Category: Microphones

Categories
Microphones

Sank Comes Thru Again

Wanna take a second here to say “thanks” to Stephen Sank, again, for his sagacity in the service of my old ribbon mics.  My circa 195X RCA BK5b is one of the most popular (with vocalists) in my pile/collection of mics and it gets used a lot on sessions… and it breaks every couple of years.  Pretty consistently.  Luckily there’s a reliable, experienced, and reasonably-priced serviceman who really knows his way around these dusty old gems.  I was afraid that the ribbon had broken and/or fried, yet again, but that was not the case.  From S:

“Very bizarre problem, very easily dealt with.  I have never, ever seen it happen before on an RCA, but one of the transformer taps went bad spontaneously.  Wire up into the potted transformer shield casing is fine, so it happened in the core.  Fortunately, the 150ohm tap is fine, so just moved a wire to it.  Works great, ribbon still perfect.  And there is no reason at all to suspect any future transformer issues.  And that transformer is unbeatable & unobtainable, so don’t even ask.;-)”

Yeah it never would have occurred to me to suspect the transformer.  Anyhow my BK5b is back and should make another recorded appearance soon.  You can find Sank at this website.

Categories
Microphones

DONT TOUCH

DONT TOUCH

MY MIC

IF YOU WANNA SING SOME BGVS

FINE, GIT YR OWN GODDAMN MIC

THE BOX STAYS LOCKED WHEN REH IS OVER

*************

*******

***

Fairly high-up on the list of ‘unnecessary shit that i prolly shouldn’t have bought‘ is this mint-condition Peavey PVM-38 microphone.   But what an incredible artifact, innit.  Consider what kind of paranoid, uptight culture could have created a shitty low-cost microphone that includes a military-grade locking hard-shell case, thus allowing access to only the key-holder.  Exactly who/what is this case designed to protect/prevent?  If you are concerned about the sanctity of your microphone, perhaps simply take it with you?  It is not so large/heavy as to preclude easy transport?  Rather, I feel like what we have here is the superimposition of two previously unrelated concepts: the microphone, on one hand, and an intense concern with property rights on the other.

I can’t tell you from whence this artifact originates, as there is little information online concerning its heritage, but Peavey Corp does offer this download (PVM_38i) regarding a very similar model; the date of that document is 1993.  I can vaguely recall seeing these mics for sale at the local mom+pop when I was a kid; late 80s, early 90s; and the box made a strong impression: at least to a child, the effect was ‘wow that must be a rad mic if such intense security surrounds it at all moments.’   The semantic chain here is the ever popular Security/indicates/Economic Value/indicates/Quality.   But then what happens when one learns that the object in fact has a low cost, as these mics no doubt did?  Do we still make an easy leap from Security to Quality?  Oh Peavey.  The mysteries you hold.

While the precise semiotic operation of the Peavey PVM38 and its associated flotsam (IE,, case+key) may remain a subject of debate, we can fairly readily assess the object’s quality.  Yup it’s time for yet another SHURE SM57 vs SOME UNPOPULAR OLD MIC test.  Here’s a single acoustic fingerpicked guitar performance; mics are positioned as shown above; levels are matched exactly.  No processing whatsoever was applied, other than digitally increasing the levels to full level.  The Peavey’s output is approximately 2.5 db hotter than the SM57.  Take a listen:

First, the SM57: ShureSM57_ref

..and now the PVM38: Peavey_PVM38

My $0.02: The sound is pretty similar.  The Peavey seems to have less boxiness/low mids, a pretty similar pickup pattern, and a little less accuracy/detail in the very high end.  Overall it has a bit of that ‘budget mic’ sound but the high output is a plus.   I would imagine that the PVM38 would probably make a decent live vocal mic for rock vocals, and probably good for under-snare as well.  Certainly worth the $15 that I paid.

Categories
Microphones

Schoeps microphones of the early 1960s

Above: Schoeps mics circa 1961.  Schoeps have a deserved reputation as being the most high-fidelity of any widely-available microphones.

