Re: Dr Fred's Review of SF24

[ScotFraser]

<< So, reading carefully between the lines, I guess you could conclude
that he thought it was an OK microphone.
>>

I gather, but then again, I don't think I've ever heard a discouraging word
about any gear the good doctor reviews.

Scott Fraser

[hank alrich]

David Satz wrote:

> "DJS" wrote:

> > Here it is:
> > http://www.proaudioreview.com/par/row/row2.shtml

> So, reading carefully between the lines, I guess you could conclude
> that he thought it was an OK microphone.

He could've been a little more upbeat. Maybe he should've gotten in
earlier.

More seriously, what's really in the pre-pre in the SF24 or the other
Royer phantom ribbons? Must be something(s) pretty compact. Is the
active stuff pre or post transformer? For the difference in cost one
could almost get a decent outboard preamp useful with lots of mics. If
one were to employ a good preamp very close to the mic(s), could that do
as well as the built-in device(s)? Or does the Royer pre-pre load the
ribbon itself in a particularly fortunate way?

--
ha

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> More seriously, what's really in the pre-pre in the SF24 or the other
> Royer phantom ribbons? Must be something(s) pretty compact. Is the
> active stuff pre or post transformer?

The output of the internal preamp (the terminals that connect to the
real preamp) is transformerless. The goal of the internal preamp is to
twofold. First, it's designed to make the output of the microphone
(the unit) relatively independent of the load impedance of the
preamp, since it's this mic/preamp interface that most defines the
sound of a particular mic/preamp pair. Second, it's there to bring the
level (at the mic's XLR connector) up to that of other contemporary
mics which have greater sensitivity than the Royer ribbon element.

> For the difference in cost one
> could almost get a decent outboard preamp useful with lots of mics.

You still need one. The output of the amplified Royer mics is still
nominally mic level and must be amplified when used with any
equipment that's designed for a line level input.

> If
> one were to employ a good preamp very close to the mic(s), could that do
> as well as the built-in device(s)? Or does the Royer pre-pre load the
> ribbon itself in a particularly fortunate way?

The latter - that's its main reason for being there.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[EganMedia]

>I gather, but then again, I don't think I've ever heard a discouraging word
>about any gear the good doctor reviews.

It seems as if every mic he reviews somehow beats out each of his six dozen
Stephen Paul modified, tweaked out 3 angstrom thick
stolen-egyptian-king-gold-sputtered diaphragm early fifties Neumanns.

Gawd I get tired of him describing his mic collection in sordid detail every
time he reviews another mic. For a while I thought it was to give some
background into his experience with other microphones. Now I think he's just
opening his trenchcoat in public.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[David Satz]

hank alrich wrote:

> More seriously, what's really in the pre-pre in the SF24 or the other
> Royer phantom ribbons?

It would be good to know this, or (even better) to have some objective
measurements of the combination's response as compared with an SF-12
and a suitable outboard preamp.


> For the difference in cost one could almost get a decent outboard preamp
> useful with lots of mics. If one were to employ a good preamp very close
> to the mic(s), could that do as well as the built-in device(s)? Or does
> the Royer pre-pre load the ribbon itself in a particularly fortunate way?

Again it would be good to know this. But it isn't always practical to
place a full-size mike preamp close enough to the microphones, for example
when you're hanging the mike in a concert hall from a high ceiling.

The loading issue is real, at least for music with strong low-frequency
content. The impedance of the SF-1, which is half of an SF-12, rises
precipitously around the resonant frequency of the ribbon, to a point
where many of the usual standbys can't properly bridge them. Royer's
300 Ohm spec for output impedance is very accurate, but only at midrange
and high frequencies.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>
>More seriously, what's really in the pre-pre in the SF24 or the other
>Royer phantom ribbons? Must be something(s) pretty compact. Is the
>active stuff pre or post transformer? For the difference in cost one
>could almost get a decent outboard preamp useful with lots of mics. If
>one were to employ a good preamp very close to the mic(s), could that do
>as well as the built-in device(s)? Or does the Royer pre-pre load the
>ribbon itself in a particularly fortunate way?

It's after the transformer, and it's really nothing fancy. But it _is_
a very handy thing if you're going to be working in a lot of places and
don't know what sort of preamp you are going to have available. Yes, you
could get a good outboard preamp for the cost differential, and yes, it
would perform as well, but it would weigh a lot more and it would be hard
to locate near the mikes when you're hanging them from the ceiling.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[M. Im]

(ScotFraser) wrote in message >...
> << So, reading carefully between the lines, I guess you could conclude
> that he thought it was an OK microphone.
> >>
>
> I gather, but then again, I don't think I've ever heard a discouraging word
> about any gear the good doctor reviews.
>
> Scott Fraser

He's wrote a review on the M149 Neumann and it was certainly not a
rave. He didn't say it was a bad mic... and it's not.

