I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high frequencies
becomes an issue. Examination of the Studio Concepts C4,
http://www.studioprojects.com/c4.html reveals some negative comments:
http://www.harmony-central.com/Recor...ects/C4-1.html
(defects, excessive noise floor, rolloff)
that suggest that the upper end may not be as flat as advertised:
http://www.studioprojectsusa.com/pdf/c4.pdf

It would seem (please hold the flames) that these issues are significant in
distant miking with the Jecklin, even if these mics will perform well for
overhead drum.

Another contender is the MXL 604,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which I would
guess may use the same capsule. The frequency response curve actually
resembles the reports of the C4 more than the curve advertised for the C4.

Or, I could stick with the MXL 603s,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which, while not
omnis, manage to carry out to 20 kHz, albeit with a significant bump in the
8 - 16 kHz region. Probably also the same capsule.

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret measurement mics,
http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which charmingly
resemble the physical appearance of the Earthworks at only 2% the price. By
far the most even frequency and polar response, but these are far too noisy,
right?

Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...
I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high
frequencies becomes an issue. Examination of the Studio Concepts C4,
http://www.studioprojects.com/c4.html reveals some negative comments:
http://www.harmony-central.com/Recor...ects/C4-1.html
(defects, excessive noise floor, rolloff)
that suggest that the upper end may not be as flat as advertised:
http://www.studioprojectsusa.com/pdf/c4.pdf

It would seem (please hold the flames) that these issues are significant
in distant miking with the Jecklin, even if these mics will perform well
for overhead drum.

Another contender is the MXL 604,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which I would
guess may use the same capsule. The frequency response curve actually
resembles the reports of the C4 more than the curve advertised for the C4.

Or, I could stick with the MXL 603s,
http://www.mxlmics.com/condenser_mic...ser_index.html, which, while
not omnis, manage to carry out to 20 kHz, albeit with a significant bump
in the 8 - 16 kHz region. Probably also the same capsule.

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret measurement mics,
http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which charmingly
resemble the physical appearance of the Earthworks at only 2% the price.
By far the most even frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob

No.

Steve King

Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but just wanted to
clear something up. For distant miking with omnis, air absorption
("adiabatic loss") really isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that
you're in a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times before it
reaches your microphones. The high frequency energy is absorbed to a
considerable extent by the materials that have reflected the sound
waves, more than it is by the air.

Especially with more distant recording, it's hard to get an optimal
signal-to-noise ratio from a very small (say, 1/4" diameter) pressure
transducer. But larger ones (1/2" and up) aren't omnidirectional for
short wavelengths--at high frequencies the response is always stronger
on-axis than off-axis. People still want the microphones to have
basically flat response overall, but when the main sound energy is
arriving from all angles at once, to get flat average (integrated)
response people generally choose omnis that are "diffuse-field
equalized", i.e. that have ~6 dB or so of on-axis lift at high
frequencies.

Their printed on-axis response curves may look as if they'd sound
harsh--and they can indeed sound harsh when used very close up and/or
in an overly "dry" acoustic. But when they're used at the distances
where they're designed to be used, they should sound natural despite
the way the on-axis curves look.

--best regards

"David Satz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but just wanted to
clear something up. For distant miking with omnis, air absorption
("adiabatic loss") really isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that
you're in a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times before it
reaches your microphones. The high frequency energy is absorbed to a
considerable extent by the materials that have reflected the sound
waves, more than it is by the air.

Thanks for that clarification. My concern is sparked by users' notes that
various mikes sounded "dark", or had an extreme droop at 20 kHz (Rode NT-5).
I figured that for distance miking, this would be undesirable.

Especially with more distant recording, it's hard to get an optimal
signal-to-noise ratio from a very small (say, 1/4" diameter) pressure
transducer. But larger ones (1/2" and up) aren't omnidirectional for
short wavelengths--at high frequencies the response is always stronger
on-axis than off-axis. People still want the microphones to have
basically flat response overall, but when the main sound energy is
arriving from all angles at once, to get flat average (integrated)
response people generally choose omnis that are "diffuse-field
equalized", i.e. that have ~6 dB or so of on-axis lift at high
frequencies.

