Mic Question

[adam79]

I was talking with someone at a store that rents mics. I asked to rent a
RE20 for tracking a kick drum. He said that older mics, like the RE20,
and others (421s, etc) were made to work with the older analog boards
that had transformers in the mic pres. He went on to say that these mics
don't work well with mic-pres that don't have transformers (which my
MBox2 would fall under). He said alot of stuff in a short period of
time; he was kinda loopy. But one thing that stuck out was his comment
about how the new Chinese mics that are made for specific applications
will outperform U-47s (and mics of those caliber), even when they're
connected to the most quality Neve consoles. I really don't know what to
make of this guy's "recording tips."

The comment he made about certain older mics not working to their full
potential without mic pres w/ transformers caught my interest; I wanted
to run it by you guys and see your comments.

-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> The comment he made about certain older mics not working to their full
> potential without mic pres w/ transformers caught my interest; I wanted
> to run it by you guys and see your comments.

There are no fair generalizations. If you want a mic to
record a kick drum, tell him to give you an RE-20,
gawddamit! You'll like it. You won't ever know how it sounds
with a preamp that has an input transformer because you
don't have one.

It's true that the newer Chinese mics do tend to get
selected for specific purposes, but mostly that's because
the cheapest ones have some sort of frequency response or
pattern irregularity that makes them less worse for
particular sources. That's part of what makes them cheap.

--
"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

[PStamler]

On Aug 16, 7:08*pm, adam79 > wrote:
> I was talking with someone at a store that rents mics. I asked to rent a
> RE20 for tracking a kick drum. He said that older mics, like the RE20,
> and others (421s, etc) were made to work with the older analog boards
> that had transformers in the mic pres. He went on to say that these mics
> don't work well with mic-pres that don't have transformers (which my
> MBox2 would fall under). He said alot of stuff in a short period of
> time; he was kinda loopy. But one thing that stuck out was his comment
> about how the new Chinese mics that are made for specific applications
> will outperform U-47s (and mics of those caliber), even when they're
> connected to the most quality Neve consoles. I really don't know what to
> make of this guy's "recording tips."
>
> The comment he made about certain older mics not working to their full
> potential without mic pres w/ transformers caught my interest; I wanted
> to run it by you guys and see your comments.

To quote my late mother, if BS was electricity this guy would be a
powerhouse.

It's true that some dynamic mics are quite sensitive to loading, the
SM57 family being the prime example. However, the RE20 and MD421
aren't; they'll sound about the same into just about any load you hang
on them.

As for Chinese mics designed for specific apps outperforming U
47s...naah, not usually. There are a few very good Chinese mics out
there, but the U 47 is in a different class.

Peace,
Paul

[RD Jones]

On Aug 16, 7:08*pm, adam79 > wrote:
> I was talking with someone at a store that rents mics. I asked to rent a
> RE20 for tracking a kick drum. He said that older mics, like the RE20,
> and others (421s, etc) were made to work with the older analog boards
> that had transformers in the mic pres. He went on to say that these mics
> don't work well with mic-pres that don't have transformers (which my
> MBox2 would fall under). He said alot of stuff in a short period of
> time; he was kinda loopy. But one thing that stuck out was his comment
> about how the new Chinese mics that are made for specific applications
> will outperform U-47s (and mics of those caliber), even when they're
> connected to the most quality Neve consoles. I really don't know what to
> make of this guy's "recording tips."
>
> The comment he made about certain older mics not working to their full
> potential without mic pres w/ transformers caught my interest; I wanted
> to run it by you guys and see your comments.

I suspect he rents (and/or sells) mic preamps with transformers.

It's well known that the lowly SM57 can be made to sound quite
a bit better by proper loading, either resistively, or with a
transformer.
The reason is that the '57 has it's own transformer inside that's
intended to work into another at the other end of the line.
The RE20 also has a transformer, but it's somewhat less picky
about loading.

rd

[alex]

Il 17/08/2010 2.08, adam79 ha scritto:
> new Chinese mics that are made for specific applications will outperform
> U-47s (and mics of those caliber), even when they're connected to the
> most quality Neve consoles. I really don't know what to make of this
> guy's "recording tips."
once i tested a chinese mic that was aestetically VERY similar to the
u87. It doesn't sound "bad", but was impossible to do a good quality
comparision because the real BIG difference was the output level. The
u87 has about 20dB more of output than those "copies". So for that
chinese mic i tested you need a much cleaner (good) preamplifier as for
the real u87, because you have tou "push it up" much more.
So the u87 can work well with a cheap preamp, this "chinese" not.
The RE20 (once PL20) has been used for years on every type of pres with
wonderful results.

alex

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> once i tested a chinese mic that was aestetically VERY similar to the
> u87. It doesn't sound "bad", but was impossible to do a good quality
> comparision because the real BIG difference was the output level. The
> u87 has about 20dB more of output than those "copies".

This is a product of the huge number of inexperienced people
recording (and some that design audio equipment, too) today.
Before the day of the cheap condenser mic, those who sprung
for a "pro" condenser mic complained about how "hot" it was
compared to the dynamic PA mics they've been using with
their PortaStudios. The mic industry happily complied with
mics that had lower output level for a given SPL to match
the new gear that didn't have an input pad.

By the way, an RE20 is a relatively insensitive mic, perhaps
as much as 6 dB less output than an SM57 on the same source.
So if low output bothers you, you may not be happy in
general with an RE20 (though it's a great mic for vocals,
acoustic guitars, and brass) but you won't have any trouble
with it on a kick drum.



--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>I was talking with someone at a store that rents mics. I asked to rent a
>RE20 for tracking a kick drum. He said that older mics, like the RE20,
>and others (421s, etc) were made to work with the older analog boards
>that had transformers in the mic pres. He went on to say that these mics
>don't work well with mic-pres that don't have transformers (which my
>MBox2 would fall under). He said alot of stuff in a short period of
>time; he was kinda loopy. But one thing that stuck out was his comment
>about how the new Chinese mics that are made for specific applications
>will outperform U-47s (and mics of those caliber), even when they're
>connected to the most quality Neve consoles. I really don't know what to
>make of this guy's "recording tips."

A lot of microphones are sensitive to loading and benefit from either a
transformer input or a shunt resistor so that they see a 600 ohm load.
This includes the SM-57 and SM-58.

It does not include the RE-20, which is remarkably insensitive to loading.
I don't think it includes the 421.

>The comment he made about certain older mics not working to their full
>potential without mic pres w/ transformers caught my interest; I wanted
>to run it by you guys and see your comments.

The difference between the SM-57 unloaded and with a 600 ohm load is like
night and day.

On the OTHER hand, most ribbon mikes perform better with a high-Z load
and tend to work better into a modern transformerless input.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[slinkp]

On Aug 17, 8:31*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> The difference between the SM-57 unloaded and with a 600 ohm load is like
> night and day.

I've run into this comment a few times now, and I'm curious.
What specifically is affected by the loading? Frequency response?
Distortion? Something else?

- PW

[Scott Dorsey]

slinkp > wrote:
>On Aug 17, 8:31=A0am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> The difference between the SM-57 unloaded and with a 600 ohm load is like
>> night and day.
>
>I've run into this comment a few times now, and I'm curious.
>What specifically is affected by the loading? Frequency response?
>Distortion? Something else?

Both. The SM-57, like a lot of tightly-coupled high-efficiency dynamic
designs, relies on the load impedance to provide some of the damping for
the diaphragm. Without a load, the diaphragm bounces back and forth;
the resonant point of the system moves up, you get at least one additional
resonance, and the linearity is much poorer.

Stick a 600 ohm resistor into a barrel connector between pins 2 and 3, or
modify a cable. Cost you a couple bucks, and the improvement in sound
quality on a cheap console is phenomenal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:08:04 -0400, adam79 wrote
(in article >):

> the new Chinese mics that are made for specific applications will outperform
> U-47s (and mics of those caliber), even when they're connected to the most
> quality Neve consoles. I really don't know what to make of this guy's
> "recording tips."

That may be true if you're selling new chinese mics. :) Professionally, I've
found the great majority of the chinese mics have been made in ignorance of
how to make a mic without an irritating peak somewhere between 5k and 11 k.

> The comment he made about certain older mics not working to their full
> potential without mic pres w/ transformers caught my interest; I wanted to
> run it by you guys and see your comments.

I don't think you can make a global statement about all older mics. Older
mics with transformers versus older mics without transformers, versus older
mics that happen to have a 600 Ohm output impedance, versus older mics with
higher impedances, versus.....etc.

