Rant of the day

[Sean Conolly]

Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs think
they can offer studio time? I can't even count how many ads like this I see
on Craigslist. Worse are the ones offering Mastering services, with the same
gear plus a couple of pieces of foam glued to the wall.

And then there's the Producers - apparently if you put together a few songs
at home with the above gear you get to say "I do a little Producing on the
side". Of course if you took the time to register a trademark name you can
claim you have a publishing company, etc.

What makes it aggravating beyond the obvious stupidity, is that it's so
prevalent that it dilutes the real meaning of the words. Selling studio
services implies that you actually have a studio - as in a real room for
recording and not the spare bedroom. Publishing means you actually publish
songs - which in turn are copyrighted, etc. Producing means that you're
actually producing music for distribution in some form. And if you want to
claim that you are a Professional at any of these then you're actually
making some amount of income from it.

Maybe I'm just too old.

Sean

[Trevor]

"Sean Conolly" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs think
> they can offer studio time? I can't even count how many ads like this I
> see on Craigslist. Worse are the ones offering Mastering services, with
> the same gear plus a couple of pieces of foam glued to the wall.
>
> And then there's the Producers - apparently if you put together a few
> songs at home with the above gear you get to say "I do a little Producing
> on the side". Of course if you took the time to register a trademark name
> you can claim you have a publishing company, etc.
>
> What makes it aggravating beyond the obvious stupidity, is that it's so
> prevalent that it dilutes the real meaning of the words. Selling studio
> services implies that you actually have a studio - as in a real room for
> recording and not the spare bedroom. Publishing means you actually publish
> songs - which in turn are copyrighted, etc. Producing means that you're
> actually producing music for distribution in some form. And if you want to
> claim that you are a Professional at any of these then you're actually
> making some amount of income from it.
>
> Maybe I'm just too old.

Right because you don't realise just how much some of the rappers make from
doing all those things in their bedroom studio's. So does making $millions
mean they really ARE professionals in your opinion? They are obviously, and
yet still devalue the skills of the real audio professionals and real
musicians alike IMO.

Trevor.

[swanny]

On 13/05/2011 12:13 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:
> Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs think
> they can offer studio time? I can't even count how many ads like this I see
> on Craigslist. Worse are the ones offering Mastering services, with the same
> gear plus a couple of pieces of foam glued to the wall.
>
> And then there's the Producers - apparently if you put together a few songs
> at home with the above gear you get to say "I do a little Producing on the
> side". Of course if you took the time to register a trademark name you can
> claim you have a publishing company, etc.
>
> What makes it aggravating beyond the obvious stupidity, is that it's so
> prevalent that it dilutes the real meaning of the words. Selling studio
> services implies that you actually have a studio - as in a real room for
> recording and not the spare bedroom. Publishing means you actually publish
> songs - which in turn are copyrighted, etc. Producing means that you're
> actually producing music for distribution in some form. And if you want to
> claim that you are a Professional at any of these then you're actually
> making some amount of income from it.
>
> Maybe I'm just too old.
>
> Sean
>
>

I guess they can offer their services as such, but if it all goes
pear-shaped and the wheels fall off how long do you think they will last?

[Trevor]

"swanny" > wrote in message
nd.com...
> I guess they can offer their services as such, but if it all goes
> pear-shaped and the wheels fall off how long do you think they will last?

Doesn't really matter since they have little time or money invested.
Seems to me however that most people should be well aware of what they are
getting for their money before hiring them, so if it means getting a demo
done cheap Vs not getting one at all, it's probably not that bad in some
cases.

Trevor.

[brassplyer]

On May 12, 10:13*pm, "Sean Conolly" > wrote:
> Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs think
> they can offer studio time?


Are people like this seriously cutting into the market for real audio
pros?

OTOH, I've heard things produced by supposedly "real" studios -
treated rooms, expensive gear, closet full of mics, testimonials on
their website etc. that sounded sub-par as well.

[Trevor]

"brassplyer" > wrote in message
...
>OTOH, I've heard things produced by supposedly "real" studios -
>treated rooms, expensive gear, closet full of mics, testimonials on
>their website etc. that sounded sub-par as well.

