[John Hardy]

On 10/31/2008 4:51 PM, Eeyore wrote:

John Hardy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.
I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

Clever use of Google yields results. I had to use a cached page to get there
though..
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Unidyne-...:B:SRCH:US:101

Looks like 3 pins. I think the 4 pin models were dual impedance.

Graham


I may have been thinking of the connector on the 55SW, the first mics I
ever bought in 1965. They were definitely dual-impedance. The DY45G is
obviously a single-impedance model since the signal comes directly from
the capsule with no transformer to provide more than one impedance.

I checked Google too. Apparently the DY45G comes up for sale now and then.

They sounded fairly good (what did I know in 1970), and they probably
had a lower output level than the models with the transformer because
the transformer stepped the impedance, and therefore the level, up. The
lower output level probably helped to avoid or reduce input overload of
the mic preamps in the Altec 1567 mixer that the group had.

John Hardy

[liquidator[_2_]]

"John Hardy" wrote in message
...
On 10/31/2008 3:18 PM, Eeyore wrote:

RD Jones wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.
They still use a transformer, so that's the same.

WHY do they do that ? I'm sure with ultra close miking (try stopping a
vocalist) and proximity effect it overloads the transformer and gives
that
gutless grungey sound.

I've been tempted to mod one to bypass the TX.

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter. I
have
one somewhere, one of only 2 US mics I own. The other is EV.


They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I
loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?
Yeah, they sound pretty much similar, just a bit brighter.

Brighter sounds good esp the way so many 'engineers' mix to phone line
quality these days.


The main difference is that the Betas are claimed to be supercardiod.
A tighter pattern couldn't hurt but the SM's are so wide that,
well ...

Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors
where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

Graham

I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

John Hardy

545 and 57 are essentially the same mic.

In the old days, supposedly the 57 guts were "hand selected".

That claim has long gone by the wayside, and the same part is listed as
replacement for both.

They made it grey instead of chrome, so it was cheaper to make, then
charged more for it. A great example of "less is more".

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
RD Jones wrote:

They still use a transformer, so that's the same.

WHY do they do that ? I'm sure with ultra close miking (try stopping a
vocalist) and proximity effect it overloads the transformer and gives that
gutless grungey sound.

Because if they didn't do it, the coil on the element would need to have
a lot more turns. This means either it will be heavier or easier to
damage.

The transformer allows you to lighten up the coil and still have a reasonable
output impedance. Having the transformer isn't a bad thing. The problem
is that the transformer is a rotten one.

I do think the diaphragm motion will become nonlinear long before the
transformer core saturates, even at low frequencies, though.

I've been tempted to mod one to bypass the TX.

Do it, it's very interesting. The output is much lower, and it gets
brighter because it rings more. It's a very popular thing to do for
drums.

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter. I have
one somewhere, one of only 2 US mics I own. The other is EV.

Is the element the same as the 57? It would be worth seeing if it
has a heavier coil on it.

Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

This is not a problem if the monitors are laid out right and the performers
know about the rear lobe. This is easy if you are working with the same
performers all the time, it's hard if you have five minutes for a soundcheck
with a band you've never seen before.with a band you've never seen before.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

But by "clean" I think the difference is more in the top end response
above the presence peak than in the distortion characteristic.

LMAO !

I had an argument once with George Gleason over the meaning of 'clean'. My
definition is the same as yours.

I think he said it meant better s/n ratio or some other nonsense.

Cleanliness can be a lot of things, and it could well be lower distortion,
better top end extension, or it sometimes could be an artificial thing
caused by high order even harmonic distortion. Could also be lower noise
floor, too.

That's the problem with these fairly poorly-defined terms.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[liquidator[_2_]]

"John Hardy" wrote in message
...
On 10/31/2008 4:51 PM, Eeyore wrote:
They sounded fairly good (what did I know in 1970), and they probably
had a lower output level than the models with the transformer because
the transformer stepped the impedance, and therefore the level, up. The
lower output level probably helped to avoid or reduce input overload of
the mic preamps in the Altec 1567 mixer that the group had.