I do know from experience that some old and new mics like a transformer or a
transformer-like input. The AKG C414 (most of the 5 or so different versions)
and the TLM 103, for example, like old Neve preamps but they also do very
well into a GML, which is transformerless.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[adam79]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Stick a 600 ohm resistor into a barrel connector between pins 2 and 3, or
> modify a cable. Cost you a couple bucks, and the improvement in sound
> quality on a cheap console is phenomenal.
> --scott

Is there any kind of diagram on the web (that you could link me to) that
shows you how to do this in more detail? Are there adapters available
(for this purpose) that you can attach to the mic cable connector? Also,
I was looking up 600ohm resistors, and they come in different watts; how
many watts should the resistor be?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Stick a 600 ohm resistor into a barrel connector between pins 2 and 3, or
>> modify a cable. Cost you a couple bucks, and the improvement in sound
>> quality on a cheap console is phenomenal.
>
>Is there any kind of diagram on the web (that you could link me to) that
>shows you how to do this in more detail?

Probably not, but there is an article in Recording by Paul Stamler that
details it. It's not anything difficult, it's just a single resistor
between pins 2 and 3 of a cable or a straight-through barrel, so the
resistor is in parallel with the mike transformer output.

>Are there adapters available
>(for this purpose) that you can attach to the mic cable connector?

You can get a barrel connector that has a male on one and and a female
on the other. Markertek (or any other pro audio dealer) will stock them.
I don't remember the Switchcraft part number offhand.

Or you can use a cable, just make sure to mark it.


> Also,
>I was looking up 600ohm resistors, and they come in different watts; how
>many watts should the resistor be?

A 1/4 watt one is fine. 620 or 680 ohms are fine too, just needs to be
in the ballpark.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Stick a 600 ohm resistor into a barrel connector between pins 2 and 3, or
>> modify a cable.

> Is there any kind of diagram on the web (that you could link me to) that
> shows you how to do this in more detail?

There are two pins. If you look closely at the XLR
connector, you'll see a 1, 2, and a 3 which will tell you
which pins are which. The resistor has two leads. How hard
is that to figure out? Do you really need a diagram?

> Are there adapters available
> (for this purpose) that you can attach to the mic cable connector?

Unfortunately not off the shelf. There are people who will
make one for you however.

> I was looking up 600ohm resistors, and they come in different watts; how
> many watts should the resistor be?

1/4 watt is fine. Good question, though.

--
"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

[Agent 86]

He's a dumbass. Run, don't walk.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-17 said:
>He's a dumbass. Run, don't walk.

I'm with him Adam. Run as far away from the idiot at the
store as you can get when it comes to getting advice.
TOtally and utterly clueless.

hE's trying to sell you something else, and has
misinterpreted some talk he heard elsewhere, in order to do
it.

Be very scared if you follow advice from this guy.

Regards,





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On 2010-08-17 said:
> >He's a dumbass. Run, don't walk.
>
> I'm with him Adam. Run as far away from the idiot at the
> store as you can get when it comes to getting advice.
> TOtally and utterly clueless.
>
> hE's trying to sell you something else, and has
> misinterpreted some talk he heard elsewhere, in order to
> do it.
>
> Be very scared if you follow advice from this guy.

Agreed.

[adam79]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >He's a dumbass. Run, don't walk.
>>
>> I'm with him Adam. Run as far away from the idiot at the
>> store as you can get when it comes to getting advice.
>> TOtally and utterly clueless.
>>
>> hE's trying to sell you something else, and has
>> misinterpreted some talk he heard elsewhere, in order to
>> do it.
>>
>> Be very scared if you follow advice from this guy.
>
> Agreed.
>
>

Ok, cool.. I'm not the only one who thinks this guy is out of his mind!
Unfortunately, I still have to deal with him; he's the only local guy
that rents mics. I really want to rent the RE20, so I can use it for the
kick drum, and also experiment with it (I plan to buy it when I get the
cash). Although, he did say that he might not have a RE20 to lend. If
so, what would be a good next choice? I've never had a chance to
hear/play around with a 421.. would work well? Or should I just got for
an Audix D-6 or one of those frequency specific mics?

If my home studio project starts to get some clients, it'll probably be
mostly local punk/hardcore. Maybe this will help explain my mic choice.
I do, however, want to make sure that if the studio grows I have a
versatile kick mic that's good for more than one or two sounds.

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

mcnews wrote:
>
> http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/330.html

So you attach the resistor right on the pins? How does it connect to the
female connector with the resistor in the way?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> Ok, cool.. I'm not the only one who thinks this guy is out of his mind!
> Unfortunately, I still have to deal with him; he's the only local guy
> that rents mics. I really want to rent the RE20, so I can use it for the
> kick drum, and also experiment with it (I plan to buy it when I get the
> cash). Although, he did say that he might not have a RE20 to lend.

That could explain why he was more enthusiastic about
renting you something else. Most rental companies do rentals
by mail so if you don't have a good local rental house, you
can go elsewhere. You don't want to pay shipping on a 400
pound 24-track analog recorder for a day just to try it, but
shipping a mic is fairly cheap. A few reliable ones (all
have RE-20s, about $20/day) are:

http://www.audiorents.com/
http://www.dreamhire.com/
http://www.dfxaudio.com/

> what would be a good next choice? I've never had a chance to
> hear/play around with a 421.. would work well?

For kick drum? Sure.




--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

>> http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/330.html
>
> So you attach the resistor right on the pins? How does it connect to the
> female connector with the resistor in the way?

Oy! You take the connector apart and install the resistor
on the inside of the shell. To be precise, you're connecting
to the back end of the pin, not the part that mates with the
other connector. If you can't figure out how to disassemble
an XLR connector, you'd best get someone local to show you.
There are a number of different designs.


--
"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

[[email protected]]

ADam writes:
>>> Be very scared if you follow advice from this guy.
>> Agreed.
>Ok, cool.. I'm not the only one who thinks this guy is out of his
>mind! Unfortunately, I still have to deal with him; he's the only
>local guy that rents mics. I really want to rent the RE20, so I can
>use it for the kick drum, and also experiment with it (I plan to
>buy it when I get the cash). Although, he did say that he might not
>have a RE20 to lend. If so, what would be a good next choice? I've
>never had a chance to hear/play around with a 421.. would work
>well? Or should I just got for an Audix D-6 or one of those
>frequency specific mics?

I like the 421 myself, and I"m the guy who said "be very
scared ... " so I'll weigh in.
A 421 is a good one. IT's a good player for your mic
locker, has lots of uses. YOu can't go wrong with one.

>If my home studio project starts to get some clients, it'll
>probably be mostly local punk/hardcore. Maybe this will help
>explain my mic choice. I do, however, want to make sure that if the
>studio grows I have a versatile kick mic that's good for more than
>one or two sounds.
That's why I like the 421. IT's also a good vocals player
in the right circumstances, horns at times ...






Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, > wrote:
>
>I like the 421 myself, and I"m the guy who said "be very
>scared ... " so I'll weigh in.
>A 421 is a good one. IT's a good player for your mic
>locker, has lots of uses. YOu can't go wrong with one.

You CAN go wrong with one, by getting the 421 Mk II which is not actually
a 421 at all and really is a different microphone designed to look like a
421. Stay away from that.

But the real original 421 is a good mike on just about everything. And the
441 is just as good!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

On 20/08/2010 15:12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In > wrote:
>>
>> I like the 421 myself, and I"m the guy who said "be very
>> scared ... " so I'll weigh in.
>> A 421 is a good one. IT's a good player for your mic
>> locker, has lots of uses. YOu can't go wrong with one.
>
> You CAN go wrong with one, by getting the 421 Mk II which is not actually
> a 421 at all and really is a different microphone designed to look like a
> 421. Stay away from that.
>
> But the real original 421 is a good mike on just about everything. And the
> 441 is just as good!
> --scott
never heard about this mk2, do you mean the 521 which is similar in
shape to the 421 but without the "Musik-Stimme" ring?

[adam79]

That's what I figured; my last post was stupid. Thanks to all for your
patience w/ me.

-Adam

On 8/20/10 6:36 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>
>>> http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/330.html
>>
>> So you attach the resistor right on the pins? How does it connect to
>> the female connector with the resistor in the way?
>
> Oy! You take the connector apart and install the resistor on the inside
> of the shell. To be precise, you're connecting to the back end of the
> pin, not the part that mates with the other connector. If you can't
> figure out how to disassemble an XLR connector, you'd best get someone
> local to show you. There are a number of different designs.
>
>

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> never heard about this mk2, do you mean the 521 which is similar in
> shape to the 421 but without the "Musik-Stimme" ring?

No, the one that's currently sold as the 421-II
http://www.sennheiserusa.com/professional_wired-microphones_broadcast-eng-film_000984

Dunno the 521. Can't find it in the current on-line US
catalog or an older paper catalog that I have here.


--
"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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-20 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>A 421 is a good one. IT's a good player for your mic
>>locker, has lots of uses. YOu can't go wrong with one.
>You CAN go wrong with one, by getting the 421 Mk II which is not
>actually a 421 at all and really is a different microphone designed
>to look like a 421. Stay away from that.
>But the real original 421 is a good mike on just about everything.
>And the 441 is just as good!
YEp, make sure it's the older one, should've reminded him of
that as he's obviously a newbie and hasn't seen past
discussions here and elsewhere on the topic.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>never heard about this mk2, do you mean the 521 which is similar in
>shape to the 421 but without the "Musik-Stimme" ring?