Unfortunately that's often what the client wants. I'm sure Katy Perry etc.
don't use the bedroom boys, but I doubt they could do much worse :-(

Trevor.

[brassplyer]

On May 12, 11:47*pm, "Trevor" > wrote:

> >OTOH, I've heard things produced by supposedly "real" studios -
> >treated rooms, expensive gear, closet full of mics, testimonials on
> >their website etc. that sounded sub-par as well.
>
> Unfortunately that's often what the client wants. I'm sure Katy Perry etc..
> don't use the bedroom boys, but I doubt they could do much worse :-(


I'm not talking about things like "I think use of Auto-Tune should be
a capital crime" but just amateurish sounding production - badly EQ'd
etc. Stupid production decisions like setting up a singer/guitarist
with one mic for both voice and guitar and not even doing a good job
of that. How much more labor could it be to set up a mic for both and
get a balance between them?

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs think
>they can offer studio time? I can't even count how many ads like this I see
>on Craigslist. Worse are the ones offering Mastering services, with the same
>gear plus a couple of pieces of foam glued to the wall.

So advertise in a way that specifically distinguishes you from those bozos.

There have been low-end studios cropping up ever since 4-track 1/4" came out.
Your job in marketing is to specifically distinguish yourself from them, so
you can get the customers who have become disenchanted with their experiences
there.

When the ADAT was popular, I ran ads saying "We don't Have An ADAT And We
Never Will." Now I run ads saying "We Don't Have Pro-Tools."

>What makes it aggravating beyond the obvious stupidity, is that it's so
>prevalent that it dilutes the real meaning of the words. Selling studio
>services implies that you actually have a studio - as in a real room for
>recording and not the spare bedroom. Publishing means you actually publish
>songs - which in turn are copyrighted, etc. Producing means that you're
>actually producing music for distribution in some form. And if you want to
>claim that you are a Professional at any of these then you're actually
>making some amount of income from it.

Don't worry, there are plenty of performers in the same league too. You
don't want them as customers either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

brassplyer wrote:
> On May 12, 11:47 pm, > wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, I've heard things produced by supposedly "real" studios -
>>> treated rooms, expensive gear, closet full of mics, testimonials on
>>> their website etc. that sounded sub-par as well.
>>
>> Unfortunately that's often what the client wants. I'm sure Katy Perry etc.
>> don't use the bedroom boys, but I doubt they could do much worse :-(
>
>
> I'm not talking about things like "I think use of Auto-Tune should be
> a capital crime" but just amateurish sounding production - badly EQ'd
> etc. Stupid production decisions like setting up a singer/guitarist
> with one mic for both voice and guitar and not even doing a good job
> of that.

That isn't that stupid. Well, the 'not that good a job' part maybe.

> How much more labor could it be to set up a mic for both and
> get a balance between them?

It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
mic :)

--
Les Cargill

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

brassplyer writes:

>> Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs think
>> they can offer studio time?

> Are people like this seriously cutting into the market for real audio
> pros?

YEs, they are. YEs you can find crap produced anywhere, but often the crap is because nobody bothered to actually put
together an arrangement before they went to the studio and
the engineer pushed the red button. IT starts with a good
song, well arranged.

> OTOH, I've heard things produced by supposedly "real" studios -
> treated rooms, expensive gear, closet full of mics, testimonials on
> their website etc. that sounded sub-par as well.

OF course, but it starts with a product that's worth
listening to and a good presentation of it. Tech chops can
only do so much, but then we've been around this circle in
this group before.


Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-13 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Sean Conolly > wrote:
>>Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs
>>think they can offer studio time? I can't even count how many ads
>>like this I see on Craigslist.
<snip>
>When the ADAT was popular, I ran ads saying "We don't Have An ADAT
>And We Never Will." Now I run ads saying "We Don't Have Pro-Tools."
I tell folks that, but I tell them if they gotta have it
they can take the hard disk I hand them at the end of the
session and import it into pro tools if they really gotta do
that.