Can you believe what that old Altec-especially the tube stuff- brings these
days?

I listed two of the old tube compressors a bit back on FleaBay- it was like
throwing meat to sharks.
John Hardy

[John Hardy]

On 11/1/2008 2:21 AM, liquidator wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 10/31/2008 4:51 PM, Eeyore wrote:
They sounded fairly good (what did I know in 1970), and they probably
had a lower output level than the models with the transformer because
the transformer stepped the impedance, and therefore the level, up. The
lower output level probably helped to avoid or reduce input overload of
the mic preamps in the Altec 1567 mixer that the group had.



Can you believe what that old Altec-especially the tube stuff- brings these
days?

I listed two of the old tube compressors a bit back on FleaBay- it was like
throwing meat to sharks.
John Hardy


Two of them are on Ebay now. One has been bid to $399, the other is a
Buy It Now at $1200 but no bids. Ebay is a strange place some times.

John Hardy

[Ron Johnson]

John Hardy wrote:
On 10/31/2008 3:18 PM, Eeyore wrote:

RD Jones wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.
They still use a transformer, so that's the same.

WHY do they do that ? I'm sure with ultra close miking (try stopping a
vocalist) and proximity effect it overloads the transformer and gives
that
gutless grungey sound.

I've been tempted to mod one to bypass the TX.

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter. I
have
one somewhere, one of only 2 US mics I own. The other is EV.


They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?
Yeah, they sound pretty much similar, just a bit brighter.

Brighter sounds good esp the way so many 'engineers' mix to phone line
quality these days.


The main difference is that the Betas are claimed to be supercardiod.
A tighter pattern couldn't hurt but the SM's are so wide that,
well ...

Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors
where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

Graham

I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

That`s right, the screw on ring held the connector to the mike body,
but there was sweet FA to hold the cable into the connector! I think
they were available as dual impedance, hence the four pin connector.

Ron(UK)

[Ron Johnson]

liquidator wrote:
"John Hardy" wrote in message
...
On 10/31/2008 3:18 PM, Eeyore wrote:
RD Jones wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.
They still use a transformer, so that's the same.
WHY do they do that ? I'm sure with ultra close miking (try stopping a
vocalist) and proximity effect it overloads the transformer and gives
that
gutless grungey sound.

I've been tempted to mod one to bypass the TX.

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter. I
have
one somewhere, one of only 2 US mics I own. The other is EV.


They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I
loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?
Yeah, they sound pretty much similar, just a bit brighter.
Brighter sounds good esp the way so many 'engineers' mix to phone line
quality these days.


The main difference is that the Betas are claimed to be supercardiod.
A tighter pattern couldn't hurt but the SM's are so wide that,
well ...
Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors
where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

Graham

I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

John Hardy

545 and 57 are essentially the same mic.

In the old days, supposedly the 57 guts were "hand selected".

That claim has long gone by the wayside, and the same part is listed as
replacement for both.

They made it grey instead of chrome, so it was cheaper to make, then
charged more for it. A great example of "less is more".


Back in the 70`s, I used to buy 545 capsules from the wholesalers for
£18, and make my own 'handles'. The replacement capsule was everything
apart from the metal shaft and switch/connector. I made a set of drum
mikes that way. Sadly someone cottoned on to what I was doing and the
wholesalers claimed that Shure stopped supplying replacement parts.

Ron(UK)

[Eeyore]

Ron Johnson wrote:

liquidator wrote:
"John Hardy" wrote

I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

545 and 57 are essentially the same mic.

In the old days, supposedly the 57 guts were "hand selected".

That claim has long gone by the wayside, and the same part is listed as
replacement for both.

They made it grey instead of chrome, so it was cheaper to make, then
charged more for it. A great example of "less is more".

Back in the 70`s, I used to buy 545 capsules from the wholesalers for
£18, and make my own 'handles'. The replacement capsule was everything
apart from the metal shaft and switch/connector. I made a set of drum
mikes that way. Sadly someone cottoned on to what I was doing and the
wholesalers claimed that Shure stopped supplying replacement parts.

