Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pon_champa@yahoo.ca is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul[_13_] Paul[_13_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 871
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oktava Mic diapason Pro Audio 4 August 18th 08 11:59 AM
no music today, today is about corruption at chess worldchampionship Pi-Qui Pro Audio 1 October 7th 06 04:04 PM
Oktava Marko @ Spielberg Audio Labs Pro Audio 1 May 12th 06 12:59 AM
Oktava MK-101 RedTape Pro Audio 2 July 4th 05 11:47 PM
Oktava 319 mod? mine12u Pro Audio 2 August 29th 03 08:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"