<snip again>
>Don't worry, there are plenty of performers in the same league too.
>You don't want them as customers either.

HE's dead on, and I don't want those customers, which is why
I do location recording, with or without remote truck. But,
if I do it without remote truck, it's sans sound
reinforcement. IF you want me to record you rockin' out
you'll pay the price for the remote truck, because I'm not
going to listen to most of that stuff at the volumes you
want to play in the room, and take a feed off your live
foh console's inserts. eSpecially when I'm not offering a
good control room, except in the truck so I don't do mixing
and further production on your tracks.

I don't have pt, I don't have autotune, and if you need
them, or you can't perform live then I probably don't want
to hear you anyway so it's just as well that I don't record
you.




Richard webb,

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

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 12, 11:47*pm, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "brassplyer" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >OTOH, I've heard things produced by supposedly "real" studios -
> >treated rooms, expensive gear, closet full of mics, testimonials on
> >their website etc. that sounded sub-par as well.
>
> Unfortunately that's often what the client wants. I'm sure Katy Perry etc..
> don't use the bedroom boys, but I doubt they could do much worse :-(
>
> Trevor.
____________________
Technique trumps equipment arsenal everytime. You can point what you
think is the business end of that rare collectors RCA 44A you bought
at your lead singers mouth and wonder why so much ambience is getting
into the vocal, while someone who really knows WTF they're DOING will
lay down a perfectly pristine vocal track with a beer-stained SM-57 in
the back of some Dive broom closet!

Or a 96channel digital console with ****e level running through it and
hiss and noise and clipping because the "engineer" has no concept of
gain structur, while the penny-pincher down the street turns out a
audiophile's wet dream on their 10 year old 24-channel 6-sub mackie
that survived a church fire!!!

-CC

[hank alrich]

Sean Conolly > wrote:

> Why is it that every goober with an m-box and a pair of cheap KRKs think
> they can offer studio time? I can't even count how many ads like this I see
> on Craigslist. Worse are the ones offering Mastering services, with the same
> gear plus a couple of pieces of foam glued to the wall.
>
> And then there's the Producers - apparently if you put together a few songs
> at home with the above gear you get to say "I do a little Producing on the
> side". Of course if you took the time to register a trademark name you can
> claim you have a publishing company, etc.
>
> What makes it aggravating beyond the obvious stupidity, is that it's so
> prevalent that it dilutes the real meaning of the words. Selling studio
> services implies that you actually have a studio - as in a real room for
> recording and not the spare bedroom. Publishing means you actually publish
> songs - which in turn are copyrighted, etc. Producing means that you're
> actually producing music for distribution in some form. And if you want to
> claim that you are a Professional at any of these then you're actually
> making some amount of income from it.
>
> Maybe I'm just too old.
>
> Sean

Probably too observant.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> brassplyer wrote:
> > On May 12, 11:47 pm, > wrote:
> >
> >>> OTOH, I've heard things produced by supposedly "real" studios -
> >>> treated rooms, expensive gear, closet full of mics, testimonials on
> >>> their website etc. that sounded sub-par as well.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately that's often what the client wants. I'm sure Katy Perry etc.
> >> don't use the bedroom boys, but I doubt they could do much worse :-(
> >
> >
> > I'm not talking about things like "I think use of Auto-Tune should be
> > a capital crime" but just amateurish sounding production - badly EQ'd
> > etc. Stupid production decisions like setting up a singer/guitarist
> > with one mic for both voice and guitar and not even doing a good job
> > of that.
>
> That isn't that stupid. Well, the 'not that good a job' part maybe.
>
> > How much more labor could it be to set up a mic for both and
> > get a balance between them?
>
> It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
> mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
> got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
> mic :)
>
> --
> Les Cargill

It all gets complexerated in the doin'.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

>Les Cargill > wrote:
>>
>> It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
>> mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
>> got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
>> mic :)

My secret for that is the BK-11...
--scott


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

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-13 said:
>On May 12, 11:47ÿpm, "Trevor" > wrote:
>> Unfortunately that's often what the client wants. I'm sure Katy
>Perry etc ..
>> don't use the bedroom boys, but I doubt they could do much worse
>:-( >