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact. Both sounded sweet. So
really, apart from the fancy handle and *more easily damaged* grille on the
1200 (had to replace several) plus the BMS 'tone' switch, a D190 was as good as
a 1200.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore the terminal ****WIT "


Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.


** The identical capsule was also inside their D707 and D140 too.

The 16mm dia VC diaphragm from their antique D19 was used in **ALL**
them - including the famous D12 " bass mic" - where it was a
replaceable item.

Due to its extreme delicacy and 200 ohm resistance - the failure rate on
al these models was very high.

AKG shure were lazy ****s !!!

Pun fully intended ....

See ABSE for pic of replacement D19 diaphragm



...... Phil

[Andre Majorel]

On 2008-10-30, geoff wrote:
Paul Stamler wrote:

They're night and day different. The Beta57a, at least, has a
significantly flatter published response than the SM57. It's also a
much, much cleaner-sounding mic, without the high-end spittiness of
the SM57. It doesn't care much about load impedance, indicating that
the damping is mechanical rather than electrical,

But the hi-end spittiness of the 57 can easily be tamed,
electro-mechanically !

What are you refering to ? 600 ohm resistor across the hot and
cold terminals or something else ?

--
André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not
the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists -- Abbie Hoffman.

[George's Pro Sound Company]

the 545 was the standard for AV rentalhouses
most of us bought it with the switch
George

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

But by "clean" I think the difference is more in the top end response
above the presence peak than in the distortion characteristic.

LMAO !

I had an argument once with George Gleason over the meaning of 'clean'. My
definition is the same as yours.

I think he said it meant better s/n ratio or some other nonsense.

Cleanliness can be a lot of things, and it could well be lower distortion,
better top end extension, or it sometimes could be an artificial thing
caused by high order even harmonic distortion. Could also be lower noise
floor, too.

That's the problem with these fairly poorly-defined terms.
--scott

and my position was and is in refence to a live sound mic, cleaner means
less noise, which any dynamic has just about zero, and they all are
essentially equal
if one is trying to say flatter response why not just say flatter response,
that term is not ambiguous to anyone
George

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

and my position was and is in refence to a live sound mic, cleaner means
less noise, which any dynamic has just about zero, and they all are
essentially equal

I would tend to agree sort of, and disagree completely at the same time.

I'd agree that in a live situation, most of what "clean" means is indeed
noise... but in a live sound situation there's a huge amount of noise and
it's mostly leakage. So I would say that "cleanliness" means having a
tight pattern and being accurate across that pattern.

if one is trying to say flatter response why not just say flatter response,
that term is not ambiguous to anyone

Flatter response where? On axis? To the left? In back?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

and my position was and is in refence to a live sound mic, cleaner means
less noise, which any dynamic has just about zero, and they all are
essentially equal

I would tend to agree sort of, and disagree completely at the same time.

I'd agree that in a live situation, most of what "clean" means is indeed
noise... but in a live sound situation there's a huge amount of noise and
it's mostly leakage. So I would say that "cleanliness" means having a
tight pattern and being accurate across that pattern.

if one is trying to say flatter response why not just say flatter
response,
that term is not ambiguous to anyone

Flatter response where? On axis? To the left? In back?

And my meaning, when I said several posts ago that the Beta is cleaner than
the SM, was that it has lower distortion across the band, including the
ringing spittiness up top. Listen to them next to each other, and the Beta
is far clearer-sounding, less muddled.

Peace,
Paul

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

Cleanliness can be a lot of things, and it could well be lower
distortion, better top end extension, or it sometimes could be an
artificial thing caused by high order even harmonic distortion. Could
also be lower noise floor, too.

and my position was and is in refence to a live sound mic, cleaner
means less noise, which any dynamic has just about zero, and they all
are essentially equal
if one is trying to say flatter response why not just say flatter
response, that term is not ambiguous to anyone

I'd say cleaner implies less delayed resonances.

George

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore the terminal ****WIT "

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

** The identical capsule was also inside their D707 and D140 too.

Fine. I never had occasion to use either of those so had no interest in the
matter.


The 16mm dia VC diaphragm from their antique D19 was used in **ALL**
them - including the famous D12 " bass mic" - where it was a
replaceable item.