Their printed on-axis response curves may look as if they'd sound
harsh--and they can indeed sound harsh when used very close up and/or
in an overly "dry" acoustic. But when they're used at the distances
where they're designed to be used, they should sound natural despite
the way the on-axis curves look.

--best regards

Dave,
First class post! This is a saver, thanks. I am aware of the issues from
the physics perspective, but it takes someone like you to make it practical.
It seems that all the Chinese mikes are copies of the Neumann 180 series,
which appears to have a 20mm diaphram. These mikes get out to 20 khz, but
the low end manufacturers, perhaps because of the lack of sophistication of
the market, don't label the curves as on-axis/diffuse, and they tend to
exaggerate the qualities in the curves (at least the inexpensive ones, not
Neumann et al), so it's very difficult to get a true picture. Ironically,
the Rode NT-5, which uses a somewhat smaller 1/2" diaphram, is reputed to be
darker than most of the 20mm mikes. Perhaps they had to roll it off to save
the s/n.

As the diaphram shrinks, s/n decreases, while physical perfection of the
response has at least the potential to increase. I am curious what
proportion of a mike's self-noise is due to Brownian motion of molecules
hitting the diaphram, as opposed to the 1st stage of the mike's electronics.

Do you have an opinion on whether the Jecklin disk can be used with 20mm
cardioids? The originator claimed a requirement of omnis.

Best regards,
Bob Morein

Don't buy cheap microphones, half a year later you will throw them away
and buy better ones. So it's wise to plan your budget accordingly. And
if you do so, you can now buy someting better.
Why don't you try the MBHO 410CL ? List price is somewhere in the 300$
range but you will have excellent quality for your money.


soundhaspriority wrote:
I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high frequencies
becomes an issue.

It's not air absorbtion, you are moving into the diffuse field. You need
diffuse field equalized microphones (but you can do that also with an
equalizer)

br
RH

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which
charmingly resemble the physical appearance of the
Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most even
frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you already have?

GMAB!

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"David Satz" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but
just wanted to clear something up. For distant miking
with omnis, air absorption ("adiabatic loss") really
isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that you're in
a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times
before it reaches your microphones.

The high frequency
energy is absorbed to a considerable extent by the
materials that have reflected the sound waves, more than
it is by the air.

This fact becomes very non-subtly apparent if you record the same source
with matched mics at different distances. Close up, things are hot and
crisp. From the back of the room things are dull and lifeless if not lost in
echoes. The right answer is someplace in-between. ;-)

The closest thing to an exception might be observed by the poor souls who do
SR, broadcast, and recording from Orange County's Crystal Cathedral. ;-)

Thanks for that clarification. My concern is sparked by
users' notes that various mikes sounded "dark", or had an
extreme droop at 20 kHz (Rode NT-5). I figured that for
distance miking, this would be undesirable.

The NT-4 and NT-5 are generally regarded as pretty good mics for minimal
miced recording, especially given the price. I've probably logged about 100
recordings with a NT-4, and there are never complaints about the sound
quality from the people who get these recordings, who are professional
musicians of the educator variety. They tell me they listen to them quite
critically and intently. What I know for sure is that the CDs are generally
scooped up within about 15 minutes of being finalized.

I think this is just another practical example of how response at 20 KHz
isn't just that important as a if you get things right up to 10 KHz and
don't screw up too badly above that.

snip sage comments about omnis

First class post! This is a saver, thanks. I am aware
of the issues from the physics perspective, but it takes
someone like you to make it practical. It seems that all
the Chinese mikes are copies of the Neumann 180 series,
which appears to have a 20mm diaphram. These mikes get
out to 20 khz, but the low end manufacturers, perhaps
because of the lack of sophistication of the market,
don't label the curves as on-axis/diffuse, and they tend
to exaggerate the qualities in the curves (at least the
inexpensive ones, not Neumann et al), so it's very
difficult to get a true picture.

The true picture is a moving target that moves every time you set up a mic.