>Technique trumps equipment arsenal everytime. You can point what
>you think is the business end of that rare collectors RCA 44A you
>bought at your lead singers mouth and wonder why so much ambience
>is getting into the vocal, while someone who really knows WTF
>they're DOING will lay down a perfectly pristine vocal track with a
>beer-stained SM-57 in the back of some Dive broom closet!
>Or a 96channel digital console with ****e level running through it
>and hiss and noise and clipping because the "engineer" has no
>concept of gain structure, while the penny-pincher down the street
>turns out a audiophile's wet dream on their 10 year old 24-channel
>6-sub mackie that survived a church fire!!!

THis is true, but as Trevor noted, it's often what the guy
paying the biolls wants, and gets. MIght be lack of chops
on the part of the engineer, but chances are pretty good
the client's paying the bills and trumps what the engineer
wants, or might choose. THe producer calls the shots, and
he might or might not have a clue.
Dr. Luke Dre. DRe and these guys can do "beats" on midi
sequencers and stuff, but nobody said they knew **** about
how to work with microphones and people actually making
music or anything like that.

I had occasion to go to one of the better known rooms in
MEmphis, a three hour in and out demo, one person playing
their STeinway. Boom boom, a bunch of cocktail music all
segued together, intent was 15-20 minutes of "yes this man
can play a piano" stuff.

The engineer stuck one microphone, an AT, can't recall which
nomenclature on the piano, well placed, but had it been for
more production than a demo I might have played a little
more with placement, after all that's your standard large
studio live room. But for waht it was the technique he used
sounded just fine. Had it been for the real money that
STeinway would have been tuned first, and we would have
played around a bit, I would have listened while walking
that room somebody else playing. HIS default setup was for
piano in the context of an ensemble, drums gobo, possibly
even piano on a dub later to get a clean piano track, maybe
not depending on what all the ensemble's makeup was. Had it
been me, knowing solo piano but knowing nothing else about
the plans for the session I might have gone with a stereo
technique, and the default setup both, pick the one we like,
but as soon as we left that Friday afternoon he had a break
then set up for another session that evening.

Does the client know what they want? ARe they willing to
spend enough time, or money to get it? These folks may
spoend megabucks on studio time, but that doesn't mean they
know how to work with the tools available.

IT's about having both the tools and the skills. sKills
aren't developed working by oneself in the back bedroom.
sKills are developed by working with others who have more
experience regularly, keeping one's eyes and ears open, and
asking questions when appropriate. Wonking out in your back
bedroom and asking a few questions on the internet pales in
comparison.


Regards,


>-CC


Richard webb,

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Les > wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
>>> mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
>>> got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
>>> mic :)
>
> My secret for that is the BK-11...
> --scott
>
>


I bet so. Those are like... secret alien technology :)

http://www.coutant.org/bk11/index.html

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> Les Cargill > wrote:

>>> It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
>>> mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
>>> got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
>>> mic :)

> My secret for that is the BK-11...

Buy it now: USD 2600 (!) - will a BM5 do? - btw. how should I store it,
vertical or horisontal?

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>>>> It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
>>>> mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
>>>> got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
>>>> mic :)
>
>> My secret for that is the BK-11...
>
>Buy it now: USD 2600 (!) - will a BM5 do? - btw. how should I store it,
>vertical or horisontal?

That's an insane price. Buy a Beyer M-130 instead, it's easier to place
and the null is just as good.

Null on the BM5 isn't bad but the output is very low.

Store the BK-11 and M-130 both vertically.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Les > wrote:
>>>>> It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
>>>>> mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
>>>>> got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
>>>>> mic :)
>>
>>> My secret for that is the BK-11...
>>
>> Buy it now: USD 2600 (!) - will a BM5 do? - btw. how should I store it,
>> vertical or horisontal?
>>
>
>So how are the NADY ribbons? Frys has 'em for < $100.

None of them have a decent null to them, making them useless for the
application. Still, for under $100 they're probably useful for _something_.

