[adam79]

I have $1500-$2000 to spend on equipment. My DAW is a MBox2 w/ PT LE on
a MacBook Pro. My outboard stuff includes a Mackie 1202 VLZ-PRO Mixer,
Rocktron Intelliverb and Lexicon MXP-1. My mic locker is as follows:
Shure SM-57 (1), Shure SM-87a beta (1), MCA SP1 (2). I plan on getting
the SP1s upgraded at audio upgrades. Considering my budget above, what
should I look at buying? I'm thinking probably a nice pair of Mic
Pre(s), or one Mic Pre with two inputs, and a small condenser mic, maybe
a Shure SM-81. Suggestions?

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

Paul Stamler wrote:

Eventually, I'd look to get away from the MBox2 and get an outboard A/D
converter. (Anything you send the MBox2, including line-level signals, goes
through the no-great-shakes mic preamps.)

I've been thinking the same thing.. you can bypass the MBox2 Pre-amps by
going in line level.


Also include in the budget ten bucks or so to make a Gizmo for loading the
SM57 (short XLR-XLR cable and a 681 ohm MF resistor).


Can you explain what your talking about with this upgrade.. I'm lost.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Paul Stamler]

"adam79" wrote in message
net...

Also include in the budget ten bucks or so to make a Gizmo for loading
the
SM57 (short XLR-XLR cable and a 681 ohm MF resistor).


Can you explain what your talking about with this upgrade.. I'm lost.

Buy a short XLR cable (a foot or two). Open up the male XLR connector, and
carefully solder a 681 ohm resistor between pins 2 and 3, without detaching
the wires that are already there. (You'll need to snip off the resistor
leads kind of short.) Reassemble the cable. If you have a volt-ohmmeter,
check to make sure there's still continuity between the M and F plugs, on
all three pins, and that you now measure 681 ohms (give or take 1%) between
pins 2 and 3, and neither connects to pin 1.

To use, insert between the SM57's cable and the mic preamp or mixer. (It's
probably easiest at the preamp/mixer end rather than the mic end of the
cable.) This loads the microphone with about 500 ohms rather than the
1200-2500 ohms of most modern gear. The SM57 was basically designed in the
1930s-1940s, when most stuff (including mic preamps) had a 600 ohm or lower
input impedance. Unlike modern microphones, the SM57 and its siblings (SM58,
SM56 and SM7) perform best into that lower impedance; it damps the motion of
the capsule in the way Ben Bauer intended, and you get a lot less ringing
and hashy distortion at the top end. You'll be, I think, pleased at the
improvement in the microphone's sound. Especially considering the price.

Peace,
Paul

[adam79]

Paul Stamler wrote:
"adam79" wrote in message
net...
Also include in the budget ten bucks or so to make a Gizmo for loading
the
SM57 (short XLR-XLR cable and a 681 ohm MF resistor).

Can you explain what your talking about with this upgrade.. I'm lost.

Buy a short XLR cable (a foot or two). Open up the male XLR connector, and
carefully solder a 681 ohm resistor between pins 2 and 3, without detaching
the wires that are already there. (You'll need to snip off the resistor
leads kind of short.) Reassemble the cable. If you have a volt-ohmmeter,
check to make sure there's still continuity between the M and F plugs, on
all three pins, and that you now measure 681 ohms (give or take 1%) between
pins 2 and 3, and neither connects to pin 1.

To use, insert between the SM57's cable and the mic preamp or mixer. (It's
probably easiest at the preamp/mixer end rather than the mic end of the
cable.) This loads the microphone with about 500 ohms rather than the
1200-2500 ohms of most modern gear. The SM57 was basically designed in the
1930s-1940s, when most stuff (including mic preamps) had a 600 ohm or lower
input impedance. Unlike modern microphones, the SM57 and its siblings (SM58,
SM56 and SM7) perform best into that lower impedance; it damps the motion of
the capsule in the way Ben Bauer intended, and you get a lot less ringing
and hashy distortion at the top end. You'll be, I think, pleased at the
improvement in the microphone's sound. Especially considering the price.

Peace,
Paul



since the mic is running at a lower ohm level then the mic-pre is
expecting does it put additional strain on the mic-pre (i.e. how using a
power soak between an amp and cabinet puts strain on the amp's power
transformer)?

thanks.

[Richard Crowley]

"adam79" wrote ...
since the mic is running at a lower ohm level then the mic-pre is
expecting does it put additional strain on the mic-pre (i.e. how using a
power soak between an amp and cabinet puts strain on the amp's power
transformer)?

Since the mic is driving a much lower impedance than a typical
mic preamp represents, one could say that it puts "additional strain"
on the microphone. But that "additional strain" is what you are
going for when you put a load on it.

And since the output from the mic (with the additional load) is
likely lower than without the load, one could say that there is
"additional strain" on the mic preamp to provide a bit more
gain to make up for the lower mic output. But, given the
typical use of these microphones for the usual kinds of music
levels, it hardly seems like anything worth giving a second thought.

[Paul Stamler]

"adam79" wrote in message
net...

since the mic is running at a lower ohm level then the mic-pre is
expecting does it put additional strain on the mic-pre (i.e. how using a
power soak between an amp and cabinet puts strain on the amp's power
transformer)?

None at all. The mic pre isn't driving the mic; the mic is driving the pre.

Nothing *at all* will be strained by the Gizmo.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:

since the mic is running at a lower ohm level then the mic-pre is
expecting does it put additional strain on the mic-pre (i.e. how using a
power soak between an amp and cabinet puts strain on the amp's power
transformer)?

The microphone is seeing the load that IT expects. The preamp doesn't
care what the source impedance is because the preamp impedance is very
high.

The current involved with this stuff is very low. You can put a dead
short across the mike and not damage it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"adam79" wrote ...
since the mic is running at a lower ohm level then the mic-pre is
expecting does it put additional strain on the mic-pre (i.e. how using a
power soak between an amp and cabinet puts strain on the amp's power
transformer)?

Since the mic is driving a much lower impedance than a typical
mic preamp represents, one could say that it puts "additional strain"
on the microphone. But that "additional strain" is what you are
going for when you put a load on it.

No, the mike is designed to drive a 600 ohm load, because it was designed
back in the days when preamps had input transformers. Putting the shunt
resistor on there makes the microphone see the load that it was originally
designed to drive.
--scott

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

[david correia]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
"adam79" wrote ...
since the mic is running at a lower ohm level then the mic-pre is
expecting does it put additional strain on the mic-pre (i.e. how using a
power soak between an amp and cabinet puts strain on the amp's power
transformer)?

Since the mic is driving a much lower impedance than a typical
mic preamp represents, one could say that it puts "additional strain"
on the microphone. But that "additional strain" is what you are
going for when you put a load on it.

No, the mike is designed to drive a 600 ohm load, because it was designed
back in the days when preamps had input transformers. Putting the shunt
resistor on there makes the microphone see the load that it was originally
designed to drive.
--scott

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




So how does it sound different with this impedance change?





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Paul Stamler]

"david correia" wrote in message
...

So how does it sound different with this impedance change?

The big difference I heard was less hashy distortion, particularly up top.
It was still bright, but without the wiry sound it can have at higher
impedances. Transient response seemed a lot better.

Peace,
Paul

[adam79]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The microphone is seeing the load that IT expects. The preamp doesn't
care what the source impedance is because the preamp impedance is very
high.

The current involved with this stuff is very low. You can put a dead
short across the mike and not damage it.

That makes sense.. thanks for making me understand this better.

[Scott Dorsey]

david correia wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

No, the mike is designed to drive a 600 ohm load, because it was designed
back in the days when preamps had input transformers. Putting the shunt
resistor on there makes the microphone see the load that it was originally
designed to drive.

So how does it sound different with this impedance change?

Top end is a lot smoother. It sounds less "electronic." Try it, it's five
minutes to add the shunt and it's like having a different mike altogether
if you're limited to transformerless preamps.
--scott

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