RCA BK11?

[[email protected]]

Anyone here ever used or heard one? Wasn't this RCA's last great
"flagship" ribbon? Never hear it mentioned at all strangely. How does
it compare to the venerable greats like the RCA 44 / 77 / Coles 4038?
Any opinions much appreciated, thanks!

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

wrote:
> Anyone here ever used or heard one? Wasn't this RCA's last great
> "flagship" ribbon? Never hear it mentioned at all strangely. How does
> it compare to the venerable greats like the RCA 44 / 77 / Coles 4038?
> Any opinions much appreciated, thanks!

The BK-11A is somewhat a successor to the 44-BX. It is bidirectional and
has better frequency response. You can hear a brief test and see total
documentation at http://www.coutant.org/bk11/index.html .

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

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Anyone here ever used or heard one? Wasn't this RCA's last great
>"flagship" ribbon? Never hear it mentioned at all strangely. How does
>it compare to the venerable greats like the RCA 44 / 77 / Coles 4038?
>Any opinions much appreciated, thanks!

Sure, I use them all the time. They have more top end detail and are
cleaner off-axis than a 77DX. Generally a much more accurate microphone.
The pattern is better than a 44, and way better than a 77DX, giving them
much better gain before feedback in a PA application too.

It has higher output and lower noise than anything else RCA ever made
although it still is improved with a Lundahl transformer replacing the
original RCA one.

It also has more accurate top end response and more detail than anything
RCA made before it, although less than the Coles 4040.

I found the Coles 4038 to be almost unusable because of the poor top end,
but that may just be me.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-03 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>Anyone here ever used or heard one? Wasn't this RCA's last great
>>"flagship" ribbon? Never hear it mentioned at all strangely. How
>Sure, I use them all the time. They have more top end detail and
>are cleaner off-axis than a 77DX. Generally a much more accurate
>microphone. The pattern is better than a 44, and way better than a
>77DX, giving them much better gain before feedback in a PA
>application too.
>It has higher output and lower noise than anything else RCA ever
>made although it still is improved with a Lundahl transformer
>replacing the original RCA one.
>It also has more accurate top end response and more detail than
>anything RCA made before it, although less than the Coles 4040.
>I found the Coles 4038 to be almost unusable because of the poor
>top end, but that may just be me.
SO what do you think of it in an m/s application. I know
I'm still adding to the mic locker here, and we were both
discussing good choices for this application as well.
WOuld like your thoughts on this mic for it.

regards,



Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>On 2007-12-03 (ScottDorsey) said:
> >>Anyone here ever used or heard one? Wasn't this RCA's last great
> >>"flagship" ribbon? Never hear it mentioned at all strangely. How
> >Sure, I use them all the time. They have more top end detail and
> >are cleaner off-axis than a 77DX. Generally a much more accurate
> >microphone. The pattern is better than a 44, and way better than a
> >77DX, giving them much better gain before feedback in a PA
> >application too.
> >It has higher output and lower noise than anything else RCA ever
> >made although it still is improved with a Lundahl transformer
> >replacing the original RCA one.
> >It also has more accurate top end response and more detail than
> >anything RCA made before it, although less than the Coles 4040.
> >I found the Coles 4038 to be almost unusable because of the poor
> >top end, but that may just be me.
>
>SO what do you think of it in an m/s application. I know
>I'm still adding to the mic locker here, and we were both
>discussing good choices for this application as well.
>WOuld like your thoughts on this mic for it.

Never really tried it. I have used the 77DX as a side mike with a condenser
mid microphone... because high frequencies are picked up poorly by the side
mike, higher pitched sounds collapse toward the center of the soundstage.

I think the BK-11 would be better in that regard, but it still would tend
to take place unless you used a microphone with a similar response (maybe
a BK-5) as the center mike. And then you run into proximity issues because
the mikes are too big to get the M and S elements right up against one
another.

I'd sooner go the M130/M160 route.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-03 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>SO what do you think of it in an m/s application. I know
>>I'm still adding to the mic locker here, and we were both
>>discussing good choices for this application as well.
>>WOuld like your thoughts on this mic for it.
>Never really tried it. I have used the 77DX as a side mike with a
>condenser mid microphone... because high frequencies are picked up
>poorly by the side mike, higher pitched sounds collapse toward the
>center of the soundstage.
>I think the BK-11 would be better in that regard, but it still
>would tend to take place unless you used a microphone with a
>similar response (maybe a BK-5) as the center mike. And then you
>run into proximity issues because the mikes are too big to get the
>M and S elements right up against one another.
>I'd sooner go the M130/M160 route.
Yep, that's what I"m thinking of for this app. tHanksfor
the good answer.



Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.