Nope.

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/home_en.nsf/root/professional_wired-microphones_vocal-microphones_classic-dynamic-MD-421-II

At least they haven't wrecked the 441 yet.
--scott


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

[Preben Friis]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...

> Dunno the 521. Can't find it in the current on-line US catalog or an older
> paper catalog that I have here.

The 521 was part of the "Black Fire" series together with 531, 541, 509 etc.
Being from the 80'ies I think the 521 has the same capsule as the 421-II,
but mine is not very different from the old gray 421s. The polar plot in the
Black Fire catalog looks a bit different than the 421-II plot on the current
web site, but that might just be differences in marketing...

/Preben Friis

[Scott Dorsey]

Preben Friis > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Dunno the 521. Can't find it in the current on-line US catalog or an older
>> paper catalog that I have here.
>
>The 521 was part of the "Black Fire" series together with 531, 541, 509 etc.
>Being from the 80'ies I think the 521 has the same capsule as the 421-II,
>but mine is not very different from the old gray 421s. The polar plot in the
>Black Fire catalog looks a bit different than the 421-II plot on the current
>web site, but that might just be differences in marketing...

I don't know, but I _do_ know that the 431 that was was rebadged as a 531
for the Black Fire series seems to be identical. I have a couple of those
and wish I had more.
--scott

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

[alex]

On 20/08/2010 18:23, Mike Rivers wrote:
> alex wrote:
>
>> never heard about this mk2, do you mean the 521 which is similar in
>> shape to the 421 but without the "Musik-Stimme" ring?
>
> No, the one that's currently sold as the 421-II
> http://www.sennheiserusa.com/professional_wired-microphones_broadcast-eng-film_000984
>
>
> Dunno the 521. Can't find it in the current on-line US catalog or an
> older paper catalog that I have here.
>
>
Sennheiser sold it in the mid '90s. I saw it in some drum kit bundles
along with some e604, where the 521 was supposed to be the bass drum mic.

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/old_manual.nsf/resources/BF_521_2.pdf/$File/BF_521_2.pdf

[alex]

On 20/08/2010 18:23, Mike Rivers wrote:
> alex wrote:
>
>> never heard about this mk2, do you mean the 521 which is similar in
>> shape to the 421 but without the "Musik-Stimme" ring?
>
> No, the one that's currently sold as the 421-II
> http://www.sennheiserusa.com/professional_wired-microphones_broadcast-eng-film_000984
>
>
> Dunno the 521. Can't find it in the current on-line US catalog or an
> older paper catalog that I have here.
>
>
Sennheiser sold it in the mid '90s. I saw it in some drum kit bundles
along with some e604, where the 521 was supposed to be the bass drum mic.

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/old_manual.nsf/resources/BF_521_2.pdf/$File/BF_521_2.pdf

[geoff]

adam79 wrote:
> That's what I figured; my last post was stupid. Thanks to all for your
> patience w/ me.

I thought you were jesting ;-)

The XLRM-XLRF 'adaptors' are a good way to go. You can put a dymo label on
them to differentiate between the 'micloader' and your 'phase reverser'
adaptor. If you haven't done one of those, you may as well make a few at
the same time,. Simply swap wires between p2 and p3 on one (either
connector end). On the rear !


geoff

[geoff]

wrote:
?
>
> I like the 421 myself, and I"m the guy who said "be very
> scared ... " so I'll weigh in.
> A 421 is a good one. IT's a good player for your mic
> locker, has lots of uses. YOu can't go wrong with one.
>
> >If my home studio project starts to get some clients, it'll
> >probably be mostly local punk/hardcore. Maybe this will help
> >explain my mic choice. I do, however, want to make sure that if the
> >studio grows I have a versatile kick mic that's good for more than
> >one or two sounds.
> That's why I like the 421. IT's also a good vocals player
> in the right circumstances, horns at times ...

But very shreiky on guitar amps, I've found. And loading doesn't help,
where a '57 loaded properly and stuck in front of a gat amp 'grows balls'.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>> That's why I like the 421. IT's also a good vocals player
>> in the right circumstances, horns at times ...
>
>But very shreiky on guitar amps, I've found. And loading doesn't help,
>where a '57 loaded properly and stuck in front of a gat amp 'grows balls'.

That's good for clangy surf guitar. But if you don't like it, move it off
toward the edge of the cone and cock it outward a little bit.
--scott


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

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:42:54 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> On 20/08/2010 15:12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In > wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the 421 myself, and I"m the guy who said "be very
>>> scared ... " so I'll weigh in.
>>> A 421 is a good one. IT's a good player for your mic
>>> locker, has lots of uses. YOu can't go wrong with one.
>>
>> You CAN go wrong with one, by getting the 421 Mk II which is not actually
>> a 421 at all and really is a different microphone designed to look like a
>> 421. Stay away from that.
>>
>> But the real original 421 is a good mike on just about everything. And the
>> 441 is just as good!
>> --scott
> never heard about this mk2, do you mean the 521 which is similar in
> shape to the 421 but without the "Musik-Stimme" ring?

No. Sennheiser stopped making the 421 some years ago when the molds for the
body wore out. Why they didn't make new molds like the old ones I don't know,
but that's what they told me.

They revamped the capsule and when I first got it to review, I was mildly
disgusted by the nasty little peak the 421 II has. Wait, here's my review...

Regards,

Ty Ford



Sennheiser Retires The MD 421 -- Debuts the 421 II.
Ty Ford Baltimore, MD

The Sennheiser MD 421 is no longer being made. It has been replaced by the
MD 421 II at the same price, $485. There was no funeral. I missed the
announcement of the retirement ceremony. You can, none the less, mark it
on your calendar as a milestone event in professional audio. How do you
replace a mic as ubiquitous as the Sennheiser 421? I would imagine this
thought bounced around Sennheiser quite a bit before they actually made
the move. The short of it is that the 421 II is brighter, has a very
slightly extended low end response and is about half an inch shorter than the
original model.

According to SennheiserÕs Greg Beebe, the new 421 II coils are made of
lower mass aluminum rather than copper. Less mass results in better
transient response and increased high-frequency response. The new
version has wider resonator/diaphragm contact (about 3/4Ó versus 1/2Ó
on the original). That additional contact also results in an accentuation of
the high frequencies.

The new NeoDymium magnet was chosen for its tight
temperature coefficient, ensuring constant gauss (and operation) across a
wide range of ambient operating temperatures. The original version has a
wide humbucking coil, the new version is more narrow, but has more
strands and is a little taller. A lead slug is attached to the new capsule,
which, According to Beebe, adds mass and cuts down on handling noise. I'll
miss the silver embossed name across the front of the mic, but with the
two so similar in design, it will help you tell which is which quickly.

Although the published specifications of the two mics are virtually
identical, the individual frequency response charts tell a different story.
Whereas my original 421 is up 6dB from 1KHz to 4KHz, the 421 II is up
8dB. My original 421 was down 6dB at 50Hz, while the 421 II was down
only 4dB. My overall reaction in A/Bing the two is that, relative to the 421
II, the original 421 sounds like it has a blanket hung in front of it. The
change in frequency response also has an effect on the way the mic
handles the human voice. The original 421 seems darker and more focused
on sounds from the back of the throat, while the 421 II seems more suited
for sounds from the front of the mouth and from the facial mask. Like its
predecessor, the 421 II has the five-position roll-off EQ collar at the rear
of the mic.

MOUNTING TENSION The new, optional MZS 421 Shockmount clip ($50) may
quiet the perennial objections about the standard, but hard to wrangle,
421 clip. The MZS 421 a lot easier to work with than the standard clip. The
MZS 421 has a slot in its base into which the standard clip slides. After
that, the mic slides right into the suspension mount and is snugged by the
rubber bands of the mount and the metal shoe that slides into the slot in
the bottom of the mic itself.

Seven years ago, when I got my first DAW, I had to stop using my MD 421
because positioning the mic within several feet of the computer monitor
turned the mic into a Ònoise antennaÓ that picked up a substantial amount
of hash radiated from the monitor. IÕm happy to say I have a new, more
environmentally friendly computer monitor. The original 421 and the 421
II, both could be positioned to pickup some noise from the computer
monitor, but far less than with the previous model.

IN CONCLUSION The only caveat I have about new 421 II is that its
brightness may result in sibilance. Using the open-cell foam pop filter
suggested by Sennheiser will reduce the tendency. Using an Air Corp
500PH mic preamp/processor, I punched in the sibilance control circuitry
and made a quick cut of a few dB at 2.5KHz with a reciprocal boost at
5KHz. That took care of any sibilance and further opened up the top.
Similar approaches with other equalizers should provide the equally
acceptable results.

The cardioid pattern of the 421 II is as tight as its predecessor. As such,
this mic is well-suited for relatively noisey environments, like radio
studios or live sound or multi-mic recording. To get the proximity bump,
you need to be within two and a half inches and pretty much dead center.
That makes it a great jock mic, but a poor choice for talk show guests who
donÕt know how to work a mic.