The null on the BK-11 is amazing even by ribbon standards.
--scott


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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> Les > wrote:
>
>>>> It's not about the labor. Seriously, ever punch up the vox
>>>> mic and the gtr mic, and listen for phasiness? Hey, you
>>>> got vocals in my guitar mic.... no, you got guitar in my vocal
>>>> mic :)
>
>> My secret for that is the BK-11...
>
> Buy it now: USD 2600 (!) - will a BM5 do? - btw. how should I store it,
> vertical or horisontal?
>

So how are the NADY ribbons? Frys has 'em for < $100.

>> --scott
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Null on the BM5 isn't bad but the output is very low.

I built a booster-amp for it with a Hitachi MC-preamp chip, works fine with
unbalanced input except for a bit of buzz from the upper capsule. Some of
the time I'm a coward, so I have NOT felt any inclination to disassemble the
mic-pair and investigate.

Could be that it is a better idea to build a trannybox, I have a pair of
Sennheiser TM005's that I used to use in reverse as input transformers in my
A77 with input board bypassed, ie. directly to the rec-level pots. I should
have thought of ripping the input transformers from the becords that I had
no room for keeping and not only ripped the heads, but the TM005 is probably
better as a step-up.

> Store the BK-11 and M-130 both vertically.

And that pristine BM5 which has just about done nothing - I did use it to
record a voice improvisation in 1985, great sound on vox if not close, great
space just recording in a reasonable listening-room - but sleep in its fine
wooden box for 50 years? - should I not worry or stand the box on its end in
the mic drawer? - mind you, its precious, I paid DKK 250 for it and it is
one of the products Bang & Olufsen seemingly do not want to be reminded of
having produced, no info available from them.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Null on the BM5 isn't bad but the output is very low.
>
>I built a booster-amp for it with a Hitachi MC-preamp chip, works fine with
>unbalanced input except for a bit of buzz from the upper capsule. Some of
>the time I'm a coward, so I have NOT felt any inclination to disassemble the
>mic-pair and investigate.

I would first rewire the mike for balanced output. The transformers are
inherently balanced; the only reason the output is unbalanced is that one
end is tied to ground.

I might also try and replace them with Royer's new designs.

>Could be that it is a better idea to build a trannybox, I have a pair of
>Sennheiser TM005's that I used to use in reverse as input transformers in my
>A77 with input board bypassed, ie. directly to the rec-level pots. I should
>have thought of ripping the input transformers from the becords that I had
>no room for keeping and not only ripped the heads, but the TM005 is probably
>better as a step-up.

You need gain. Stepping up the voltage means stepping down the impedance
and that's not going to make the ribbon happy.

>And that pristine BM5 which has just about done nothing - I did use it to
>record a voice improvisation in 1985, great sound on vox if not close, great
>space just recording in a reasonable listening-room - but sleep in its fine
>wooden box for 50 years? - should I not worry or stand the box on its end in
>the mic drawer? - mind you, its precious, I paid DKK 250 for it and it is
>one of the products Bang & Olufsen seemingly do not want to be reminded of
>having produced, no info available from them.

I think they should be held upright so that the ribbons themselves are
vertical at all times.

B&O didn't actually make those, they just rebadged them. I don't recall
the whole story, but David Royer purchased the rights to the original
Speiden design which the B&O was adapted from and the current Royer ribbons
are mechanically very similar designs but with much better transformers
and magnets.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:

>>> Null on the BM5 isn't bad but the output is very low.

>> I built a booster-amp for it with a Hitachi MC-preamp chip, works
>> fine with unbalanced input except for a bit of buzz from the upper
>> capsule. Some of the time I'm a coward, so I have NOT felt any
>> inclination to disassemble the mic-pair and investigate.

> I would first rewire the mike for balanced output. The transformers
> are inherently balanced; the only reason the output is unbalanced is
> that one end is tied to ground.

My level of information is that the mic is balanced out, the preamp is
however not balanced in.

> I might also try and replace them with Royer's new designs.

