R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 on: July 21, 2017, 11:30:03 am 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by klaus
I am questioning the wide range of the estimate. Unless there are other issues your mic has*, FET conversion should be a well defined, straight job.

*For that reason I avoid giving estimates before I see a mic. But there are rare cases, where the scope of work is clearly defined, because other problems the mic may have can be safely excluded (capsule cleaning, cable manufacturing, etc.)

 on: July 21, 2017, 09:31:23 am 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by FoxFoxFox
does 300-500$ sound a little high for this job?

 on: July 19, 2017, 10:43:09 pm 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by FoxFoxFox
i want to, but its quite expensive

 on: July 19, 2017, 04:56:48 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
Here is my experience with pop screens and their physical, rather than emotional, effect on the vocal sound entering and exiting*:

First, I agree with Bob Ohlson's comments on another forum: if you can avoid a physical barrier between a vocalist and a sensitive condenser microphone, avoid it. Physics dictates that every barrier to an acoustic wave comes with audible side effects. But sometimes there is no choice and the sacrifice has to be made. How much of a detriment to either sound or pop protection?

Here are the choices and trade-offs:

Steadman-type corrugated single metal screen with holes
    Advantage: good transparency. Problems: spit protection is minimal, and (my main beef) the metal plate resonates and rings. Try to ping it with your knuckle and you will notice it. I found the distinct frequency of the resonance objectionable for recording fidelity: the resonance frequency will accentuate certain notes.

Hakan and similar open-cell foam screens
    Advantage: acceptable level of pop protection with minimal, but still audible high end and transient loss. Problem: comb-filtering with audible peaks. My speculation: as the holes in the foam are largely identical in diameter, resonances from standing waves are multiplied and amplified

Pauli and similar dense, double-layer nylon mesh screens
    Advantage: near optimal pop protection. Problem: audible muffling of highs and loss of transients, plus resonances in two areas, due to standing waves: the mesh layers are parallel, and the mounting ring, though perforated, has an endless number of parallel surfaces formed by the flat, hard frame. Its resonance frequency is determined by its diameter

Cheap double-layer nylon screens, home-made or bought
    Advantage: good transparency when the stocking material is not too dense; worse, same or   
    better pop protection as all the others, but at low cost. Problems: some comb filtering,
    depending on mesh weave and ring diameter, and audible loss of high frequencies   
    (see c.)

I have not included here any of the circular or semi-circular pop shields that mount on or next to the mic, like the famous Abbey Road in-house U48 contraptions, or Braunerís handmade custom pop-cylinders. There are too many to list, but the same principles of physics apply as with any pop screen: a compromise ranging from good transparency to good pop-protection, but never both in one device.

For my work I keep coming back to a wooden, rather thin, 6Ē crochet ring bought at Sears for 99Ę, covered with two layers of black pantyhose material (talk about emotional attachment!), and mounted on an old plastic mic mount. Itís quite transparent, and offers reasonable pop-protection at a ridiculously low price.

*I find it most helpful to test any screen directly with mouth-to-ear, rather than through listening via lossy recording and playback:
put your ear where a mic would be, as the vocalist speaks or sings into the screen. Ears are an astonishingly reliable test instrument!

 on: July 19, 2017, 08:47:00 am 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by soapfoot
Second the recommendation for Tom O.

 on: July 18, 2017, 11:53:16 pm 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by klaus
You can try Tom Onofrio in Connecticut. He used to work at Neumann/Sennheiser in Old Lyme.

 on: July 18, 2017, 07:53:05 pm 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by FoxFoxFox
Thanks Klaus!! I want to do the mod to get it back to #2 and #6, who do you recommend in NYC? also how much do you think this job typically cost

 on: July 18, 2017, 12:12:00 pm 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by klaus
Yours has the daughter board. I forgot to include circuit #5 as the other revision that used the daughter board (previous post now corrected).

 on: July 18, 2017, 11:41:17 am 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by FoxFoxFox
Okay which one is mine then because I thought the daughter board was the floating tray, because mine is circuit 5, and it def has that "floating tray" on top of the regular board

 on: July 18, 2017, 11:27:24 am 
Started by FoxFoxFox - Last post by klaus
In circuit revision # 4 and #5, the 'daughter board' replaced the previous discrete FET circuitry on U87Ai circuits.
It can easily be removed, and a few missing passive components and a new 2N3819 FET (properly biased) installed. Once the FET is properly biased, you would be back to the simpler, better-sounding circuitries # 2 and #6.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]