So hold on to your MD 421s, they will probably only go up in value from
now on. And, if youÕve shied away from the 421 because it wasnÕt quite
bright enough, itÕs time to step up to the MD 421 II for another try.

http://www.tyford.com


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>They revamped the capsule and when I first got it to review, I was mildly
>disgusted by the nasty little peak the 421 II has. Wait, here's my review...

The original 421 element was designed to be field-repairable. The diaphragm
assembly can be easily replaced on the bench. In 1970 when studios all had
maintenance shops, this was a big deal. Forty years later it's a disadvantage
since it makes it more difficult and expensive to make the element, and they
don't want to sell repair parts anyway.

The new 421-II element is designed to be cheap to manufacture. I don't know
if that presence peak was added deliberately or as a side-effect of cost
cutting, but it defeats the whole purpose of using a 421.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-22 said:
>> That's why I like the 421. IT's also a good vocals player
>> in the right circumstances, horns at times ...
>But very shreiky on guitar amps, I've found. And loading doesn't
>help, where a '57 loaded properly and stuck in front of a gat amp
>'grows balls'.
INdeed it does, but I"d assume the op has some 57's. HE's
probably looking for something else, but the 57 is always my
first pick for that app.

wHat I *have* used to good effect, the old Jimmy Page fat
amp sound, is the 57 in the usual position, and something
else getting some air on it, including a 421, old style of
course.
Wish I still had the recordings I had of this for of alterna
punk wtf band in the brick warehouse. WE put the lead gtr
amp in the fire stairs, put a 57 right up close and personal
with it, and I think a 421 on a gooseneck clipped to the
handrail of the stairs above it. Balls and presence to the
max.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[david correia]

In article >,
"geoff" > wrote:

> wrote:
> ?
> >
> > I like the 421 myself, and I"m the guy who said "be very
> > scared ... " so I'll weigh in.
> > A 421 is a good one. IT's a good player for your mic
> > locker, has lots of uses. YOu can't go wrong with one.
> >
> > >If my home studio project starts to get some clients, it'll
> > >probably be mostly local punk/hardcore. Maybe this will help
> > >explain my mic choice. I do, however, want to make sure that if the
> > >studio grows I have a versatile kick mic that's good for more than
> > >one or two sounds.
> > That's why I like the 421. IT's also a good vocals player
> > in the right circumstances, horns at times ...
>
> But very shreiky on guitar amps, I've found. And loading doesn't help,
> where a '57 loaded properly and stuck in front of a gat amp 'grows balls'.
>
> geoff




I you like 421's on kicks, you will fall in love when you stick a Beyer
M88 - the original one, not the TG they sell today - in front of your
bass drum.

Of course, it sounds great on many things, including vocals.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[adam79]

On 8/22/10 5:11 AM, geoff wrote:
>
> The XLRM-XLRF ['micloader'] 'adaptors' are a good way to go.
>

So they do make an adapter with the transformer.. and it's called a "mic
loader?" I found an Audio-Technica adapter (Model# CP8201). Can you
please check the link below; to let me know if this is the adapter I'm
looking for..
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/electronics/f4b735b4cabc30ea/index.html

Thanks,
-Adam

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/electronics/f4b735b4cabc30ea/index.html

[adam79]

"geoff" > wrote:
>>
>>> I like the 421. IT's also a good vocals player
>>> in the right circumstances, horns at times ...
>>
>> But very shreiky on guitar amps, I've found. And loading doesn't help,
>> where a '57 loaded properly and stuck in front of a gat amp 'grows balls'.
>>
david correia wrote:
>
> I you like 421's on kicks, you will fall in love when you stick a Beyer
> M88 - the original one, not the TG they sell today - in front of your
> bass drum.
>

Haven't heard of the M88; I want to check it out. So back to the mic
rental.. to answer a question further up the thread, I found a local
store that rents mics, so I don't have to deal w/ shipping, etc. It's a
good deal.. $20 for mic, stand and cable.

I'd like to get enough money to rent both the RE20 and MD421 (they both
sound versatile in the same areas). It's the next mic I plan on buying,
so comparing them would be a good idea (for a future owner). What is the
difference in sound between the RE20 and MD421 (on the kick)?

Another mic I have on my wish list is the Cascade FatHead II Ribbon Mic.
I like the sound of combining the close mic'd SM-57 and distanced ribbon
on guitar cabs. I'd obviously rather buy a Royer, but it's too much
money. When you guys talk about using the RE-20 or MD421 is it ment to
be placed at a 4-6" distance (like the ribbon method)?

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

On 8/17/10 8:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> I was looking up 600ohm resistors, and they come in different watts;
>> how many watts should the resistor be?
>
> 1/4 watt is fine. Good question, though.
>

I found this resistor:
http://www.ralphselectronics.com/ProductDetails.aspx?itemnumber=PENN-1600000.25&source=googleps

It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm
looking for?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Preben Friis]

"adam79" > wrote in message
...
> It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm looking
> for?

Yes, it is.

/Preben Friis

[John Williamson]

Preben Friis wrote:
> "adam79" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm
>> looking for?
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> /Preben Friis
Apart from being the wrong value at 600 *thousand* ohms......

At least that's what it shows as here.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

adam79 wrote:
> It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm
> looking for?
>

No, this is:-

http://www.ralphselectronics.com/ProductDetails.aspx?itemnumber=PENN-1600.25

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[PStamler]

On Aug 25, 4:00*am, John Williamson >
wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
> > It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm
> > looking for?
>
> No, this is:-
>
> http://www.ralphselectronics.com/ProductDetails.aspx?itemnumber=PENN-....

What John said; the original one you found is 600k ohms, which means
600,000, which will have essentially zero effect on the loading of the
mic.

One of my students made the same mistake when he was building a Gizmo
to load an SM57. Wondered why it had no effect on the sound; I told
him to bring it in and predicted the problem was that he'd pulled a
600k (actually 681k) resistor out of the bin. I measured it on a DVM,
and my guess was right. Easy mistake to make.

Peace,
Paul

[Preben Friis]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
>>> It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm
>>> looking for?
>>
>> Yes, it is.

> Apart from being the wrong value at 600 *thousand* ohms......

I did not check the link. I presumed that the text was taken from there. My
mistake.

/Preben Friis

[adam79]

On 8/25/10 5:00 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>> It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm
>> looking for?
>>
>
> No, this is:-
>
> http://www.ralphselectronics.com/ProductDetails.aspx?itemnumber=PENN-1600.25
>
>


When I go to that link it doesn't show the part. I took a screen shot of
the what my browser pulls up:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/adam_l79/recording/adapter.jpg

Could you please write the name of the adapter so I can do the search
myself?

Thanks,
-Adam

[John Williamson]

adam79 wrote:
> On 8/25/10 5:00 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> adam79 wrote:
>>> It's 1/4W 600ohms and then says "1% resistor." Is this the one I'm
>>> looking for?
>>>
>>
>> No, this is:-
>>
>> http://www.ralphselectronics.com/ProductDetails.aspx?itemnumber=PENN-1600.25
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> When I go to that link it doesn't show the part. I took a screen shot of
> the what my browser pulls up:
> http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/adam_l79/recording/adapter.jpg
>
> Could you please write the name of the adapter so I can do the search
> myself?
>
On Ralph's website, the resistor part number is PENN-1600.25

You missed this off the end of the URL somehow.

This resistor is the one you need to solder netween pins 2 and 3 inside
the XLR connector as discussed earlier in the thread.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 12:50 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>>
> On Ralph's website, the resistor part number is PENN-1600.25
>
> You missed this off the end of the URL somehow.
>
> This resistor is the one you need to solder netween pins 2 and 3 inside
> the XLR connector as discussed earlier in the thread.
>

I got it! I was checking my XLR mic cables and the connectors don't seem
to unscrew from the cable. There's a Philips head screw on the
connector, but when I unscrew it, I can't seem to get the connector off
the cable. Am I doing something wrong? Here's a picture of the
connector: http://members.toast.net/adam79/XLR.jpg

Also, I'm not sure if this question was already answered, but are there
XLR adapters out there that have the resistor built in (so I don't have
to permanently modify my cables)? If so, is there a name for this
particular adapter?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> I got it! I was checking my XLR mic cables and the connectors don't seem
> to unscrew from the cable. There's a Philips head screw on the
> connector, but when I unscrew it, I can't seem to get the connector off
> the cable.

After removing the screw, you have to push on the cable
rather than pull on the connector body. There's an insert
with the pins that slips inside the body and comes out the
"open" side.

> Also, I'm not sure if this question was already answered, but are there
> XLR adapters out there that have the resistor built in

Not exactly the answer you were looking for, but I answered
that there were people who will custom make one for you, but
it is not available as a commercial product. Klay Anderson
Audio (http://www.klay.com) has been providing custom
services like this for years. He may be able to accommodte
you at a price you'll be willing to pay.