>> Could be that it is a better idea to build a trannybox, I have a
>> pair of Sennheiser TM005's that I used to use in reverse as input
>> transformers in my A77 with input board bypassed, ie. directly to
>> the rec-level pots. I should have thought of ripping the input
>> transformers from the becords that I had no room for keeping and not
>> only ripped the heads, but the TM005 is probably better as a step-up.

> You need gain. Stepping up the voltage means stepping down the
> impedance and that's not going to make the ribbon happy.

I am thinking 1:2

>> And that pristine BM5 which has just about done nothing - I did use
>> it to record a voice improvisation in 1985, great sound on vox if
>> not close, great space just recording in a reasonable listening-room
>> - but sleep in its fine wooden box for 50 years? - should I not
>> worry or stand the box on its end in the mic drawer? - mind you, its
>> precious, I paid DKK 250 for it and it is one of the products Bang &
>> Olufsen seemingly do not want to be reminded of having produced, no
>> info available from them.

> I think they should be held upright so that the ribbons themselves are
> vertical at all times.

I'll see if that can be implemented without a risk of the box falling over,
that probably would be bad.

> B&O didn't actually make those, they just rebadged them. I don't
> recall the whole story, but David Royer purchased the rights to the
> original Speiden design which the B&O was adapted from and the
> current Royer ribbons are mechanically very similar designs but with
> much better transformers and magnets.

Ah, very interesting, thanks!

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>>> Null on the BM5 isn't bad but the output is very low.
>
>>> I built a booster-amp for it with a Hitachi MC-preamp chip, works
>>> fine with unbalanced input except for a bit of buzz from the upper
>>> capsule. Some of the time I'm a coward, so I have NOT felt any
>>> inclination to disassemble the mic-pair and investigate.
>
>> I would first rewire the mike for balanced output. The transformers
>> are inherently balanced; the only reason the output is unbalanced is
>> that one end is tied to ground.
>
>My level of information is that the mic is balanced out, the preamp is
>however not balanced in.

You want balanced in! It is your only salvation especially when
dealing with fairly high-Z inputs!

>> You need gain. Stepping up the voltage means stepping down the
>> impedance and that's not going to make the ribbon happy.
>
>I am thinking 1:2

Try just the normal THAT1015 preamp chip instead. Reasonably high-Z
input, lower noise than a 1:2 transformer, inexpensive. Good balancing.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> My level of information is that the mic is balanced out, the preamp
>> is however not balanced in.

> You want balanced in! It is your only salvation especially when
> dealing with fairly high-Z inputs!

It is not a high-z input, it is mc-preamp chip, HA12017 if I remember this
correctly, we made some mc preamps in a club that once existed.

>>> You need gain. Stepping up the voltage means stepping down the
>>> impedance and that's not going to make the ribbon happy.
>>
>> I am thinking 1:2

> Try just the normal THAT1015 preamp chip instead. Reasonably high-Z
> input, lower noise than a 1:2 transformer, inexpensive. Good
> balancing.

Hmmm .... dunno about another diy ... but a Grace stereo pre - that seems to
be the alternative - may or may not be cheap, but does cost a lot of money
as seen from my current budget.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> My level of information is that the mic is balanced out, the preamp
>>> is however not balanced in.
>
>> You want balanced in! It is your only salvation especially when
>> dealing with fairly high-Z inputs!
>
>It is not a high-z input, it is mc-preamp chip, HA12017 if I remember this
>correctly, we made some mc preamps in a club that once existed.

That is pretty high-Z in. If it doesn't have a transformer on the front
end or a grounded-base input stage, it's going to have something north of
1K in, which is a good thing from a ribbon mike perspective and bad for
an SM-57.

Same goes for all those Mackie input stages.

>> Try just the normal THAT1015 preamp chip instead. Reasonably high-Z
>> input, lower noise than a 1:2 transformer, inexpensive. Good
>> balancing.
>
>Hmmm .... dunno about another diy ... but a Grace stereo pre - that seems to
>be the alternative - may or may not be cheap, but does cost a lot of money
>as seen from my current budget.

It's a step up from the THAT1015, but the DIY is pretty easy. Check out
the datasheet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."