The Schoeps CM66 circa 1961

The Schoeps M221B microphone.  I really, really need to get me a pair of Schoeps…

Categories
Microphones

Neumann Microphones of the early 1960s

Above: the Neumann U-67 is announced.  The U67 was the ‘bridge’ between the earlier U47 and the soon-to-be-ubiquitous U-87.  Like the U-47 it is a tube mic.  A U-67 just sold on eBay for $7k, which is not too surprising. It’s possible to turn up cheap U87s from time to time but the U67 had a much shorter run and not the same level of popularity.

Above: the Neumann KM-54, KM-56, SM-2, U-67, M-49b, and M-269 microphones.

Another announcement ad for the U-67.

Categories
Microphones

AKG Studio Microphones Circa 1962

The AKG C-24 stereo condenser mic.  Yes please.  I think if I added up all the time i have spent mounting my Neumann TLM 103s on their X/Y mount I would i run out and buy one of these.   Oh wait!  I don’t have $12,000!  Nevermind!  Anyone have a strong reco for an affordable XY mic that will put the TLM 103s back in their cases for good?

Above, and above: the AKG C 60.  I’ve never used one of these.  Nice-looking example on eBay right now for $850.

The AKG D19.  I own one of these, and I have used it on a few tracks…nice for low-fi-ish hard-strumming steel-string acoustic gtr.   Based on my experience, I feel like the stated claim of 40-16k hz response is extremely optimistic.  The D19 shows up in a few places in music history: most notably as one of the go-to mics at Abbey Road during the Beatles early sessions.  It also shows up in this Elvis/Martina McBride video (see here) wherein Martina duets with The King.  I was working at SONYMUSIC when this video was produced, and I couldn’t help but wonder… in the original ’68 Comeback special, Elvis is using an EV RE15... which looks an awful lot like a D19… Martina’s husband/engineer John McBride is one the biggest Beatles fans in the world…  antique microphone conspiracy theories, take one.

***************************************** *****************************************

The AKG D24 Dynamic mic.  Anyone?

Previous vintage AKG microphone coverage on Preservation Sound:

AKG mics of 1954

AKG mics of 1981

AKG mics of 1965

Categories
Microphones

Low-Budget Ribbon Mic Listening Session

In several of my previous posts I have expressed my love for the humble Ribbon Microphone.  Ribbon mics were invented in the early 1920s and they have remained pretty much the same in the majority of cases.  They remain one of the simplest ways that sound pressure can be reliably changed to an electrical signal.  When I started recording music in the early 90s, ribbon mics were not very popular.  Classic models like the RCA 44 and RCA 77 were still often used in major studios, but home recordists and smaller studios with some budget were much more likely to use Neumann and AKG condensers and the classic Shure and Sennheiser dynamic mics.   Aside from the Beyerdynamic ribbons (and the elusive Fostex ribbons) there just weren’t any new ribbon mics readily available.  At some point in the early 2000s this situation changed dramatically and there are now a good variety of new ribbon mics available at all points in the pricing spectrum, from $60 up to several thousands dollars.  I regularly use a variety of mid-and-upper-range ribbons in the studio, and I have also found myself in possession of a few of the cheap ‘budget’ ribbons currently on the market.  In this previous post, I went so far as to replace the output transformer in the $69 MXL R40 with a better ($23) transformer and the results seemed promising.  Anyways…  seemed like it might be a good idea to do a quick test and find out just how the el-cheapo ribbon mics compare with a thousand-dollar unit.  Cos you never know until you try…

In the image above, you can see (CW from upper left): the $1,300 Royer 121, the $59 Nady RSM-4 (n.b.: now $79), the $92 MXL R40 ($69+ $23 for an EDCOR output transformer) and the $220 Shinybox 2.   We set up all four mics on shockmounts in a cluster about 8 feet in front of a drum kit at Gold Coast Recorders.  The kit was a sixites Ludwig 22/16/12 with a 14×5 wood snare; cymbals are dark sixties Zildjians and the heads on the drums were all fresh.

Above: preamp gains required to deliver equal levels off each of the four mics:  Royer is at 6.5, Fathead II is at 7, MXL is at 6, and Nady is at 7.

Each mic went direct into an identical Sytek mic preamp and then right into the Lynx Aurora convertor.  No other processing was used.  Mic preamp gains were set to show the same level in pro tools.  Tim Walsh, a fine drummer and recordist, delivered a compelling drum performance and then we listened to the results.   This is obviously not a scientific test, and you might not even be personally inclined to use a mono ribbon mic as a front mic on a drum kit; that being said, a drum kit produces the most dynamic range and the greatest range of frequencies of any instrument, so it seems like a good way to get a quick handle on what one mic sounds like versus another mic.

Here are the audio files.  They are MP3s, but you can still get a pretty good sense of the sound.  Try to listen with good headphones or a system with real low-end; you will hear tremendous differences.

Royer 121: Royer_121

Fathead II:Fathead_II

MXL R40 with EDCOR Transformer: MXL_R40_w_edcorTrans

Nady RSM4: Nady_RSM4

Out thoughts were as follows:

Royer 121: Sound is tight.  Low end seems understated.  The kick drum barely activated the sub in the GCR control room.  Seems like some low end is not being reproduced.  On the plus side, this mic brought out the body of the snare best.  The snare felt much more three-dimensional.  There was a good overall balance of kick, snare and hat.  The noise floor was very low, barely over the noise floor of the (very quiet) preamp and convertor.

Fathead II: HUGE sub-bass.  Exaggerated, in fact.  The low end that you hear here was not present in the room when we made this recording. That being said, it sounded good.   Somehow this mic is adding a ton of very low end.  The high end is also slightly hyped – the cymbals have more shimmer.  The snare seems to have no body – the snares themselves are prominent but the tone of the shell is missing.  The toms sound much more prominent and present with this mic.  Noise-wise, it is pretty quiet, although there is a very very slight hum – sounds like 60hz.

MXL R40 w/ EDCOR transformer: Much more bass response than the Royer, although this sub-bass is deeper in pitch and less prominent in level than the Fathead II produced.  The kick feels very present and in-your-face; the rest of the kit feels like it’s on a slightly different plane further back.  Noise-wise this mic was the best: it is absolutely dead quiet.

Nady RSM4: This seemed to split the difference between the Royer and the MXL.  The Nady puts the cymbals much more forward then the other mics.  Noise-wise this mic was by far the worst, with a prominent 180 hz hum present.

Listen closely and draw your own conclusions.  My takeaway: the modded MXL R40 is gaining a permanent place in the studio mic locker, along side ribbons costing as much as 20x its modest price.  And I am not going to be putting the Royer on any source that needs to deliver real low-end in a mix.

You can buy all of these mics online at a variety of retailers.  I purchased my Royer at Vintage King, the Fathead II came from Sonic Circus, the Nady and the MXL were both purchased from Musician’s Friend.  FYI I have no idea if these places offer the lowest price or not.

Categories
Microphones Technical

UPDATED: So You Want A Good Cheap Ribbon Mic: Upgrading the $69.99 MXL R40

UPDATE: since this article seems to get an enormous number of pageviews, I thought I should mention that we did in fact carry-out the intended shoot-out of the mod’d R40 versus a range of other similar ribbons (with a Royer R121 as the ‘control’ sample.  CLICK HERE to listen to some apples-to-apples action.

I love the sound of ribbon mics.  Friends and clients will often ask me why, or ‘what’s the difference’ (b/w a ribbon and other forms of mics) and I generally reply that good ribbon mics seem, to my ears/brain, to reproduce sound in a way that more closely resembles the actual event.  To my ears, a good condenser like my U87 or U47 FET sound fantastic – more spectacular than the actual sonic event, in many cases – and a good dynamic mic like a 441 or an SM7 can really improve the sound of an electric guitar speaker – but there are ways that they do seem distorted, especially on material with complex, aggressive high-frequency content, such as cymbals played with a heavy touch.  Ribbon mics also seem to respond better to additive EQ, and on bass instruments they also seem to create the impression of bigger, fuller bass without actually taking up as many DBs in the mix as you might expect.  Anyhow, I keep writing ‘seem’ because all of this is, necessarily, subjective.  That being said, these are opinions that more and more recordists and musicians have come to share since ribbon mics came back into vogue a decade or so ago.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ-ON AND LEARN HOW TO MAKE YRSELF A REAL-NICE SOUNDING RIBBON MIC IN 45 MINUTES FOR UNDER $100…

Continue reading “UPDATED: So You Want A Good Cheap Ribbon Mic: Upgrading the .99 MXL R40”
Categories
Microphones

Turner Microphones circa 1970

Download the complete 23pp 1970 Turner Microphones Catalog (in two parts due to size):

DOWNLOAD PART ONE: Turner_1970_catalog1

DOWNLOAD PART TWO: Turner_1970_catalog2

Models covered, with text, specs, and photos, include: Turner 500, S-500, 505, FM500, and 777 microphones; Turner 600, 600, 701, 2203, 35, 35A, 2300, Balladier 866, 766, 566, and 2266 mics; Turner Model 360, J-360, 350C, 355C, SR90D-5, SR90D-6, SR90R, M+2/U, JM+2/U, +350, and J+350 push-to-talk communications mics; Turner 254X, 254C, 454X, 454C, 754C, Model  +3, Model +2, model 750, 751, 758, 250, 251, 252, 253, 258, and +50 ‘base station’ tabletop mics; Turner model 2800, 2804, 2811, 2812, 2813, 2814, S2850, 2852, 304C, 300C, 304X, and 30002 ‘tape recorder’ (IE, economy) microphones; Turner SR585D, 585m SR70D, 58, 58A, S58, 33D, S33D, P-9D, 35614, and 36004 ‘general purpose’ mics; and a range of accessories including the Turner RA-50 ‘remote amplifier.’

Above, the Turner +3 ‘base station’ mic.  The “plus-three” designation, in Turner-speak, indicates a battery-powered, self-amplified microphone that also has a built-in compression circuit.  Although the +3 is the only mic in the 1970 catalog that has this feature, it would become available on some of their smaller hand-held communications mics in a couple of years.  I recently purchased a new-in-the-box M+3/U that I am excited to try out; the only problem is that it uses some sort of since-banned mercury-cell battery.  So I need to implement a work-around there.  Could make an interesting ‘secret weapon’ ‘set-to-incinerate’ room mic.  Sorta like an ancient mic-plus-level-loc all-in-one.

Above, the Turner 510, one of our favorite snare drum mics at Gold Coast Recorders.  The 510 was, AFAIK, the most high-fidelity mic that Turner ever made.

  Above, the classic Turner 33D, perhaps the most visually-iconic of their lineup.  How long was thing thing in production?  At least forty years.  Seems like an impossibly long time, until you consider how long Shure has been making 545s, and how long Sennheiser has been making 421s… both of those designs are past the 45-year-old mark at this point…

…and the Turner 251.  The 250 series was also very long-running at Turner; 251s can have a really cool sound for that ‘rock’ vocal thing; instant ‘bad-p.a.’ punk sound, but quiet and reliable.  I seem to find one or two of these per year; there are a ton out there for very little bread…

See here for previous Turner Microphone coverage and catalogs at ps dot com.

 

 

Categories
Microphones

The Mics of ’42

Download a four-page catalog scan of the microphones of offer from Allied Radio in 1942:

DOWNLOAD: Mics_Of_1942

Models covered, with photos, text, and some specs, include: Astatic T-3, JT-30TT, GT-3, N-30, and DN mics; Shure 708-A, 750-B, 730A Uniplex, 55c, 55a, and 555 Unidyne, Shure 7A, 705A, and 70H Crystal microphones; Electrovoice 630, 640, and Cardax dynamics, and V-2, V-1 ribbon mics; Amperite PGL Dynamic and RBHK and RBMK ribbon mics; RCA MI-6205 Aerocrystal Microphone; Bruno WS, SS, and HS high-impedance ribbon mics; plus more.

Bruno Microphones Circa 1942

Astatic Crystal Microphones Circa 1942

Electrovoice and Universal Crystal Microphones of 1942.   The most primitive of microphones.  I recently got the chance to use my ancient Lifetime Model Six Carbon mic on a contemporary vocal session.  It actually worked out great.  This is ATLANTIC CITY, my studio project with T.W.  LISTEN: Ten Past Midnight

Electrovoice and Amperite Ribbon Mics c. 1942

Shure Cardiod Mics c. 1942

Categories
Altec Microphones

Studio test of obscure circa 1965 Altec dynamic microphones

L to R: Shure SM57; Altec 684 Omni; Altec 682 Cardiod; Altec 683 Cardiod

Altec made a great number of different microphone models in the 1950s and 1960s.  A certain few of these are still widely used in recording studios today: most notably the 639 ‘Birdcage’ dual-element microphone (see here and here) and their various small diaphragm ‘Laboratory’ condensers (see here, here, and here).

During this period Altec also made a variety of conventional-looking dynamic microphones, some of which have quite good specs on paper.  Today we’ll be having a listen to the Altec 682, 683, and 684.

I’ve prepared three stereo audio tracks which all document an identical solo guitar performance which we tracked in the big room at Gold Coast Recorders.   In each of the three tracks, you will hear a new-ish Shure SM57 in the left speaker, and the selected Altec mic in the right speaker.  I chose an SM57 as a reference because it is a microphone that most of us are very familiar with and it is often used to mic electric guitar amps.  I placed the mics a big further back than I would generally use a dynamic-mic on a guitar amp in order to minimize any differences that might result from the slight variation in mic placement in relation to the amplifier.  All signals were taken from the microphone into identical Sytek mic preamps and then directly into Aurora Lynx convertors and into Protools.  No processing whatsoever was used other than minimal Digidesign MAXIM on the bounce-buss to ensure strong playback level; it was taking off 0.3db at most.

Levels were matched initially by running a 1K tone into the guitar amplifier and then fine-tuned on playback to within the tightest possible margin.  The 684 Omni required 30% more gain to reach an equal level; the other three mics were within 5% or so of each other in terms of output.

Alright now that you’ve seen the setup, here is the audio:

SM57 vs Altec 682: SM57L_682R

SM57 vs Altec 683: SM57L_683R

SM57 vs Altec 684: SM57L_684R

Have a listen and draw your own conclusions.  My quick assessment: the 682 sounds pretty similar to the 57, but IMO a lot prettier, a lot more detailed, and just more presentable in general.  The 683 sounds thinner than the 57; bass is notably lacking and there is an aggressive character to the mids.   Not sure that I would ever select this mic for anything.  The 684 sounds like… an omni mic, so it’s not a valid comparison to a 57, but it does sound pretty decent as an omni.  Might make a good under-snare microphone.

All of these forgotten Altecs are available cheaply on eBay from time to time.  I’ve never come across one at a flea market or swap meet, though, so I don’t think they are very common.  From what I can tell from my limited sample-pool, the ‘A’ designation after the model-number indicates that the mic uses an XLR5 (rather than the current standard XLR3) connector.  If you get one of these ‘A’ designated mics, you will need to find an XLR 5 female jack.  Wire an adapter to XLR 3 as follows: (XLR5:XLR3) 1:1, 2:3, 4:2.   The ‘B’ designated mics seem to have our current-standard XLR3 jacks.  Again, I am not 100% about this distinction, so check closely before buying if you don’t wanna be soldering adapters.