--
"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

[John Williamson]

adam79 wrote:
> On 8/26/10 12:50 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>>>
>> On Ralph's website, the resistor part number is PENN-1600.25
>>
>> You missed this off the end of the URL somehow.
>>
>> This resistor is the one you need to solder netween pins 2 and 3 inside
>> the XLR connector as discussed earlier in the thread.
>>
>
> I got it! I was checking my XLR mic cables and the connectors don't seem
> to unscrew from the cable. There's a Philips head screw on the
> connector, but when I unscrew it, I can't seem to get the connector off
> the cable. Am I doing something wrong? Here's a picture of the
> connector: http://members.toast.net/adam79/XLR.jpg
>
> Also, I'm not sure if this question was already answered, but are there
> XLR adapters out there that have the resistor built in (so I don't have
> to permanently modify my cables)? If so, is there a name for this
> particular adapter?
>
Not really. What I'd do is buy male and female XLR connectors, and use a
few inches of microphone cable to connect them pin to pin (1 to 1, 2 to
2, 3 to 3, then solder a resistor between pins 2 and 3 at one end. Kind
of like a very short extension lead.

Undoing the screw in your picture will let you push the case back along
the cable so you can get access to the connections. Don't try and pull
it off the end, it doesn't go that way.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Preben Friis]

"adam79" > wrote in message
net...
> Also, I'm not sure if this question was already answered, but are there
> XLR adapters out there that have the resistor built in (so I don't have to
> permanently modify my cables)? If so, is there a name for this particular
> adapter?

You can buy XLR male/female adapters made for polarity reversal and then
solder the resistor into them yourself.

http://www.adamhall.com/en/Adapter_XLR_Male_to_XLR_Female_returns_Polarity_of _2_and_3.html
http://www.neutrik.com/fr/en/audio/210_t3_60873660/NA3FMX_detail.aspx

/Preben Friis

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 6:42 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> After removing the screw, you have to push on the cable rather than pull
> on the connector body. There's an insert with the pins that slips inside
> the body and comes out the "open" side.
>

Cool, I got it off! So I just use some wire cutters to strip the
covering off the wire and use a soldering iron to connect the resistor,
right? Sounds pretty simple (something even I'll be able to do)!

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 6:42 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>
>> Also, I'm not sure if this question was already answered, but are
>> there XLR adapters out there that have the resistor built in
>
> Not exactly the answer you were looking for, but I answered that there
> were people who will custom make one for you, but it is not available as
> a commercial product.

I actually found a commercial product that does this:
http://www.markertek.com/Audio-Equipment/Audio-Interface/Impedance-Matching-Transformer/Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO.xhtml?SES-XLR-ISO.
At $20 it's too expensive; I'm just gonna buy a pack of those resistors
and do the mod myself. Does this improve the sound quality of all mics,
or are some impartial to the mod? It can't hurt the quality, only make
it better, right?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> I actually found a commercial product that does this:
> Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO

No, it doesn't do the same thing. It's a transformer, not a
load resistor. It's a problem solver, but not for this problem.

> At $20 it's too expensive

For what it does, $20 is a real bargain.

> I'm just gonna buy a pack of those resistors
> and do the mod myself. Does this improve the sound quality of all mics,
> or are some impartial to the mod? It can't hurt the quality, only make
> it better, right?

Some mics will sound worse when loaded by 600 ohms. Some
won't sound any different. This particular gizmo, with the
resistor value as calculated based on the input impedance of
your preamp, is unique to the SM57. That's why the
recommendation is to make a plug-in "adapter" so you can use
it 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

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 4:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>
>> I actually found a commercial product that does this: Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO
>
> No, it doesn't do the same thing. It's a transformer, not a load
> resistor. It's a problem solver, but not for this problem.
>
> Some mics will sound worse when loaded by 600 ohms. Some won't sound any
> different. This particular gizmo, with the resistor value as calculated
> based on the input impedance of your preamp, is unique to the SM57.
> That's why the recommendation is to make a plug-in "adapter" so you can
> use it or not.
>

I'm starting to get a bit confused. My original question was about what
the mic rental guy told me: certain mics, like the RE-20, were made with
the assumption that they would be connected to a mic-pre with a
transformer. Consequently, you don't get the most out of the mic when
using it with a pre-amp absent of a transformer.

Does this "gizmo" for the SM57 relate to the topic above, or is it an
unrelated mod that makes the SM57 sound better? If it does relate to the
topic, how do you figure out what ohm resistor you need for a particular
mic? If it doesn't relate, does the Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO solve the
transformerless pre-amp issue?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

adam79 > wrote:
> On 8/26/10 4:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> > adam79 wrote:
> >
> >> I actually found a commercial product that does this:
> >> Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO
> >
> > No, it doesn't do the same thing. It's a transformer, not a load
> > resistor. It's a problem solver, but not for this problem.
> >
> > Some mics will sound worse when loaded by 600 ohms. Some won't sound
> > any different. This particular gizmo, with the resistor value as
> > calculated based on the input impedance of your preamp, is unique to
> > the SM57. That's why the recommendation is to make a plug-in "adapter"
> > so you can use it or not.
> >
>
> I'm starting to get a bit confused. My original question was about what
> the mic rental guy told me: certain mics, like the RE-20, were made with
> the assumption that they would be connected to a mic-pre with a
> transformer. Consequently, you don't get the most out of the mic when
> using it with a pre-amp absent of a transformer.
>
> Does this "gizmo" for the SM57 relate to the topic above, or is it an
> unrelated mod that makes the SM57 sound better? If it does relate to the
> topic, how do you figure out what ohm resistor you need for a particular
> mic? If it doesn't relate, does the Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO solve the
> transformerless pre-amp issue?
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam

The gizmo is for an SM57. Give me your address and I'll build one and send
it to you. I'll probably make it in the form of a short cable. Let me
know if you want it to be any particular length.

Modern "active balanced" mic pre inputs are essentially the same as those
with transformers. The EV RE20 is virtually unaffected by any of the many
kinds of inputs they might feed.

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

[PStamler]

On Aug 26, 6:53*pm, adam79 > wrote:
> On 8/26/10 4:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > adam79 wrote:
>
> >> I actually found a commercial product that does this: Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO
>
> > No, it doesn't do the same thing. It's a transformer, not a load
> > resistor. It's a problem solver, but not for this problem.
>
> > Some mics will sound worse when loaded by 600 ohms. Some won't sound any
> > different. This particular gizmo, with the resistor value as calculated
> > based on the input impedance of your preamp, is unique to the SM57.
> > That's why the recommendation is to make a plug-in "adapter" so you can
> > use it or not.
>
> I'm starting to get a bit confused. My original question was about what
> the mic rental guy told me: certain mics, like the RE-20, were made with
> the assumption that they would be connected to a mic-pre with a
> transformer. Consequently, you don't get the most out of the mic when
> using it with a pre-amp absent of a transformer.
>
> Does this "gizmo" for the SM57 relate to the topic above, or is it an
> unrelated mod that makes the SM57 sound better? If it does relate to the
> topic, how do you figure out what ohm resistor you need for a particular
> mic? If it doesn't relate, does the Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO solve the
> transformerless pre-amp issue?

Okay, let's try to unscramble this:

1. The guy at the International House of Microphones told you that the
RE20 is sensitive to loading, and wants to be loaded with a low
impedance, preferably with a transformer-input preamp. He was wrong;
the RE20 (and its cousins the RE15 and RE16) don't much care about the
load.

2. Neither does the Sennheiser MD421.

3. On the other hand, the SM57 and its siblings the SM56 and SM58 do
care. They work best when the load is somewhere in the 500-600 ohm
range.

4. The way you figure out what resistor to use is to know two things:
the actual input impedance of the preamp, and the desired impedance.

Let's say the desired input impedance is 500 ohms, and the preamp's
actual input impedance is 2400 ohms, which I believe is the value of
some Mackie preamps. Do the following arithmetic:

Added resistor = 1/(1/desired load - 1/actual load)

Well, 1/500 = 0.002, and 1/2400 = 0.000416666...

So 0.002 - 0.00041666666... = 0.001583333333....

Take the reciprocal of that and you get 631.578 ohms; the nearest
standard 1% value is 634 ohms.

In practice you'll get decent results with anything from 600 ohms to
681 ohms.

Oh, by the way, the other mic I've found that reacts strongly to
loading is the AKG D112. Load it with 500 ohms, and the sound changes
from boomy and pilllowy to super-tight. In fact, maybe too tight; some
intermediate load might be more appropriate.

Oh, and also...most condenser mics *don't* like a lower-impedance
load. This is really something for dynamic mics, and really, mostly
for the SM57 family and the D112.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> My original question was about what
> the mic rental guy told me: certain mics, like the RE-20, were made with
> the assumption that they would be connected to a mic-pre with a
> transformer. Consequently, you don't get the most out of the mic when
> using it with a pre-amp absent of a transformer.

