U47 ... no, this post is not about submarines. I'm rendering the
options for which microphones to use during a live Andrews Sisters
style swing performance. The stage consists of three good looking
female vocalists (yes, they can sing well, too) backed up by a band of
6 (who don't look as good as the trio but are just as fun to watch).

Now, I would like to match the looks of the vocalists with good looking
microphones and stands, demonstrating a feel of authenticity and
uniqueness.

Step one would be to dull the shiny metal of the stands but I'm
clueless what microphones the Andrews Sisters even use to record tracks
like "Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree", "Jumpin' Jive" or "Rum and
Coca-Cola"???

This was before Neumann M49s were used ... perhaps a Siemens Neumann
U47? Unfortunately the only pictures I found depicted unidentifiable,
hanging study microphones ... (link for examples)

http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvall...by/andrews.htm
http://www.wnyc.org/studio360/images...Siblings4.html

Also, I don't know if any affordable rebuilds exist that would produce
acceptable signal quality. If nothing else works I'll fall back on a
modern microphone behind a retro shell. Then again, I don't even know
who sells shells like that!

Thank you for your contributions regarding these microphones ...

RCA 44 & 77 were the mics of choice back then. Wes Dooley has some great
replicas at www.aea.com

Eric

wrote in message
oups.com...
Also, I don't know if any affordable rebuilds exist that would produce
acceptable signal quality. If nothing else works I'll fall back on a
modern microphone behind a retro shell. Then again, I don't even know
who sells shells like that!

http://www.wesdooley.com/aea/products.html

http://www.shure.com/microphones/models/55sh.asp

There's a start.

Neil Henderson

wrote:
U47 ... no, this post is not about submarines. I'm rendering the
options for which microphones to use during a live Andrews Sisters
style swing performance. The stage consists of three good looking
female vocalists (yes, they can sing well, too) backed up by a band of
6 (who don't look as good as the trio but are just as fun to watch).

Now, I would like to match the looks of the vocalists with good looking
microphones and stands, demonstrating a feel of authenticity and
uniqueness.

I'd suggest the RCA 74B. It's the sort of thing that you would find at
a typical performance back then, and it has good gain before feedback
characteristics and a good vocal tone.

You'll find a U47 is going to have very poor gain before feedback. It is
not designed for PA applications.

Step one would be to dull the shiny metal of the stands but I'm
clueless what microphones the Andrews Sisters even use to record tracks
like "Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree", "Jumpin' Jive" or "Rum and
Coca-Cola"???

What they used in the studio and what they used for PA were probably very
different... just like what artists use in the studio and for PA today are
very different.

Also, I don't know if any affordable rebuilds exist that would produce
acceptable signal quality. If nothing else works I'll fall back on a
modern microphone behind a retro shell. Then again, I don't even know
who sells shells like that!

Wes Dooley at AEA Microphones in LA. He can probably sell or rent you
a 74B off the shelf as well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Neil Henderson wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
Also, I don't know if any affordable rebuilds exist that would produce
acceptable signal quality. If nothing else works I'll fall back on a
modern microphone behind a retro shell. Then again, I don't even know
who sells shells like that!

http://www.wesdooley.com/aea/products.html

http://www.shure.com/microphones/models/55sh.asp

If you actually try a 55 on stage, you will find that the gain before
feedback is just awful. Even the new 55 reissue that has an SM57 capsule
inside it doesn't perform very well because the grille design screws the
microphone pattern up so much. The big advantage of the 55 back then was
that it was dirt cheap for people who didn't have the money for an EV 664.

It sure looks neater than the 664, though. It's about a decade too late
for the Andrews Sisters, though.
--scott

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

In article ,
Eric Toline wrote:
RCA 44 & 77 were the mics of choice back then. Wes Dooley has some great
replicas at www.aea.com

74B has better gain before feedback than either one, and costs less. If
you have to choose, the 44 usually has better gain before feedback than
the 77 with any pattern.

This, I suspect, is why the BK-5 came along. BK-5 beats them all hands
down for gain before feedback but it's way too modern.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:
U47 ... no, this post is not about submarines. I'm rendering the
options for which microphones to use during a live Andrews Sisters
style swing performance. The stage consists of three good looking
female vocalists (yes, they can sing well, too) backed up by a band
of 6 (who don't look as good as the trio but are just as fun to
watch).

Here are a few pictures, looks like some sort of RCA in the

http://www.cmgww.com/music/andrews/about/photos.htm

-----------------
"During this time the sisters were very active in their patriotic duty
of wartime entertainment. They volunteered their free time to entertain
enlisted and wounded men by singing, dancing and signing autographs. In
June of 1945 they participated in an eight-week USO tour and performed
for thousands of servicemen. They had been hoping to do such a tour
since the war started in order to give back to the soldiers that were
fighting."

http://www.cmgww.com/music/andrews/about/bio2.htm


-----------------
I would assume somewhere along the way they performed for the troops on
the deck of a submarine. So there you have it. .

Scott Dorsey wrote:
The big advantage of the 55 back then was
that it was dirt cheap for people who didn't have the money for an EV 664.

It sure looks neater than the 664, though. It's about a decade too late
for the Andrews Sisters, though.
--scott


I only paid $49.50 for my 664 at Radio Supply on Granby St in Norfolk
and that was in '61-'62 I think. The 55's were about the same price
though. The cheap ones were the Astatic, 2.5"h x 2"w x 3/4" deep. The
666 was like $175 and too rich for my pocketbook back then. Heck of a
mic though! A lot of radio done with a 666 or 77.

The RCA 44's and 77's were big back then along with the Altec 639A.
They went back to that era.


Wayne

On 2/19/05 4:26 PM, in article
, "
wrote:

The ribbons are the correct-period-thing as Scott and others have said. I've
used the Junior, 639, SK46 (a later small RCA ribbon used more at the time
for talkback than recording but it does some VERY nice things as a recording
mic, and I prefer it over most of the 77's I've met) in live situations and
liked the results, as did the artists. The 44 is So danged BIG out there and
blocks faces.

If VISUALS are your thing over actualy DESIGN then the Wes Dooley 44 SHELL
with Your Favorite Mic inside might fly. Their actual 44-re-issue would
werve (but would you want to take it out in public????!) Other than that,
Scott's reccomendations are pretty right.

2 New-Years-Eves ago I saw a 4am video by a big band guy that was a REAL
nice period-costume servicean's nightclub recreation and the band was decked
out in generic-looks-official period mililtary outfits and the WHOLE shebang
was done up with damned-appropriately-placed ribbons all over the band and
out front. The singers were using 44's and the band was spotted with select
sections using either 44's or Coles. It sounded dead-right and the WORKED
the mics correctly.

I always have called the 55 'The County Fair Rodeo Mic' cause that's about
the only place it makes sense to see one. I -did- really like the Stones
video with a God-Light wired inside one though!

John wrote:

If VISUALS are your thing over actualy DESIGN then the Wes Dooley 44
SHELL with Your Favorite Mic inside might fly.

Schoeps CMC6 with an MK41V works wonders in those.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Step one would be to dull the shiny metal of the stands but I'm
clueless what microphones the Andrews Sisters even use to record tracks
like "Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree", "Jumpin' Jive" or "Rum and
Coca-Cola"???

This was before Neumann M49s were used ... perhaps a Siemens Neumann
U47? Unfortunately the only pictures I found depicted unidentifiable,
hanging study microphones ... (link for examples)

http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvall...by/andrews.htm
http://www.wnyc.org/studio360/images...Siblings4.html

The mic in the top link is definitely a ribbon, but looks a little small for
an RCA. Did E-V make a ribbon that looked like this? Or is it a smaller RCA
of a type I'm not familiar with? The one in the bottom, which judging by
hairdos and faces is a later picture, looks an awful lot like a U-47.

I agree with the suggestions for using RCA or AEA mics, but you should know
that, as these are bidirectional, you may not be able to use monitors
anywhere near customary positions, and in fact may not be able to use them
at all. Then again, the Andrews Sisters didn't use them either.

Peace,
Paul

In article writes:

I only paid $49.50 for my 664 at Radio Supply on Granby St in Norfolk
and that was in '61-'62 I think.

Yeah, but that was probably close to a week's pay back then, or a car
payment. Today someone on a reasonably good professional salary could
just about buy a U87, or make a car payment.


--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Gentlemen, thank you very much for the great input! I'm impressed by
the expertise throughout in this thread.

In Summary the look of the RCA 44 seems to be the most authentic and
visually impressive choice, no doubt about that.

Financially, replica mics (e. g. AEA R44) sell for 3.000,- US$ + while
cheaper originals vary between 500,- and 1.500,- upwards with some risk
regarding the sound quality due to worn parts.

In a live show the bi-/poly-directional pickup patterns and gain before
feedback would eliminate monitors (in-ears are not an option) and
"glue" the performers very close to the mic. Also, one of the
vocalists has a very high range which might cause problems. The RCA
74b would perform best in this scenario.

On the other hand, it is possible to combine a replica shell for 600,-
with a Schoepes condenser (600,- CMC6 + 1.000,- MK41V). This would
eliminate the warm ribbon sound but allow vocalists and sound engineer
to proceed according to standards.

Mhmm ... all variations are tricky, both technically and, also,
financially. It will take some discussion to come to conclusions but I
will post the ultimate decision.

Thank you to all contributors!

In article .com,
wrote:
Financially, replica mics (e. g. AEA R44) sell for 3.000,- US$ + while
cheaper originals vary between 500,- and 1.500,- upwards with some risk
regarding the sound quality due to worn parts.

Actually, there are a number of folks who can rebuild these things, and
they aren't expensive to have repaired. I think Clarence Kane charged me
$89 to re-ribbon one recently.

I'd still recommend the 74B over the 44, though. It won't feedback as
easily, it's the right era, and it looks right and sounds right.

In a live show the bi-/poly-directional pickup patterns and gain before
feedback would eliminate monitors (in-ears are not an option) and
"glue" the performers very close to the mic. Also, one of the
vocalists has a very high range which might cause problems. The RCA
74b would perform best in this scenario.

Actually, the bidirectional pattern isn't bad at all. It means you have
to place monitors differently, and put them on the sides so they are in
the mike nulls, but you can actually do monitors pretty well. BUT, using
monitors will make it hard for vocalists to work the mikes in a traditional
manner, and they won't look right because they won't be cupping their
ears like the Andrews Sisters (and everyone else of that era) did.

On the other hand, it is possible to combine a replica shell for 600,-
with a Schoepes condenser (600,- CMC6 + 1.000,- MK41V). This would
eliminate the warm ribbon sound but allow vocalists and sound engineer
to proceed according to standards.

If you do this, it won't sound like an RCA. It'll be clean and accurate
but it won't sound like an RCA, and vocalists won't be able to work it
like they can an RCA. Whether this is a great solution or an awful one
depends on your vocalists and how well they have studied the old style.

Folks who have never worked with a ribbon mike will take a _lot_ of time
to get used to it. Folks who have worked with it before and are familiar
with the technique will be _very_ upset to find their mike has been
replaced with a Schoeps in a box.

Mhmm ... all variations are tricky, both technically and, also,
financially. It will take some discussion to come to conclusions but I
will post the ultimate decision.

Depends on the vocalists entirely. What do they like?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Hey Scott!
Speakling of Ribbons, I've got an old Japanese copy of a 44 from WAY
back when. It needs a new ribbon. I figured if it didn't cost and arm
and a leg I'd get someone to throw a new ribbon in it just for grins.
You have an address or website for Clarence Kane?

Thanks

Benj

wrote:
Hey Scott!
Speakling of Ribbons, I've got an old Japanese copy of a 44 from WAY
back when. It needs a new ribbon. I figured if it didn't cost and arm
and a leg I'd get someone to throw a new ribbon in it just for grins.

Is it one of the National Panasonic things that look like a 44 but are
much smaller?

You have an address or website for Clarence Kane?

ENAK Microphone repair 609-589-6186

Steven Sank also posts to this group occasionally and he also does
excellent re-ribboning work. He may be willing to work on it if
Clarence won't.
--scott


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

In article .com writes:

Financially, replica mics (e. g. AEA R44) sell for 3.000,- US$ + while
cheaper originals vary between 500,- and 1.500,- upwards with some risk
regarding the sound quality due to worn parts.

Yeah, but they work. Wes used to (and probably still does) sell an
empty 44 case. You could buy one and put an SM57 capsule in there if
you don't want to buy a brand new 44 equivalent.

In a live show the bi-/poly-directional pickup patterns and gain before
feedback would eliminate monitors (in-ears are not an option) and
"glue" the performers very close to the mic.

I take it you're trying to re-create an "Andrews Sisters" show? They
didn't use monitors.

On the other hand, it is possible to combine a replica shell for 600,-
with a Schoepes condenser (600,- CMC6 + 1.000,- MK41V). This would
eliminate the warm ribbon sound but allow vocalists and sound engineer
to proceed according to standards.

I was sort of kidding with the SM57 capsule, but there's no guarantee
that a CM6/41 would sound like the sound engineer expects it to when
placed inside the 44 housing. The housing has a lot to do with the
sound of the mic. That housing was intended to be used to restore an
original mic when it's important to have a pristine case, or to use as
a stage prop, with a functional but not necessarily fine sounding
capsule.


--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article .com writes:

On the other hand, it is possible to combine a replica shell for 600,-
with a Schoepes condenser (600,- CMC6 + 1.000,- MK41V). This would
eliminate the warm ribbon sound but allow vocalists and sound engineer
to proceed according to standards.


I was sort of kidding with the SM57 capsule, but there's no guarantee
that a CM6/41 would sound like the sound engineer expects it to when
placed inside the 44 housing. The housing has a lot to do with the
sound of the mic. That housing was intended to be used to restore an
original mic when it's important to have a pristine case, or to use as
a stage prop, with a functional but not necessarily fine sounding
capsule.


Having once used a 44-sheathed MK41V on a set, I can say it worked just fine and got us what we needed for that show in a way that no other solution had.

Wes even has a picture of the setup on his site http://wesdooley.com/aea/AEA_Replica_Microphones_and_Parts.html

Ooops, Sorry Scott, brain fart. I meant 77 not 44.

Now you;ve got me resonated and I went to dig it out,
Seems I lost it in my house, but I did just find it. It's an
Aiwa VM12. If you don't look too close it DOES have that
"classic" look that people are now going nuts for.

If I remember correctly, sound-wise it left a bit to be desired
and sort of rolled off on the high end. That seemed to be due
to the ribbon which they pleated back and forth like drapes
rather than just simple corrugations. That gave more output
but also more mass. (Also more prone to damage which
happened)

Years and years ago I tried my (shakey) hand at making a
new ribbon for it. But sad to say I really didn't have the tools
or decent raw materials. The sound I got was pretty poor and I
gave up. But it did seem clear that with a skilled authentic
replacement, that mic should still kick some serious butt!

Thanks for the info! I might try a resurection in the $89 range,
but I sure don't think I'm ready to go modern "vintage" prices.
In any case is a GREAT prop for band photos! :-)

Benj

In article .com,
wrote:
Ooops, Sorry Scott, brain fart. I meant 77 not 44.

Now you;ve got me resonated and I went to dig it out,
Seems I lost it in my house, but I did just find it. It's an
Aiwa VM12. If you don't look too close it DOES have that
"classic" look that people are now going nuts for.

I think those are smaller than the real 77.

If I remember correctly, sound-wise it left a bit to be desired
and sort of rolled off on the high end. That seemed to be due
to the ribbon which they pleated back and forth like drapes
rather than just simple corrugations. That gave more output
but also more mass. (Also more prone to damage which
happened)

That sounds more like a Beyer ribbon. Do you have the original ribbon
left so that the tech can use it as a reference?

Years and years ago I tried my (shakey) hand at making a
new ribbon for it. But sad to say I really didn't have the tools
or decent raw materials. The sound I got was pretty poor and I
gave up. But it did seem clear that with a skilled authentic
replacement, that mic should still kick some serious butt!