Ironically, the Rode
NT-5, which uses a somewhat smaller 1/2" diaphram, is
reputed to be darker than most of the 20mm mikes. Perhaps
they had to roll it off to save the s/n.

The noise floor of a NT5 or a NT4 (which is just 2 NT5s fixed-mounted in a
very practical but ugly way) in use is IME *always* dominated by the room,
every time I look at it and really listen to it.

The noise floor in a room with 20 musicians and an audience is about 35 dB
SPL on a really good day, if you get *eveybody* to hold their breath at the
same time and capture that moment. There are very few quality mics that are
*that* bad. One hidden agenda in mic noise specs is the shape of the noise
floor. Obviously, you'd prefer a noise floor that looks something like a
room which is probably well-approximated by red or brown noise.

The only mics that I've used that actually had an audible noise floor of
their own in actual use were like SM57s in a vain attempt at distance micing
with a Mackie SR32 console, and Behringer ECM8000s positioned about 25-35
feet from the musicians.

At 5 or 10 feet, ECM8000s are usually pretty blameless from a noise
standpoint. However, I've found that ECM 8000s are prone to a failure where
their output drops by say 6 dB just while sitting around fixed in place.
I've thrown away 2 or 3 in the past 18 months. They are marginal enough that
if you get one of the bad ones, the most obvious fault will be that they
seem to be noisier, which is too much noise for many applications.

IME very small omnis get a bad rap for noise that is undeserved in some
cases because they might be picking up HVAC noise in an unexpected way
because they are just so omni at high frequencies compared to just about
everthing else. Remember that ECM 8000s are based on electret capsules that
are more like 1/4", and the approx 1/2" head is more like an adaptor for
1/2" mic calibrators than the functional size of the mic from a directivity
standpoint.

As the diaphram shrinks, s/n decreases, while physical
perfection of the response has at least the potential to
increase. I am curious what proportion of a mike's
self-noise is due to Brownian motion of molecules hitting
the diaphram, as opposed to the 1st stage of the mike's
electronics.

I'm informed by a source that was intimately involved with Knowles Research
for a number of years, that for small mics, Brownian noise is *the* major
issue.

For reference, the human ear's maximum sensitivity (arouind 4 KHz) is just
a skosh above Brownian noise. This is achieved by fairly agressive
filtering out of other noise sources in the human body, mostly by an
acoustic resonance in the ear.

Do you have an opinion on whether the Jecklin disk can
be used with 20mm cardioids? The originator claimed a
requirement of omnis.

The fact of the matter is that *all* micing is approximate. There are no
mics that are anywhere as ideal as electronics. What works is what works.
Every theory of micing has failed in practice at least once. There's no
substitute for strategic experimentation and the most unbiased evaluation of
results that you can obtain.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which
charmingly resemble the physical appearance of the
Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most even
frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you already have?

GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different microphones which are
both sold as the ECM8000. They have the same case but the electronics
are not the same. One of them is noisier than the other but has better
low end response.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG which
charmingly resemble the physical appearance of the
Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most even
frequency and polar response, but these are far too
noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you already have?

GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different microphones which are
both sold as the ECM8000. They have the same case but the electronics
are not the same. One of them is noisier than the other but has better
low end response.
--scott
--
Thanks, Scott. I'll check them.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"David Satz" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob, I don't have specific mike recommendations, but
just wanted to clear something up. For distant miking
with omnis, air absorption ("adiabatic loss") really
isn't the primary concern--it's the fact that you're in
a diffuse sound field, and most of the sound has already
bounced off of various room surfaces a number of times
before it reaches your microphones.

The high frequency
energy is absorbed to a considerable extent by the
materials that have reflected the sound waves, more than
it is by the air.

This fact becomes very non-subtly apparent if you record the same source
with matched mics at different distances. Close up, things are hot and
crisp. From the back of the room things are dull and lifeless if not lost
in echoes. The right answer is someplace in-between. ;-)

The closest thing to an exception might be observed by the poor souls who
do SR, broadcast, and recording from Orange County's Crystal Cathedral.
;-)

Thanks for that clarification. My concern is sparked by
users' notes that various mikes sounded "dark", or had an
extreme droop at 20 kHz (Rode NT-5). I figured that for
distance miking, this would be undesirable.