Mike

[M. Im]

(EganMedia) wrote in message >...

> It seems as if every mic he reviews somehow beats out each of his six dozen
> Stephen Paul modified, tweaked out 3 angstrom thick
> stolen-egyptian-king-gold-sputtered diaphragm early fifties Neumanns.

Joe,
Don't forget, I doubt Dr. Fred is testing these mics in front of a
guitar amp or a drum kit or six inches away from a vocalist. I don't
even know if reviews from a classical remote recordist are even that
useful for the commercial studio owner. If you were to review the mic,
you would certainly be comparing it to the mics you use and to the
style of recording and type of music you record. Obviously, this would
be interesting for other commercial studio engineers.

He has apparently spent a lot of time and money making vintage audio
gear perform on the level that would satisfy a discerning classical
recordist. So if some new modern twist on a vintage design can beat
out his ultimate tools, I can see how he would get excited about it.

Mike

>
> Joe Egan
> EMP
> Colchester, VT
> www.eganmedia.com

[Analogeezer]

(EganMedia) wrote in message >...
> >I gather, but then again, I don't think I've ever heard a discouraging word
> >about any gear the good doctor reviews.
>
> It seems as if every mic he reviews somehow beats out each of his six dozen
> Stephen Paul modified, tweaked out 3 angstrom thick
> stolen-egyptian-king-gold-sputtered diaphragm early fifties Neumanns.
>
> Gawd I get tired of him describing his mic collection in sordid detail every
> time he reviews another mic. For a while I thought it was to give some
> background into his experience with other microphones. Now I think he's just
> opening his trenchcoat in public.
>
>
> Joe Egan
> EMP
> Colchester, VT
> www.eganmedia.com


Yeah this line from the review kind of told me the review was more
about how cool he is rather than the mic itself:

"I have been pretty lucky to be able to make recordings with Royer's
SF-24 for two years before anyone got a chance!"

So he was the only guy that got to use a SF-24 for two years?

Analogeezer

[M. Im]

>
>
> Yeah this line from the review kind of told me the review was more
> about how cool he is rather than the mic itself:
>
> "I have been pretty lucky to be able to make recordings with Royer's
> SF-24 for two years before anyone got a chance!"
>
> So he was the only guy that got to use a SF-24 for two years?
>
> Analogeezer

What do you care? You're still 'geezing' on analog! No, seriously, as
an aquaintance of Dr. Fred, I can tell you that he has quite a sense
of humor, much of which doesn't come through the text on the page.

Mike

[ScotFraser]

<< I doubt Dr. Fred is testing these mics in front of a
guitar amp or a drum kit or six inches away from a vocalist. I don't
even know if reviews from a classical remote recordist are even that
useful for the commercial studio owner. >>

Well, I generally put a whole lot more stock in equipment evaluations from
people with a classical background because they tend to be considerably more
discerning in what it takes to satisfy the requirements of the genre. To me,
putting a mic in front of a guitar amp tells me nothing useful about the
quality & design orientation of the mic.


Scott Fraser

[Analogeezer]

(M. Im) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> > Yeah this line from the review kind of told me the review was more
> > about how cool he is rather than the mic itself:
> >
> > "I have been pretty lucky to be able to make recordings with Royer's
> > SF-24 for two years before anyone got a chance!"
> >
> > So he was the only guy that got to use a SF-24 for two years?
> >
> > Analogeezer
>
> What do you care? You're still 'geezing' on analog! No, seriously, as
> an aquaintance of Dr. Fred, I can tell you that he has quite a sense
> of humor, much of which doesn't come through the text on the page.
>
> Mike

Well let me tell you, after taking two days to get my new "turnkey"
DAW I had built actually working, I was starting to look longingly at
my analog deck which just plain works without hassle.

Actually "Analogeezer" refers to my penchant for analog synths, which
actually only account for about 15% of what I have (an OB-8 and two
Matrix 1000's) on hand. I've got some VA's as well which are cool but
not the same thing....actually my fave is the Waldorf XTK which is
digital but has more fur on it than many "analogs". I've got far more
digital synths than analog but I'm not trying to be the big dog of
analog collectors...too many guys out there have a BIG jump on me in
that department <g>

I'm hoping to cop an Andromeda A6 next month (got a line one one),
that one will be fun.

What I really want is an analog modular but that's a way's off <g>

Analogeezer