Actually, one of the best materials I know of is the foil that Wrigley
gum wrappers come in. You need to run the stuff through a rolling mill
a few dozen times to get it thin enough, and then figure out how to
corrugate it, but it's not all THAT hard.

Thanks for the info! I might try a resurection in the $89 range,
but I sure don't think I'm ready to go modern "vintage" prices.
In any case is a GREAT prop for band photos! :-)

Try the re-ribboning. The next step would be a transformer replacement
which is probably in the $50 range if you do it yourself.
--scott

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

Maybe sightly smaller but not really small like you often see where
folks are using 77 look-alikes strictly for appearances. Seems they are
now often using those old tiny japanese mics that originally were
crystal mics that sounded like total crap and were dirt cheap but has a
kind of imitation 77 look to them.

I never thought of gum wrapper! I tried using ordinary aluminum foil
and it was just too heavy and too soft. The original was duraluminum
which is quite strong and light. Also since I couldn't do the extreme
pleats the output was lower too.

Bottom line was a low output mic with lots of highs rolled off. Feh.
And yeah a new transformer would be the icing on the cake! But since
the case still looks like a million and it has a VERY strong magnetic
field, I figure a new and proper ribbon ought to bring that dude to
life.

Benj

In article . com,
wrote:
Maybe sightly smaller but not really small like you often see where
folks are using 77 look-alikes strictly for appearances. Seems they are
now often using those old tiny japanese mics that originally were
crystal mics that sounded like total crap and were dirt cheap but has a
kind of imitation 77 look to them.

Wow. I have never actually seen anyone use those crystal things. I
remember seeing them for sale at Lafayette and wondering who would buy
them...

I never thought of gum wrapper! I tried using ordinary aluminum foil
and it was just too heavy and too soft. The original was duraluminum
which is quite strong and light. Also since I couldn't do the extreme
pleats the output was lower too.

Reynolds Wrap will harden up a lot after you run it through the rolling
mill a few dozen times. Your local auto body shop probably has a small
rolling mill they might let you use if you ask nicely. But the Wrigley
wrappers are a very different alloy that is much softer. It is probably
a reasonable match for Duralumin (which is now more or less unavailable
although you can order foils from commercial suppliers which are close).

Bottom line was a low output mic with lots of highs rolled off. Feh.
And yeah a new transformer would be the icing on the cake! But since
the case still looks like a million and it has a VERY strong magnetic
field, I figure a new and proper ribbon ought to bring that dude to
life.

Send it off to Sank or Kane and see. They both do excellent work.
They'll both probably be willing to swap in a Lundahl transformer too
if you ask nicely.
--scott

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

wrote:
Maybe sightly smaller but not really small like you often see where
folks are using 77 look-alikes strictly for appearances. Seems they are
now often using those old tiny japanese mics that originally were
crystal mics that sounded like total crap and were dirt cheap but has a
kind of imitation 77 look to them.

I never thought of gum wrapper! I tried using ordinary aluminum foil
and it was just too heavy and too soft. The original was duraluminum
which is quite strong and light. Also since I couldn't do the extreme
pleats the output was lower too.

Have a look at the Royer website where they give you a tour of how
they make their ribbon mics. They are actually quite generous in
how much information they provide.

They currogate their ribbons by rolling them through paired gear wheels.

I have always wanted to try to make my own ribbon mic, just for fun.

Hey! Finally a use for that damn pasta roller. Like everyone else, I
used it three times and then decided that fresh pasta is cheap and
easily available.

Rob R.

On 2/24/05 9:31 AM, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

Seems they are
now often using those old tiny japanese mics that originally were
crystal mics that sounded like total crap and were dirt cheap but has a
kind of imitation 77 look to them.

Wow. I have never actually seen anyone use those crystal things. I
remember seeing them for sale at Lafayette and wondering who would buy
them...

Oh sure you have... Like for the last 30 years in all SORTS of marketting
material and photo shoots... Especially where the 'talent' is working into
the TOP of it...