The NT-4 and NT-5 are generally regarded as pretty good mics for minimal
miced recording, especially given the price. I've probably logged about
100 recordings with a NT-4, and there are never complaints about the sound
quality from the people who get these recordings, who are professional
musicians of the educator variety. They tell me they listen to them quite
critically and intently. What I know for sure is that the CDs are
generally scooped up within about 15 minutes of being finalized.

I think this is just another practical example of how response at 20 KHz
isn't just that important as a if you get things right up to 10 KHz and
don't screw up too badly above that.

snip sage comments about omnis

First class post! This is a saver, thanks. I am aware
of the issues from the physics perspective, but it takes
someone like you to make it practical. It seems that all
the Chinese mikes are copies of the Neumann 180 series,
which appears to have a 20mm diaphram. These mikes get
out to 20 khz, but the low end manufacturers, perhaps
because of the lack of sophistication of the market,
don't label the curves as on-axis/diffuse, and they tend
to exaggerate the qualities in the curves (at least the
inexpensive ones, not Neumann et al), so it's very
difficult to get a true picture.

The true picture is a moving target that moves every time you set up a
mic.

Ironically, the Rode
NT-5, which uses a somewhat smaller 1/2" diaphram, is
reputed to be darker than most of the 20mm mikes. Perhaps
they had to roll it off to save the s/n.

The noise floor of a NT5 or a NT4 (which is just 2 NT5s fixed-mounted in a
very practical but ugly way) in use is IME *always* dominated by the room,
every time I look at it and really listen to it.

The noise floor in a room with 20 musicians and an audience is about 35 dB
SPL on a really good day, if you get *eveybody* to hold their breath at
the same time and capture that moment. There are very few quality mics
that are *that* bad. One hidden agenda in mic noise specs is the shape of
the noise floor. Obviously, you'd prefer a noise floor that looks
something like a room which is probably well-approximated by red or brown
noise.

The only mics that I've used that actually had an audible noise floor of
their own in actual use were like SM57s in a vain attempt at distance
micing with a Mackie SR32 console, and Behringer ECM8000s positioned about
25-35 feet from the musicians.

At 5 or 10 feet, ECM8000s are usually pretty blameless from a noise
standpoint. However, I've found that ECM 8000s are prone to a failure
where their output drops by say 6 dB just while sitting around fixed in
place. I've thrown away 2 or 3 in the past 18 months. They are marginal
enough that if you get one of the bad ones, the most obvious fault will
be that they seem to be noisier, which is too much noise for many
applications.

IME very small omnis get a bad rap for noise that is undeserved in some
cases because they might be picking up HVAC noise in an unexpected way
because they are just so omni at high frequencies compared to just about
everthing else. Remember that ECM 8000s are based on electret capsules
that are more like 1/4", and the approx 1/2" head is more like an adaptor
for 1/2" mic calibrators than the functional size of the mic from a
directivity standpoint.

As the diaphram shrinks, s/n decreases, while physical
perfection of the response has at least the potential to
increase. I am curious what proportion of a mike's
self-noise is due to Brownian motion of molecules hitting
the diaphram, as opposed to the 1st stage of the mike's
electronics.

I'm informed by a source that was intimately involved with Knowles
Research for a number of years, that for small mics, Brownian noise is
*the* major issue.

For reference, the human ear's maximum sensitivity (arouind 4 KHz) is
just a skosh above Brownian noise. This is achieved by fairly agressive
filtering out of other noise sources in the human body, mostly by an
acoustic resonance in the ear.

Do you have an opinion on whether the Jecklin disk can
be used with 20mm cardioids? The originator claimed a
requirement of omnis.

The fact of the matter is that *all* micing is approximate. There are no
mics that are anywhere as ideal as electronics. What works is what works.
Every theory of micing has failed in practice at least once. There's no
substitute for strategic experimentation and the most unbiased evaluation
of results that you can obtain.