I didn't know that. It was always promoted as a 'large capsule'. The actual
capsule design was totally different.

BTW, the D12 sounds *awesome* on brass. Kick drum is a total waste of one.


Due to its extreme delicacy and 200 ohm resistance - the failure rate on
al these models was very high.

I did god knows how many hundreds of gigs with 190s and 1200s and they were
well abused. I had to replace more 1200 grilles than either type of capsule.


AKG shure were lazy ****s !!!

Really ? I found their support first class beyond belief and the product first
class. Plus spares were inexpensive.


Pun fully intended ....

See ABSE for pic of replacement D19 diaphragm

My apologies in advance for contradicting you there. I read it as capsule in
my mind as opposed to diaphragm. Didn't even know you could get the diaphragms
separately.

Graham

[Eeyore]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

the 545 was the standard for AV rentalhouses

Not in the UK of course.


most of us bought it with the switch

Why ? I HATE switches on mics.

"why's that mic dead ?" turns up the gain. Followed by blast of
howl-round as the tit vocalist realises he'd switched it off.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

the 545 was the standard for AV rentalhouses

Not in the UK of course.


most of us bought it with the switch

Why ? I HATE switches on mics.

"why's that mic dead ?" turns up the gain. Followed by blast of
howl-round as the tit vocalist realises he'd switched it off.


** Some users insist on having a switch - like MDs at events and
presentations.

Plus - Shure models with such switches are designed so you can easily lock
the switch on the " on " position.

BTW

It ain't a real switch - just an actuator with a magnet inside that closes
an internal reed switch to silence the output.



...... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

the 545 was the standard for AV rentalhouses

Not in the UK of course.

most of us bought it with the switch

Why ? I HATE switches on mics.

"why's that mic dead ?" turns up the gain. Followed by blast of
howl-round as the tit vocalist realises he'd switched it off.

** Some users insist on having a switch - like MDs at events and
presentations.

You can 'sort of' trust them though. You can't trust bands.


Plus - Shure models with such switches are designed so you can easily lock
the switch on the " on " position.

Better design.


BTW

It ain't a real switch - just an actuator with a magnet inside that closes
an internal reed switch to silence the output.

I've seen plenty that just short 2 to 3 directly. AT for example IIRC.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

the 545 was the standard for AV rentalhouses

Not in the UK of course.

most of us bought it with the switch

Why ? I HATE switches on mics.

"why's that mic dead ?" turns up the gain. Followed by blast of
howl-round as the tit vocalist realises he'd switched it off.

** Some users insist on having a switch - like MDs at events and
presentations.

You can 'sort of' trust them though. You can't trust bands.


Plus - Shure models with such switches are designed so you can easily
lock
the switch on the " on " position.

Better design.


BTW

It ain't a real switch - just an actuator with a magnet inside that
closes
an internal reed switch to silence the output.

I've seen plenty that just short 2 to 3 directly. AT for example IIRC.


** Err - what brand and type mic was I speaking about ????

You context shifting, ASD ****ed pommy ****.




..... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Phil Allison"

** Some users insist on having a switch - like MDs at events and
presentations.


** That should be " MCs " ......




...... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

the 545 was the standard for AV rentalhouses

Not in the UK of course.

most of us bought it with the switch

Why ? I HATE switches on mics.

"why's that mic dead ?" turns up the gain. Followed by blast of
howl-round as the tit vocalist realises he'd switched it off.

** Some users insist on having a switch - like MDs at events and
presentations.

You can 'sort of' trust them though. You can't trust bands.

Plus - Shure models with such switches are designed so you can easily
lock the switch on the " on " position.

Better design.


BTW

It ain't a real switch - just an actuator with a magnet inside that
closes an internal reed switch to silence the output.

I've seen plenty that just short 2 to 3 directly. AT for example IIRC.

** Err - what brand and type mic was I speaking about ????

You context shifting, ASD ****ed pommy ****.

For God's sake grow up !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Phil Allison"

** Some users insist on having a switch - like MDs at events and
presentations.

** That should be " MCs " ......

I gathered so.