That's a crock of baloney, but then, as I recall, he was
trying ot steer you to some other mic because he didn't have
an RE-20. But I'm confused now, too.

> Does this "gizmo" for the SM57 relate to the topic above, or is it an
> unrelated mod that makes the SM57 sound better?

Totally unrelated. Someone probably mentioned the SM57 as a
reasonable mic for something or other and someone else
chimed in with how you could make it sound better by loading
it with about 600 ohms rather than th 2000-2500 ohms typical
of a modern preamp (with or without a transformer).

> If it does relate to the
> topic, how do you figure out what ohm resistor you need for a particular
> mic?

If you read Paul Stamler's article (a link was posted to it
in this thread a day or two ago) you'd know that he
determined it experimentaly, by listening with different
values of load resistor. But that load resistor applies only
to the preamp with which he tested it, or one with the same
input impedance. The article shows how to calculate the
value of the optimum load resistor for an SM57 when you know
the input impedance of the preamp to which you're connecting it.

> If it doesn't relate, does the Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO solve the
> transformerless pre-amp issue?

No, because there is no "transformerless preamp issue."
People design preamps with transformers. Other people design
preamps without transformers. Each one can be equally good
if it's a good design, or equally bad if it's a bad design.
Preamps like Great River or TAB Funkenwerk have very high
quality transformers and are excellent preamps. Preamps like
Millenia Media don't have transformers and are excellent
preamps. Some manufacturers stick a crappy transformer in
their preamps so they can say it has a transformer, trying
to attract business from people like you who somehow have
been led to believe that transformers make for better preamps.

Don't be a people like you.


--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>
>I'm starting to get a bit confused. My original question was about what
>the mic rental guy told me: certain mics, like the RE-20, were made with
>the assumption that they would be connected to a mic-pre with a
>transformer. Consequently, you don't get the most out of the mic when
>using it with a pre-amp absent of a transformer.

There are plenty of other and better ways to load the mike down without
using a transformer. One is to use a shunt resistor.

If you use a transformer then you have a different and other set of loading
issues because the _transformer_ wants to see particular loading. This is
fine if it's built into the preamp, not so good if you are trying to add it
on.

>Does this "gizmo" for the SM57 relate to the topic above, or is it an
>unrelated mod that makes the SM57 sound better? If it does relate to the
>topic, how do you figure out what ohm resistor you need for a particular
>mic? If it doesn't relate, does the Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO solve the
>transformerless pre-amp issue?

It is unrelated and has nothing to do with it.

The way to find the resistor is to look at the recommended load impedance
for the mike on the mike data sheet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

Thanks Roy, Paul and Mike for those last three posts; I now understand
this whole issue. That guy at the mic rental place was out of his mind.
I think I went into detail on his ramblings in my first post. He
actually does have RE-20s for rental, but was strong in his conviction
that the RE20 would be boxy and unappealing when hooked up to the MBox2,
or any preamp w/o a transformer.

I went through a box of unsorted cables and found 4 short XLR cables;
they will be perfect for modification. I'm confident that I can do this
myself.

Just one quick question.. The "desired load" for a mic isn't something
that's listed in the specs, it's a value that is determined by trial and
error, right?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> Just one quick question.. The "desired load" for a mic isn't something
> that's listed in the specs, it's a value that is determined by trial and
> error, right?

Right. Sometimes you'll find an "impedance" in a mic's
specification but this usually doesn't tell you anything
useful about how to get the best performance from it.

--
"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

[Bill Graham]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> adam79 wrote:
>
>> Just one quick question.. The "desired load" for a mic isn't something
>> that's listed in the specs, it's a value that is determined by trial and
>> error, right?
>
> Right. Sometimes you'll find an "impedance" in a mic's specification but
> this usually doesn't tell you anything useful about how to get the best
> performance from it.
>
How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less to mikes
that were designed to accept up to 50 volts or so.....I often wonder how
their performance suffers from a starved phantom power supply......Any
thoughts on this?

[John Williamson]

Bill Graham wrote:
> How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
> awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less to
> mikes that were designed to accept up to 50 volts or so.....I often
> wonder how their performance suffers from a starved phantom power
> supply......Any thoughts on this?

Depending on the mic, anything from perfect functioning to reduced
capacity to reproduce loud sounds to a total failure to function, via an
increased self noise.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers]

Bill Graham wrote:

> How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
> awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less

There aren't a lot, but there are some. There's actually a
12V and 24V phantom powering voltage defined in the
standard, but the "standard" standard is 48V.

> wonder how their performance suffers from a starved phantom power
> supply......Any thoughts on this?

Depends on the mic. Worst case it will have less headroom,
but some condenser mics are designed to meet their
performance specifications at lower (and usually specified)
voltages. For instance, my AKG C451s are specified to work
between 9 and 52 volts.



--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>Thanks Roy, Paul and Mike for those last three posts; I now understand
>this whole issue. That guy at the mic rental place was out of his mind.
>I think I went into detail on his ramblings in my first post. He
>actually does have RE-20s for rental, but was strong in his conviction
>that the RE20 would be boxy and unappealing when hooked up to the MBox2,
>or any preamp w/o a transformer.

The RE-20 is almost totally immune to loading. It will sound good into
just about anything. Unfortunately, the low coupling that makes it immune
to loading also means the output level is pretty low.

>Just one quick question.. The "desired load" for a mic isn't something
>that's listed in the specs, it's a value that is determined by trial and
>error, right?

It should be mentioned on the spec sheet if it's from a legitimate
manufacturer, although a lot of manufacturers are dumbing things down.
Rated impedance on the SM-58 is 150 ohms for use into a 300 ohm load.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
>awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less to mikes
>that were designed to accept up to 50 volts or so.....I often wonder how
>their performance suffers from a starved phantom power supply......Any
>thoughts on this?

There is an AES standard for reporting this on the datasheet, which most
manufacturers ignore.

Some mikes will work fine at 12V. Some won't work at all. The KMS105
goes into oscillation if the phantom drops too much. The datasheet should
say whether the mike can perform properly at reduced phantom but usually does
not any more.
--scott

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

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

adam79 > wrote:
> Thanks Roy, Paul and Mike for those last three posts; I now understand
> this whole issue. That guy at the mic rental place was out of his mind.
> I think I went into detail on his ramblings in my first post. He
> actually does have RE-20s for rental, but was strong in his conviction
> that the RE20 would be boxy and unappealing when hooked up to the MBox2,
> or any preamp w/o a transformer.
>
> I went through a box of unsorted cables and found 4 short XLR cables;
> they will be perfect for modification. I'm confident that I can do this
> myself.
>
> Just one quick question.. The "desired load" for a mic isn't something
> that's listed in the specs, it's a value that is determined by trial and
> error, right?
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam

For many years, the "rule of thumb" for mic preamps' *actual* input
impedance has been "2000 ohms or greater", largely to *avoid loading*
ribbon mics. Most other mics perform very well "unloaded" per this rule.
It's almost a fluke that the SM57 is helped by 600 ohm loading. So, your
question might be answered "Most mics don't have a *desired* load".
Rather, they "desire" to be unloaded.

P.S. ~ Somewhere in this thread there was mention of 1% resistors. That
precision is not needed for the SM57 "gizmo". Phantom power current
limiting resistors should be matched to a tolerance of 1% or better.

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

[Bill Graham]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
>> awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less
>
> There aren't a lot, but there are some. There's actually a 12V and 24V
> phantom powering voltage defined in the standard, but the "standard"
> standard is 48V.
>
>> wonder how their performance suffers from a starved phantom power
>> supply......Any thoughts on this?
>
> Depends on the mic. Worst case it will have less headroom, but some
> condenser mics are designed to meet their performance specifications at
> lower (and usually specified) voltages. For instance, my AKG C451s are
> specified to work between 9 and 52 volts.
>
Well, one advantage of the reduced voltage is that it doesn't seem to hurt
dynamic mikes if you plug them into a reduced voltage condenser mike
jack.....My Behringer 45 Watt keyboard amp has a permanent 15 VDC phantom
power on the XLR channel 1 input all the time, and they say it won't hurt to
plug a dynamic mike into it. - That being the case, I'd still prefer a
switchable 48 volt phantom power......

[Bill Graham]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>>
>>How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
>>awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less to mikes
>>that were designed to accept up to 50 volts or so.....I often wonder how
>>their performance suffers from a starved phantom power supply......Any
>>thoughts on this?
>
> There is an AES standard for reporting this on the datasheet, which most
> manufacturers ignore.
>
> Some mikes will work fine at 12V. Some won't work at all. The KMS105
> goes into oscillation if the phantom drops too much. The datasheet should
> say whether the mike can perform properly at reduced phantom but usually
> does
> not any more.
> --scott

Well, if you are using $700 microphones, you'll probably be working with
equipment that provides a full 48 volts phantom power, but that's good to
know.....Especially if the spec sheet doesn't tell you.......