Nice post, Arny. I'll file it.

On Mon, 1 May 2006 21:44:34 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.


Any other options I should consider? Tia,
Bob


Sure. Holophone.com was showing a new $1696 5.1 micing system at NAB. Very
neat. Their $2495 solution includes an Lt Rt encoder and preamps (among other
things).

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG
which charmingly resemble the physical appearance of
the Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most
even frequency and polar response, but these are far
too noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you
already have? GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different
microphones which are both sold as the ECM8000. They
have the same case but the electronics are not the same.
One of them is noisier than the other but has better low
end response. --scott
--
Thanks, Scott. I'll check them.

The interesting question is - how does one check them without disassembly?

The general difference between the two models is that one has a
transformer-coupled output, and the other has an electronically-balanced
output. I've never personally seen the transformer-coupled output version,
but I've seen pictures of them (check the google archive for a link, we've
talked about this several times).

I don't even know for sure which version is the one with the better bass and
higher noise, but I'd guess it is the one with the electronically-balanced
output. I also suspect the higher noise is because a different capsule was
used.

I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled ECM 8000s with an
ohm meter - then would be the ones with electrical continuity on the order
of a few 100's ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The electronically-balanced
outputs also have continuity, but its more like 195K. I checked my inventory
and both the good and bad ECM 8000s measure about 195K ohm pin2-pin3. IOW
they are both he electronically-balanced (recent) models.

Nice post, Arny. I'll file it.

Quoting 130 lines of Arny's posting just to add one single line does not
qualify as "filing" it. Please learn to quote economically in
newsgroups.

Daniel

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Another option would be my pair of Behringer electret
measurement mics,

http://www.behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG
which charmingly resemble the physical appearance of
the Earthworks at only 2% the price. By far the most
even frequency and polar response, but these are far
too noisy, right?

You're asking a NG about the performance of mics you
already have? GMAB!

In fact there are actually two totally different
microphones which are both sold as the ECM8000. They
have the same case but the electronics are not the same.
One of them is noisier than the other but has better low
end response. --scott
--
Thanks, Scott. I'll check them.

The interesting question is - how does one check them without disassembly?

The general difference between the two models is that one has a
transformer-coupled output, and the other has an electronically-balanced
output. I've never personally seen the transformer-coupled output version,
but I've seen pictures of them (check the google archive for a link, we've
talked about this several times).

I don't even know for sure which version is the one with the better bass
and higher noise, but I'd guess it is the one with the
electronically-balanced output. I also suspect the higher noise is because
a different capsule was used.

I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled ECM 8000s with an
ohm meter - then would be the ones with electrical continuity on the order
of a few 100's ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The
electronically-balanced outputs also have continuity, but its more like
195K. I checked my inventory and both the good and bad ECM 8000s measure
about 195K ohm pin2-pin3. IOW they are both he electronically-balanced
(recent) models.
Arny, good info.

"Daniel Fuchs" wrote in message
...



Nice post, Arny. I'll file it.

Quoting 130 lines of Arny's posting just to add one single line does not
qualify as "filing" it. Please learn to quote economically in
newsgroups.

Daniel

Daniel,
Please learn to avoid being overly critical.

Bob

Reiner,
That is a very interesting subject for discussion. It appears that
Chinese microphones are upsetting the established order. Whatever they are,
they are not throwaways, except for the very cheapest. In comparisons
between Neumanns and MXL's, or Studio Projects, differences are noted, but
not necessarily killing differences. Nevertheless, I appreciate your
mention, because MBHO is not well distributed here, so I was completely
unaware of them. The MBNM-622 looks interesting. Do you have any experience
with it?


"Reiner" "Reiner wrote in message
...

Don't buy cheap microphones, half a year later you will throw them away
and buy better ones. So it's wise to plan your budget accordingly. And
if you do so, you can now buy someting better.
Why don't you try the MBHO 410CL ? List price is somewhere in the 300$
range but you will have excellent quality for your money.


soundhaspriority wrote:
I'd like to acquire a pair of omnis for use with a Jecklin disk. As
usual,
my limited budget (much of which has gone to the Apogee Mini-Me) prevents
exploration of the "really really good but expensive" category.

Since this is to be for distance miking, air absorption at high
frequencies
becomes an issue.

It's not air absorbtion, you are moving into the diffuse field. You need
diffuse field equalized microphones (but you can do that also with an
equalizer)

br
RH

"Arny Krueger" said:


I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled ECM 8000s with an
ohm meter - then would be the ones with electrical continuity on the order
of a few 100's ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The electronically-balanced
outputs also have continuity, but its more like 195K. I checked my inventory
and both the good and bad ECM 8000s measure about 195K ohm pin2-pin3. IOW
they are both he electronically-balanced (recent) models.


And if you had transformer-coupled mics, they'd most likely be ruined.
Tiny transformers can get permanently magnetized by even the small DC
currents of an ohm meter.

NEVER measure microphone- or MC transformers with an ohm meter.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Robert said:

Quoting 130 lines of Arny's posting just to add one single line does not
qualify as "filing" it. Please learn to quote economically in
newsgroups.

Daniel,
Please learn to avoid being overly critical.


I agree with Daniel. Kroo-missions should be curtailed or excised whenever
possible.



--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:


I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled
ECM 8000s with an ohm meter - then would be the ones
with electrical continuity on the order of a few 100's
ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The
electronically-balanced outputs also have continuity,
but its more like 195K. I checked my inventory and both
the good and bad ECM 8000s measure about 195K ohm
pin2-pin3. IOW they are both he electronically-balanced
(recent) models.

And if you had transformer-coupled mics, they'd most
likely be ruined. Tiny transformers can get permanently
magnetized by even the small DC currents of an ohm meter.

Should never happen - the cores of transformers are supposed to be
magnetically "soft".

Should never cause a problem - even if the core is slightly magnetized, this
should not ruin the signal-handling capacity of the transformer.

I've done extensive measurements on small audio transformers before and
after measuring their DC resistance with DVMs and have never seen a
difference.

NEVER measure microphone- or MC transformers with an ohm meter.

Most likely problem would be from old-fashioned ohm meters that actually
delivered relatively large currents to the item under test, particularly on
the lowest range.

I just checked my Protek 506 DVM versus my Fluke 85 DVM.

The Fluke 85 ohms test drove the Protek up to 85 microamps, while the Protek
506 could't raise a non-zero indication on the Fluke at all, even though the
minimum current displayed is only 0.1 microamp. Both meters gave
reasonable readings for the input impedance of the other meter - up in the
megohms.

Bottom line, if this sort of micro-amp current hurts a conventional audio
component that lives in the real world, that component is just too delicate.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


I suspect that you can pick out the transformer-coupled ECM 8000s with an
ohm meter - then would be the ones with electrical continuity on the order
of a few 100's ohms or less between pins 2 & 3. The
electronically-balanced
outputs also have continuity, but its more like 195K. I checked my
inventory
and both the good and bad ECM 8000s measure about 195K ohm pin2-pin3. IOW
they are both he electronically-balanced (recent) models.


And if you had transformer-coupled mics, they'd most likely be ruined.
Tiny transformers can get permanently magnetized by even the small DC
currents of an ohm meter.

NEVER measure microphone- or MC transformers with an ohm meter.

Might self-magnetization would be more of an issue? Also, close to your
heart, SET transformers get strongly magnetized.

soundhaspriority wrote:
Reiner,
That is a very interesting subject for discussion. It appears that
Chinese microphones are upsetting the established order. Whatever they are,
they are not throwaways, except for the very cheapest. In comparisons
between Neumanns and MXL's, or Studio Projects, differences are noted, but
not necessarily killing differences.