Graham

[Geoff]

Eeyore wrote:
..

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter.

Does it have the same 32Rish voicecoil as the 57 ?

geoff

[Geoff]

Eeyore wrote:

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

Well they did try very hard to hide the fact, given that the part number for
each capsule is the same - 1755Z0028 - and costs the same.

geoff

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

Well they did try very hard to hide the fact, given that the part number
for each capsule is the same - 1755Z0028 - and costs the same.

geoff

could be why allakg mics sound thefreaking same
flaT and lifeless
george

[Geoff]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules
were identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

Well they did try very hard to hide the fact, given that the part
number for each capsule is the same - 1755Z0028 - and costs the same.

geoff

could be why allakg mics sound thefreaking same
flaT and lifeless
george

Some people prefer a mic to not impose a life of it's own on a voice.
Particlarly if it is a miserable life.

geoff

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules
were identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

Well they did try very hard to hide the fact, given that the part
number for each capsule is the same - 1755Z0028 - and costs the same.

geoff

could be why allakg mics sound thefreaking same
flaT and lifeless
george

Some people prefer a mic to not impose a life of it's own on a voice.
Particlarly if it is a miserable life.

geoff
and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is properly
applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to have
dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant, bre ir a
lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you like and
insist that its the only tool everyone should use
George

[Tony[_11_]]

Wish I'd known all that years ago. Had several D707C mics (much cheaper than D190s etc,
but very fragile), lost 2 when I tried to clean up the stubborn smell with alcohol, but
dissolved something in the diaphragms. Still have 2 or 3 left somewhere - must try out on
brass.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:03:03 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore the terminal ****WIT "

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

** The identical capsule was also inside their D707 and D140 too.
The 16mm dia VC diaphragm from their antique D19 was used in **ALL**
them - including the famous D12 " bass mic" - where it was a
replaceable item.

I didn't know that. It was always promoted as a 'large capsule'. The actual
capsule design was totally different.

BTW, the D12 sounds *awesome* on brass. Kick drum is a total waste of one.

Due to its extreme delicacy and 200 ohm resistance - the failure rate on
al these models was very high.

I did god knows how many hundreds of gigs with 190s and 1200s and they were
well abused. I had to replace more 1200 grilles than either type of capsule.

AKG shure were lazy ****s !!!

Really ? I found their support first class beyond belief and the product first
class. Plus spares were inexpensive.

Pun fully intended ....

See ABSE for pic of replacement D19 diaphragm

My apologies in advance for contradicting you there. I read it as capsule in
my mind as opposed to diaphragm. Didn't even know you could get the diaphragms
separately.

Graham

[Eeyore]

geoff wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
.

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter.

Does it have the same 32Rish voicecoil as the 57 ?

Sorry, mistake on my part. I meant SM48 vs SM58.

You know how the SM58 has that grrreat dip around 7kHz ? Totally absent
from the 48 !

Check out the Shure website and get the expanded freq resp graphs. I'd post
the links myself, but I'm a bit busy right now.

It would be nice if they did an equivalent '47 too in fact. The SM48 model
is significantly less expensive and looks almost identical. Mere detail
differences. And it sounds so much cleaner, no transformer you see, and
flatter (if you can call it that !) response.

Graham

[Eeyore]

geoff wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

Well they did try very hard to hide the fact, given that the part number for
each capsule is the same - 1755Z0028 - and costs the same.

Neat since if you get a 1200 field failure, in 5 mins you can sub a 190 capsule
from a spare mic. Then again the 190 doesn't sound much different anyway. The
most under-rated mic AKG ever made. It's a gem. I sold dozens of them and a
female duo even wrote back to say thanks and how much it had transformed their
set !

Graham

[Eeyore]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

"geoff" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules were
identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

Well they did try very hard to hide the fact, given that the part number
for each capsule is the same - 1755Z0028 - and costs the same.

could be why allakg mics sound thefreaking same
flaT and lifeless

I certainly wouldn't call them that. Clean, clear and precise is how I'd
describe those mics. No good for 'grunge' of course.

Mind you, lately they've been trying to copy the Shure response curves which
has probably ****ed them horribly.

Hint. Stop using D12s on kick (I think they're crap there) and put them on
brass. Your toes will positively curl at the results.

Graham

[Eeyore]

geoff wrote:

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
"geoff" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

Since you mention it, I discovered that D190E and D1200E capsules
were identical but AKG made no attempt to hide the fact.

Well they did try very hard to hide the fact, given that the part
number for each capsule is the same - 1755Z0028 - and costs the same.

could be why allakg mics sound thefreaking same
flaT and lifeless

Some people prefer a mic to not impose a life of it's own on a voice.
Particlarly if it is a miserable life.

Well said Geoff. What was that about bees btw ?

Of course if mics are accurate they all WILL sound the same ! I thought the
desk EQ was there to do tonal treatment ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

after all mics are not voiced by accident

I suspect Shures are ! They simply can't make anything better.

Any required 'voicing' can be be done with decent desk EQ.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Tony wrote:

Wish I'd known all that years ago. Had several D707C mics (much cheaper than D190s etc,
but very fragile), lost 2 when I tried to clean up the stubborn smell with alcohol, but
dissolved something in the diaphragms. Still have 2 or 3 left somewhere - must try out on
brass.

Will probably sound moderately decent on brass. Keep a good distance, brass puts out enormous
SPLs. But I've never heard anything beat a D12 on brass (except Neumanns probably). Maybe it's
that enclosure ? Shiny side to the source don't forget.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Tony"

Wish I'd known all that years ago. Had several D707C mics (much cheaper
than D190s etc,
but very fragile), lost 2 when I tried to clean up the stubborn smell with
alcohol, but
dissolved something in the diaphragms. Still have 2 or 3 left somewhere -
must try out on
brass.


** Why is that ????

They are not *anything* like the same.


BTW:

Only reason LARGE mics are "good for brass" is that the half witted ****
blowing the damn thing is FORCED to keep the bell a bit further back than
with small vocal mics.

100% fact.



...... Phil

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

after all mics are not voiced by accident

I suspect Shures are ! They simply can't make anything
better.

Oh, Shure can make better mics and they do. A lot of what the SM57/58 is,
depends on the state of the art way back when this mic first hit the market,
which was decades ago. The mic is probably an embarassment to everybody at
Shure but the accounting department. ;-)

Any required 'voicing' can be be done with decent desk EQ.

Pretty much, given that the mic is reasonably flat. One thing you can't
equalize into a mic is its directivity. One of the serious problems with
many mics is how different they sound off-axis. In most real-world
situations two mics with very similar on-axis response, but different
directivity or different off-axis response do sound very different.

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Tony"

Wish I'd known all that years ago. Had several D707C mics (much cheaper
than D190s etc,
but very fragile), lost 2 when I tried to clean up the stubborn smell with
alcohol, but
dissolved something in the diaphragms. Still have 2 or 3 left somewhere -
must try out on
brass.

** Why is that ????

They are not *anything* like the same.

BTW:

Only reason LARGE mics are "good for brass" is that the half witted ****
blowing the damn thing is FORCED to keep the bell a bit further back than
with small vocal mics.

100% fact.

Brass can produce some awesone wavefronts. I'll post the AES ? article in abse.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

after all mics are not voiced by accident

I suspect Shures are ! They simply can't make anything
better.

Oh, Shure can make better mics and they do. A lot of what the SM57/58 is,
depends on the state of the art way back when this mic first hit the market,
which was decades ago. The mic is probably an embarassment to everybody at
Shure but the accounting department. ;-)

I rather agree. Don't they make them in Mexico now ?


Any required 'voicing' can be be done with decent desk EQ.

Pretty much, given that the mic is reasonably flat.

Like AKG ! Or Beyer or Sennheiser or Neumann, even some EVs !


One thing you can't
equalize into a mic is its directivity. One of the serious problems with
many mics is how different they sound off-axis. In most real-world
situations two mics with very similar on-axis response, but different
directivity or different off-axis response do sound very different.

Yes, and can be a bugger with stage monitors.

Graham