[PStamler]

On Aug 26, 10:59*pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:

> How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
> awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less to mikes
> that were designed to accept up to 50 volts or so.....I often wonder how
> their performance suffers from a starved phantom power supply......Any
> thoughts on this?

It completely depends on the mic. I have some mics (Oktava MC012,
Shure SM81) that'll work on just about any phantom voltage. Then I
have some (Neumann FET-80 series) which won't work at all if the
voltage is less than 44V -- not just have too much self noise, they in
fact have no signal at all. Look at the spec sheet.

Except that one pair of mics I have is from Microtech Gefell; they
swear that the mics won't work on 24V. But they do just fine. Might
have a little less headroom, but 2 feet from a clarinet I'll never
hear it.

Oh, and the point of the 1% resistor isn't to get super-precision;
it's that 1% resistors are metal film, and those are good-quality
resistors.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham > wrote:
>Well, one advantage of the reduced voltage is that it doesn't seem to hurt
>dynamic mikes if you plug them into a reduced voltage condenser mike
>jack.....My Behringer 45 Watt keyboard amp has a permanent 15 VDC phantom
>power on the XLR channel 1 input all the time, and they say it won't hurt to
>plug a dynamic mike into it. - That being the case, I'd still prefer a
>switchable 48 volt phantom power......

That's not a consequence of the reduced voltage, that's a consequence of
it being common-mode power and not differential. The voltage is between
the signal pins and ground, so if there is no connection between the signal
pins and ground (because they are just connected to a coil of wire), then
no current will flow. You could put hundreds of volts there and it wouldn't
hurt the mike.
--scott

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

[Bill Graham]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 26, 10:59 pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:

> How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are an
> awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less to mikes
> that were designed to accept up to 50 volts or so.....I often wonder how
> their performance suffers from a starved phantom power supply......Any
> thoughts on this?

It completely depends on the mic. I have some mics (Oktava MC012,
Shure SM81) that'll work on just about any phantom voltage. Then I
have some (Neumann FET-80 series) which won't work at all if the
voltage is less than 44V -- not just have too much self noise, they in
fact have no signal at all. Look at the spec sheet.

Except that one pair of mics I have is from Microtech Gefell; they
swear that the mics won't work on 24V. But they do just fine......

I think that sometimes specifications are written by their lawyers, rather
than their engineers......:^)

[Bill Graham]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>>Well, one advantage of the reduced voltage is that it doesn't seem to hurt
>>dynamic mikes if you plug them into a reduced voltage condenser mike
>>jack.....My Behringer 45 Watt keyboard amp has a permanent 15 VDC phantom
>>power on the XLR channel 1 input all the time, and they say it won't hurt
>>to
>>plug a dynamic mike into it. - That being the case, I'd still prefer a
>>switchable 48 volt phantom power......
>
> That's not a consequence of the reduced voltage, that's a consequence of
> it being common-mode power and not differential. The voltage is between
> the signal pins and ground, so if there is no connection between the
> signal
> pins and ground (because they are just connected to a coil of wire), then
> no current will flow. You could put hundreds of volts there and it
> wouldn't
> hurt the mike.

Thanks.....that explains why I have never heard of anyone wrecking his
dynamic mike by accidently plugging it into a phantom powered mike input
jack.....This in the face of the usual rule....."If something can screw up,
it will"....:^)

[PStamler]

On Aug 27, 8:28*pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:

> Except that one pair of mics I have is from Microtech Gefell; they
> swear that the mics won't work on 24V. But they do just fine......
>
> I think that sometimes specifications are written by their lawyers, rather
> than their engineers......:^)

Naw, one of their engineers actually told me on the phone that the mic
couldn't possibly work on 24V phantom. I told him it did, and he
repeated that it couldn't. I'm glad it does.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

Bill Graham wrote:
> Well, one advantage of the reduced voltage is that it doesn't seem to
> hurt dynamic mikes if you plug them into a reduced voltage condenser
> mike jack.....My Behringer 45 Watt keyboard amp has a permanent 15 VDC
> phantom power on the XLR channel 1 input all the time, and they say it
> won't hurt to plug a dynamic mike into it.

The reason why you won't hurt a dynamic mic when plugging
one into a powered mic input is not because of the low
voltage, it's because of the design of the phantom powering
circuit - which is the same for any voltage. If you were to
connect a dynamic mic using a cable that had a short between
the shield (pin 1) and one of the other pins, you could do
as much damage to the mic with 15V phantom power as with 48V
phantom power. Same thing if you have a dynamic mic that's
been wired with an unbalanced 1/4" phone plug instead of an
XLR, and you use an XLR-TS adapter to connect it.


--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

Bill Graham wrote:

> Thanks.....that explains why I have never heard of anyone wrecking his
> dynamic mike by accidently plugging it into a phantom powered mike input
> jack.....This in the face of the usual rule....."If something can screw
> up, it will"....:^)

The usual warning is to not "power" a ribbon mic. This is
based on the way the input transformer of a particular model
RCA mic from about 50 years ago was wired. But today, it's
not a problem (and on those mics, either they've been
destroyed by people who didn't know better or they've been
modified to be "phantom safe."

Still, it's good practice to have phantom power turned off
before connecting or disconnecting the mic. Then, it's safe
to turn power on after it's been plugged in or unplugged.
There are a couple of reasons for this. One, pretty rare, is
that if the connector gets misaligned and pins 1-2 or 1-3
mate before all three pins are mated, current can flow where
it shouldn't. The other is that connecting or disconnecting
a mic with phantom power applied can cause a voltage spike
that the input to the mic preamp stage sees. Today most mic
preamps are made idiot-resistant with the use of clamping
diodes on the input to keep the spike from getting higher
than the power supply voltage. But some people believe that
those diodes affect the sound so they're not present in some
designs and I suppose that some have been removed.


--
"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

[adam79]

On 8/27/10 9:16 PM, PStamler wrote:
>
> Oh, and the point of the 1% resistor isn't to get super-precision;
> it's that 1% resistors are metal film, and those are good-quality
> resistors.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

I read your article on the SM57 article; cool stuff. The link to the
recommended resistor in the article (at mouser.com) is out of stock, but
they have this one:
http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=270-698-RC which seems
to have the same specs. This is the correct resistor, right?

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79[_3_]]

I was just over at Radio Shack and they had a 680 ohm, 1/2 watt, 5%
tolerance resistor. Will this one work just as well, or is the wattage/
tolerance too high?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
adam79 > wrote:
>I was just over at Radio Shack and they had a 680 ohm, 1/2 watt, 5%
>tolerance resistor. Will this one work just as well, or is the wattage/
>tolerance too high?

That's just fine. It'll be physically larger than the 1/4W one, so it may
take a big more poking and prodding to fit in there, but it'll fit.
--scott

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

[John Williamson]

adam79 wrote:
> I was just over at Radio Shack and they had a 680 ohm, 1/2 watt, 5%
> tolerance resistor. Will this one work just as well, or is the wattage/
> tolerance too high?
>
The higher power isn't a problem, except that it will be bigger, so
harder to fit in. It may also be a carbon film resistor, which will be
slightly noisier (In theory, you may or may not notice the difference.)
As for the value, try it, and try a 560 ohm too, and see which sounds
better.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[PStamler]

On Aug 28, 9:39*pm, John Williamson >
wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
> > I was just over at Radio Shack and they had a 680 ohm, 1/2 watt, 5%
> > tolerance resistor. Will this one work just as well, or is the wattage/
> > tolerance too high?
>
> The higher power isn't a problem, except that it will be bigger, so
> harder to fit in. It may also be a carbon film resistor, which will be
> slightly noisier (In theory, you may or may not notice the difference.)
> As for the value, try it, and try a 560 ohm too, and see which sounds
> better.

Yeah, the physical size may be a problem. The Mouser 698 ohm will be
fine, also 681 ohm. And I do like metal films for their low noise and
stability.

Oh, do solder the resistor into the male XLR connector rather than the
female; it's a bit roomier.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>Thanks.....that explains why I have never heard of anyone wrecking his
>dynamic mike by accidently plugging it into a phantom powered mike input
>jack.....This in the face of the usual rule....."If something can screw up,
>it will"....:^)

Every once in a while you'll still encounter T-power, which is differential
across the two inputs... and that will occasionally damage dynamic mikes.
--scott


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

[adam79]

On 8/20/10 9:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> You CAN go wrong with one, by getting the 421 Mk II which is not actually
> a 421 at all and really is a different microphone designed to look like a
> 421. Stay away from that.
>
> But the real original 421 is a good mike on just about everything. And the
> 441 is just as good!
> --scott

Is there a way to tell the difference between the two visually? If I'm
buying the mic used (probably on eBay, unless anyone has a better
suggestion), I want to make sure I'm getting the original version..
instead of just taking the seller word.

