difference, and there is no excuse for it. Pad implementation via polarization voltage is not my invention; it has been done in commercial microphones such as the TLM170. All known pad implementations are compromised in some way, but this one probably the least. One added benefit is that the capsule distortion is slightly reduced as the electrostatic attraction decreases. By comparison, a small cap in parallel with the capsule increases capsule distortion." It's true, all the known pad implementations are compromised in some way, and that is a reason to avoid using any of them. The solution to that particular problem is more headroom in the amplifier, which should be no problem since you have 48V and it's a follower anyway. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
In article , Paul wrote:
$150 for a new N/D 468? http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-a...ent-microphone Damn Cheap! It's a pretty good deal for what it is. It's a close-working microphone, don't expect to be able to use it in a far field. But it's a fairly tight microphone. I have even used them as vocal spots when I wanted to avoid presence peaks. So the correct values are still R8=2.0K, and R7=1.78K ? Wafer-to-wafer, or lot variation of the die doesn't matter? Unit to unit, no two jfets are anywhere NEAR the same bias point. Unit to unit variations are enormous. That's why Toshiba selects them after they come off the production line. The blue dot ones have that fairly narrow bias range. You can get them preselected for a more narrow range if you want too. The ones I have are preselected for low noise, though, not for bias point. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/9/2013 5:54 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: $150 for a new N/D 468? http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-a...ent-microphone Damn Cheap! It's a pretty good deal for what it is. It's a close-working microphone, don't expect to be able to use it in a far field. But it's a fairly tight microphone. I have even used them as vocal spots when I wanted to avoid presence peaks. So the correct values are still R8=2.0K, and R7=1.78K ? Wafer-to-wafer, or lot variation of the die doesn't matter? Unit to unit, no two jfets are anywhere NEAR the same bias point. Unit to unit variations are enormous. That's why Toshiba selects them after they come off the production line. The blue dot ones have that fairly narrow bias range. You can get them preselected for a more narrow range if you want too. The ones I have are preselected for low noise, though, not for bias point. --scott If they don't already, Toshiba should probe on the wafer (before the scribe and break), to increase back end yield. Will R8=2.0K, and R7=1.78K work for all of these?: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...:MEFSRCHX:SRCH I didn't notice any with a blue dot. What does the last 2 digits after the "BL" stand for? A 160 Volt rating would be enough for polystyrene C2, capsule to gate for most mics, right? : http://www.ebay.com/itm/170990782403... 4.m1438.l2649 I'm thinking of getting an MXL 991, and I don't want to get too large a voltage rating, to ensure the cap will fit.... |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 4/9/2013 5:54 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: $150 for a new N/D 468? http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-a...ent-microphone Damn Cheap! It's a pretty good deal for what it is. It's a close-working microphone, don't expect to be able to use it in a far field. But it's a fairly tight microphone. I have even used them as vocal spots when I wanted to avoid presence peaks. So the correct values are still R8=2.0K, and R7=1.78K ? Wafer-to-wafer, or lot variation of the die doesn't matter? Unit to unit, no two jfets are anywhere NEAR the same bias point. Unit to unit variations are enormous. That's why Toshiba selects them after they come off the production line. The blue dot ones have that fairly narrow bias range. You can get them preselected for a more narrow range if you want too. The ones I have are preselected for low noise, though, not for bias point. --scott Oh yeah, if I replace the 680Meg R1 and R2 with 1G resistors, the frequency response should still be wider, even if I keep the original, stock FET, right? |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
In article , Paul wrote:
Will R8=2.0K, and R7=1.78K work for all of these?: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...:MEFSRCHX:SRCH If any of them aren't counterfeit, they will be fine. I didn't notice any with a blue dot. What does the last 2 digits after the "BL" stand for? The BL is for the blue dot. V is violet dot, etc. The stuff after the part number and selection is the date code. A 160 Volt rating would be enough for polystyrene C2, capsule to gate for most mics, right? : http://www.ebay.com/itm/170990782403... 4.m1438.l2649 Yes, a 50V rating would be fine, the problem is the leakage. All of those deposited film caps leak like mad. Some film and foil types have low enough leakage for the application. The reason why I recommend NPO ceramics is that it is very, very difficult to make film caps with low enough leakage for high impedance circuits. I'm thinking of getting an MXL 991, and I don't want to get too large a voltage rating, to ensure the cap will fit.... I recommend avoiding them, but it's your money. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
In article , Paul wrote:
Oh yeah, if I replace the 680Meg R1 and R2 with 1G resistors, the frequency response should still be wider, even if I keep the original, stock FET, right? Maybe, depends on a bunch of factors including how leaky the capsule is. in a perfect world it would be an improvement, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:12:58 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
....My first Russian mic! Very excited, and... ...it sounds great stock: the bass end was close to the AT-4047, although not quite as full. And I just did the basic mods: silicone caulking in the body for damping, one layer of mesh removed, resonator disks removed from the capsule, high-pass and -10dB switch board removed, 680pF C2 replaced with a 1000pF orange polypropylene. I really should have recorded the mic after each step, so I can hear the effect of each step, but oh well. I can put the resonator disks back if I want. Many people like the original FET, so that will likely stay stock. Silicon is still drying....will keep you posted.... Are you still using Oktava MK319 ? |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
"Paul" wrote in message
... On 5/6/2014 5:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:12:58 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote: ....My first Russian mic! Very excited, and... ...it sounds great stock: the bass end was close to the AT-4047, although not quite as full. And I just did the basic mods: silicone caulking in the body for damping, one layer of mesh removed, resonator disks removed from the capsule, high-pass and -10dB switch board removed, 680pF C2 replaced with a 1000pF orange polypropylene. I really should have recorded the mic after each step, so I can hear the effect of each step, but oh well. I can put the resonator disks back if I want. Many people like the original FET, so that will likely stay stock. Silicon is still drying....will keep you posted.... Are you still using Oktava MK319 ? Wow, old thread! I actually sold it, because at the time, I thought it was too bassy, and not bright enough for me. Which was true, but I probably should have kept it anyways, because it probably would have been good for shrill singers, or really bright horns, etc. Why do you ask? Did you get one yourself? I have found the same to be true, and one use I like it for is acoustic slide guitar. I take that bypassing the switches didn't improve the high end much? Sean |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Just Got My Oktava MK-319 Today....
On 5/6/2014 8:56 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message ... On 5/6/2014 5:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:12:58 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote: ....My first Russian mic! Very excited, and... ...it sounds great stock: the bass end was close to the AT-4047, although not quite as full. And I just did the basic mods: silicone caulking in the body for damping, one layer of mesh removed, resonator disks removed from the capsule, high-pass and -10dB switch board removed, 680pF C2 replaced with a 1000pF orange polypropylene. I really should have recorded the mic after each step, so I can hear the effect of each step, but oh well. I can put the resonator disks back if I want. Many people like the original FET, so that will likely stay stock. Silicon is still drying....will keep you posted.... Are you still using Oktava MK319 ? Wow, old thread! I actually sold it, because at the time, I thought it was too bassy, and not bright enough for me. Which was true, but I probably should have kept it anyways, because it probably would have been good for shrill singers, or really bright horns, etc. Why do you ask? Did you get one yourself? I have found the same to be true, and one use I like it for is acoustic slide guitar. I take that bypassing the switches didn't improve the high end much? It didn't help enough for my taste, with the unit I had. It just didn't have enough "presence". I don't like over-hyped high-end, but this was the opposite problem. Too bassy for me. I might get another one and try again, but keep it this time. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Oktava Mic | Pro Audio | |||
no music today, today is about corruption at chess worldchampionship | Pro Audio | |||
Oktava | Pro Audio | |||
Oktava MK-101 | Pro Audio | |||
Oktava 319 mod? | Pro Audio |