I don't want to start a discussion about chinese and not-chinese here. I
personally stay on my Schoeps, MBHO and Neumann... some of them are more
than 30 years old and still in permanent use. I recently bought a
Schoeps MK4 capsule and found a perfect match to an other 15 year old
MK4 - can you do that with a chinese microphone ? -

Nevertheless, I appreciate your
mention, because MBHO is not well distributed here,

This is true even in germany. But I think that microphones are only a
few % of Mr. Haun's business. But I know that MBHO is manufacturing
capsules for other well known manufacturers (Brauner, Audix...)


The MBNM-622 looks interesting. Do you have any experience
with it?

I would not go for the 622E-PZ, it's an electret PZM and designed to be
placed on the floor. I think, the usage is too limited. Go for the
410's. You can use them on a Jecklin disc, but you can use them as a
general purpose omni (with an excellent sound) Try 2 omnis's in a
distance of 40cm (which is exactly 15.748031 inch - we go metric, inch
by inch :-)).
This gives you a recording angle of 140 degrees and a wonderful sound.
(in my ears a much better sound than a jecklin setup)

br
RH

soundhaspriority wrote:

Please learn to avoid being overly critical.

There's a lot of unecomic quoting happening here which I dislike, but
don't comment on. But a quote/post ratio of 130:1 (lines) is simply too
much to tolerate.


Daniel

"soundhaspriority" said:


NEVER measure microphone- or MC transformers with an ohm meter.


Might self-magnetization would be more of an issue? Also, close to your
heart, SET transformers get strongly magnetized.


You might want to look at each one, some time.
There is a size difference............

A transformer, made for transforming very tiny AC currents and
voltages in the uA and uV range, don't react well to large DC
currents.

Arny may be right about today's digital meters running an extremely
tiny current in ohm mode, but I won't take the risk again.
I once ruined a perfect Sennheiser transformer by measuring it with a
Fluke 12 that was accidentally left on diode test.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

soundhaspriority wrote:

Arny, good info.

soundhaspriority, bad post.


Daniel

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Robert said:

Quoting 130 lines of Arny's posting just to add one single line does
not
qualify as "filing" it. Please learn to quote economically in
newsgroups.

Daniel,
Please learn to avoid being overly critical.


I agree with Daniel. Kroo-missions should be curtailed or excised whenever
possible.

Very well. It is so decreed.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority" said:


NEVER measure microphone- or MC transformers with an ohm meter.


Might self-magnetization would be more of an issue? Also, close to your
heart, SET transformers get strongly magnetized.


You might want to look at each one, some time.
There is a size difference............

A transformer, made for transforming very tiny AC currents and
voltages in the uA and uV range, don't react well to large DC
currents.

Arny may be right about today's digital meters running an extremely
tiny current in ohm mode, but I won't take the risk again.
I once ruined a perfect Sennheiser transformer by measuring it with a
Fluke 12 that was accidentally left on diode test.

Couldn't you demagnetize it with an audio oscillator? Attach, activate,
slowly reduce amplitude?

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



I once ruined a perfect Sennheiser transformer by
measuring it with a Fluke 12 that was accidentally left
on diode test.

That's just like saying that you once crashed a car by driving too fast on
ice. Therefore, you'll never drive a car again.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html


Daniel

Reiner, I have a short question about the 410, could you mail me (don't
want to hijack the thread).

Daniel

"Reiner" "Reiner wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
Reiner,
That is a very interesting subject for discussion. It appears that
Chinese microphones are upsetting the established order. Whatever they
are,
they are not throwaways, except for the very cheapest. In comparisons
between Neumanns and MXL's, or Studio Projects, differences are noted,
but
not necessarily killing differences.

I don't want to start a discussion about chinese and not-chinese here. I
personally stay on my Schoeps, MBHO and Neumann... some of them are more
than 30 years old and still in permanent use. I recently bought a
Schoeps MK4 capsule and found a perfect match to an other 15 year old
MK4 - can you do that with a chinese microphone ? -

No. I simply said they are not throways. If I was a professional, I would
buy the German stuff. In fact, I use Sennheiser shotguns because they have
no equal.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your
mention, because MBHO is not well distributed here,

This is true even in germany. But I think that microphones are only a
few % of Mr. Haun's business. But I know that MBHO is manufacturing
capsules for other well known manufacturers (Brauner, Audix...)


The MBNM-622 looks interesting. Do you have any experience
with it?

I would not go for the 622E-PZ, it's an electret PZM and designed to be
placed on the floor. I think, the usage is too limited. Go for the
410's. You can use them on a Jecklin disc, but you can use them as a
general purpose omni (with an excellent sound) Try 2 omnis's in a
distance of 40cm (which is exactly 15.748031 inch - we go metric, inch
by inch :-)).
This gives you a recording angle of 140 degrees and a wonderful sound.
(in my ears a much better sound than a jecklin setup)

br
RH

Perhaps if I become more professionally involved, I will buy them.

"Daniel Fuchs" wrote in message
...

Reiner, I have a short question about the 410, could you mail me (don't
want to hijack the thread).

Daniel

Daniel,
Please do hijack! Every bit of info is precious. Or, if you could post
the response.

Thanks,
Bob

"Daniel Fuchs" wrote in message
...

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html


Daniel

Alright, Daniel. That is intrusive.

"Daniel Fuchs" wrote in message
...


soundhaspriority wrote:

Arny, good info.

soundhaspriority, bad post.


Daniel

Daniel, to the extent it applies, you are hijacking "my" thread. Would you
please stop doing it here?

Regards,
Bob Morein

soundhaspriority wrote:


Alright, Daniel. That is intrusive.

For a reason...

Daniel

soundhaspriority wrote:

Daniel,
Please do hijack! Every bit of info is precious. Or, if you could post
the response.

It's no big thing... I have one and noticed it seems to have a certain
treble boost around 8k (which is unusual for an omni, diffuse field
omnis would have that higher up). I thought it was a linear free-field
omni, but it doesn't seem to be. Just curios whether something's wrong
with it or whether Reiner's mics are the same.

Daniel

soundhaspriority wrote:

Daniel, to the extent it applies, you are hijacking "my" thread. Would you
please stop doing it here?

Valid point. Nevertheless, do read the info on quoting I posted.
Newsgroup etiquettes do make sense...


Daniel

"soundhaspriority" said:


Couldn't you demagnetize it with an audio oscillator? Attach, activate,
slowly reduce amplitude?


While I have succeeded in resurrecting a tube output transformer with
this approach (well, a variac, actually), it failed with the
Sennheiser mic tranny.

The magnetization manifested itself by a very thin sound, almost no
low frequency response and strange phase anomalies.
Never got it right again.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal wrote:
"soundhaspriority" said:

Couldn't you demagnetize it with an audio oscillator? Attach, activate,
slowly reduce amplitude?

While I have succeeded in resurrecting a tube output transformer with
this approach (well, a variac, actually), it failed with the
Sennheiser mic tranny.

The magnetization manifested itself by a very thin sound, almost no
low frequency response and strange phase anomalies.
Never got it right again.

I have actually used the Annis Han-D-Mag on microphone transformers
before. It works well.

I would suspect, though, that the Behringer transformer has too much leakage
for magnetization to be an issue. I know the ones used in the Feilo mikes
are nearly impossible to magnetize with DC.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Daniel Fuchs wrote:


It's no big thing... I have one and noticed it seems to have a certain
treble boost around 8k (which is unusual for an omni, diffuse field
omnis would have that higher up)

All diffuse field equalized microphones have a boost. I think it is not
relevant whether it's 8 or 10kHz. With a good equalizer you can make a
diffuse-field omni from any linear omni.

.. I thought it was a linear free-field
omni, but it doesn't seem to be. Just curios whether something's wrong
with it or whether Reiner's mics are the same.

Yes they are more ore less the same. They are diffuse-field equalized.
But I never measured whether it's 8 or 10 or even 12kHz.

br
RH

Reiner wrote:

Yes they are more ore less the same. They are diffuse-field equalized.

Ok... I didn't know that, and there is no information on the MBHO
website (not even a frequency response diagram).
Most other diffuse field omnis seem to have their peak higher up, 10 to
15k.


Daniel