I haven't had the chance to use the MD421, and the mic rental place only
has the Mk II. Is the 421 as good on bass amps as the RE20?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>On 8/20/10 9:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> You CAN go wrong with one, by getting the 421 Mk II which is not actually
>> a 421 at all and really is a different microphone designed to look like a
>> 421. Stay away from that.
>>
>Is there a way to tell the difference between the two visually? If I'm
>buying the mic used (probably on eBay, unless anyone has a better
>suggestion), I want to make sure I'm getting the original version..
>instead of just taking the seller word.

It says so on the nameplate.

>I haven't had the chance to use the MD421, and the mic rental place only
>has the Mk II. Is the 421 as good on bass amps as the RE20?

Yes, but it's different and needs more careful placement. The variable D
mechanism on the RE-20 allows you to get away with all kinds of stuff you
cannot with a regular mike.
--scott

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

[adam79]

On 8/28/10 11:36 PM, PStamler wrote:
>
> Yeah, the physical size may be a problem. The Mouser 698 ohm will be
> fine, also 681 ohm. And I do like metal films for their low noise and
> stability.
>
> Oh, do solder the resistor into the male XLR connector rather than the
> female; it's a bit roomier.
>

I took a picture of the resistors I bought at Radio Shack:
http://members.toast.net/adam79/resistor.jpg. Can you tell by the pic if
they are the metal film ones? Also, this is where I connect the
resistor: http://members.toast.net/adam79/mic1x.jpg, right?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:45:15 -0400, adam79 > wrote:

>On 8/28/10 11:36 PM, PStamler wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, the physical size may be a problem. The Mouser 698 ohm will be
>> fine, also 681 ohm. And I do like metal films for their low noise and
>> stability.
>>
>> Oh, do solder the resistor into the male XLR connector rather than the
>> female; it's a bit roomier.
>>
>
>I took a picture of the resistors I bought at Radio Shack:
>http://members.toast.net/adam79/resistor.jpg. Can you tell by the pic if
>they are the metal film ones? Also, this is where I connect the
>resistor: http://members.toast.net/adam79/mic1x.jpg, right?
>
>Thanks,
>-Adam

Is the Radio Shack part number on the pack anywhere? That would be
more helpful.


And yes. Connect the resistor between blue and red. The best way is to
fold one of the leads over so it ends up parallel to the other. The
resistor will then sit nicely in there parallel to the wires. To
prevent shorts, strip some of the insulation off a piece of spare wire
and slip it up over the longer resistor lead.

I have to say the red lead does not look too well soldered right now.
I would expect the solder to spread round both sides of the tag. You
can attend to that while you are putting the resistor in. Meanwhile,
that empty hole in the tag makes anchoring the resistor wire very
simple.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"adam79" > wrote in message
net
> On 8/28/10 11:36 PM, PStamler wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, the physical size may be a problem. The Mouser 698
>> ohm will be fine, also 681 ohm. And I do like metal
>> films for their low noise and stability.
>>
>> Oh, do solder the resistor into the male XLR connector
>> rather than the female; it's a bit roomier.
>>
>
> I took a picture of the resistors I bought at Radio Shack:
> http://members.toast.net/adam79/resistor.jpg. Can you
> tell by the pic if they are the metal film ones? Also,
> this is where I connect the resistor:
> http://members.toast.net/adam79/mic1x.jpg, right?

AFAIK RS sells only carbon film resistors in this packaging. They are
suitable for your application.

[adam79]

On 8/30/10 7:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> AFAIK RS sells only carbon film resistors in this packaging. They are
> suitable for your application.
>

You're right. I looked up the part number and it's listed as a "680 ohm
1/2W 5% Carbon Film Resistor.

-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
> The other is that connecting or disconnecting
>a mic with phantom power applied can cause a voltage spike
>that the input to the mic preamp stage sees. Today most mic
>preamps are made idiot-resistant with the use of clamping
>diodes on the input to keep the spike from getting higher
>than the power supply voltage. But some people believe that
>those diodes affect the sound so they're not present in some
>designs and I suppose that some have been removed.

This is now a solved problem. (Well, it's always been a solved problem
since you could always just use a transformer for isolation, but this time
it's been solved without them).

Clamping diodes to the rails don't affect the sound. Zener diodes to ground
affect the sound. The key to the whole clamping to the rails thing is that
the diode is absolutely completely turned off and adds no nonlinearity
(only capacitance) under normal situation.

The problem is that making clamps to the rails work reliably and effectively
is nontrivial, so people are inclined to supplement them with zeners. But
some folks at THAT did a really nice analysis of the whole situation.

http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/AES127-000183.pdf

This really is the absolute coolest thing to come out of last year's AES
show.
--scott

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

[geoff]

adam79 wrote:
> On 8/26/10 12:50 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>>>
>> On Ralph's website, the resistor part number is PENN-1600.25
>>
>> You missed this off the end of the URL somehow.
>>
>> This resistor is the one you need to solder netween pins 2 and 3
>> inside the XLR connector as discussed earlier in the thread.
>>
>
> I got it! I was checking my XLR mic cables and the connectors don't
> seem to unscrew from the cable. There's a Philips head screw on the
> connector, but when I unscrew it, I can't seem to get the connector
> off the cable. Am I doing something wrong? Here's a picture of the
> connector: http://members.toast.net/adam79/XLR.jpg
>
> Also, I'm not sure if this question was already answered, but are
> there XLR adapters out there that have the resistor built in (so I
> don't have to permanently modify my cables)? If so, is there a name
> for this particular adapter?

No. You need to put the resistor in yourself. Unless somebody is selling
them ready-made where you are, like I am in New Zealand (at nominal charge)
!

But really, you get the bits and it's a few minutes' work.

geoff

[geoff]

O - tyhadam79 wrote:
>> On 8/26/10 6:42 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> adam79 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, I'm not sure if this question was already answered, but are
>>>> there XLR adapters out there that have the resistor built in
>>>
>>> Not exactly the answer you were looking for, but I answered that
>>> there were people who will custom make one for you, but it is not
>>> available as a commercial product.
>>
>> I actually found a commercial product that does this:
>> http://www.markertek.com/Audio-Equipment/Audio-Interface/Impedance-Matching-Transformer/Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO.xhtml?SES-XLR-ISO.


NO - that transformer is an isolagting transfoirmer that will still reflect
the 'too high' impedence of the mixer input to the mic.

>> At $20 it's too expensive; I'm just gonna buy a pack of those
>> resistors and do the mod myself. Does this improve the sound quality
>> of all mics, or are some impartial to the mod? It can't hurt the
>> quality, only make it better, right?


No. Every mic will have it's own interaction with a particular load. Mics
already optimised for 1500-2500 ohm inputs may have their performance
diminished.

geoff

[geoff]

adam79 wrote:
> On 8/26/10 4:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> adam79 wrote:
>>
>>> I actually found a commercial product that does this:
>>> Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO
>>
>> No, it doesn't do the same thing. It's a transformer, not a load
>> resistor. It's a problem solver, but not for this problem.
>>
>> Some mics will sound worse when loaded by 600 ohms. Some won't sound
>> any different. This particular gizmo, with the resistor value as
>> calculated based on the input impedance of your preamp, is unique to
>> the SM57. That's why the recommendation is to make a plug-in
>> "adapter" so you can use it or not.
>>
>
> I'm starting to get a bit confused. My original question was about
> what the mic rental guy told me: certain mics, like the RE-20, were
> made with the assumption that they would be connected to a mic-pre
> with a transformer. Consequently, you don't get the most out of the
> mic when using it with a pre-amp absent of a transformer.

That was opinion, not fact. And is unrelated to this particular effect.

> Does this "gizmo" for the SM57 relate to the topic above, or is it an
> unrelated mod that makes the SM57 sound better? If it does relate to
> the topic, how do you figure out what ohm resistor you need for a
> particular mic?

>If it doesn't relate, does the Sescom/SES-XLR-ISO
> solve the transformerless pre-amp issue?

No. Search the 'Recording Magazine' article.

geoff
> Thanks,
> -Adam

[geoff]

John Williamson wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> How about the phantom power delivered to a condenser mike? There are
>> an awful lot of chassis out there that only deliver 18 Volts or less
>> to mikes that were designed to accept up to 50 volts or so.....I
>> often wonder how their performance suffers from a starved phantom
>> power supply......Any thoughts on this?
>
> Depending on the mic, anything from perfect functioning to reduced
> capacity to reproduce loud sounds to a total failure to function, via
> an increased self noise.

Mic will specify what their operating phantom voltage is, just as mixers
should specify what voltage they output.

Many condensor mics are fine down to 12v, like the various C414 (IIRC).

geoff

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:13:11 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article >):

> adam79 wrote:
>
>> Just one quick question.. The "desired load" for a mic isn't something
>> that's listed in the specs, it's a value that is determined by trial and
>> error, right?
>
> Right. Sometimes you'll find an "impedance" in a mic's
> specification but this usually doesn't tell you anything
> useful about how to get the best performance from it.
>
>

I don't know what the preamps in the old Peavy board at 8x10 here in
Baltimore had for input Z, but SM58s sounded great through it with no added
resistors.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA