R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 on: May 24, 2017, 08:48:23 am 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by David Satz
This thread reads as if some people in it are confusing the SM 69fet (with remote pattern switching) with the USM 69 (pattern switches on the mike). They're different animals circuit-wise, though neither model has built-in high-frequency de-emphasis like in the U 67 or 87.

This failure to smooth out the high end has been justified on the basis of the greater typical recording distance as compared to normal studio microphones. But generally if more "presence" is desired in a directional microphone, a response elevation in the midrange/upper midrange would be called for--not a rise an octave higher. Having owned both types of microphone, I found that for many purposes (especially recording in spaces with walls made of hard materials, e.g. stone churches) the SM 69 and USM 69 were simply too bright, even harsh sounding, without some treble reduction in post.

 on: May 23, 2017, 04:32:44 pm 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by boz6906
Martin didn't state the capsules were the same, his comment addressed the circuit.

Klaus has said: "You cannot use a U87 capsule in an SM69, fet or tube. The capsule in the SM69 (fet and tube) is interchangeable with the U67/M269 capsule, and bears the same identifier: K67/870"

 on: May 23, 2017, 03:34:33 pm 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by RuudNL
I have the schematics of both of them and I have serviced many SM69 and U89 microphones.
From a viewpoint of construction there is no similarity.
The U89 uses an edge terminated capsule, the SM89 has a capsule with a center screw.
Maybe he means the functionality is the same. (Multipattern etc.)
But that is all I can think of...

By the way: I am talking about an SM69, not an USM69.
But the USM69 also has a capsule with a center screw, the U89 hasn't.

 on: May 23, 2017, 11:13:55 am 
Started by everettmoran - Last post by Fletcher
I reached out to iZ... hopefully they'll show up here and answer your inquiry.  I'd give it a shot... but that's WAY above my pay grade.


 on: May 23, 2017, 10:34:58 am 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by boz6906
Hmmm, Martin is wrong?

"The USM69 is basically a double U89 circuit.

Best regards,
Martin Schneider / Neumann Mic. Development"


 on: May 23, 2017, 07:02:29 am 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by RuudNL
No, circuit is completely different. (Different capsule too.)

 on: May 22, 2017, 10:50:02 pm 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by afterlifestudios
I've read that the USM69 is basically a double U89 circuit.

Is this correct?

 on: May 22, 2017, 12:58:54 pm 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by RuudNL
The frequency response was measured using a signal generator with an output impedance of 50 Ohms and the microphone capsule in place.
(The input of the "Messeingang" is a 560 ohms resistor, coupled to the rest of the circuit through a 6800 ohms resistor.)
The simulated circuit used a capacitor of 56 pF to simulate the microphone capsule.
In both cases, the LF rolloff was much more than the specified -3 dB @ 40 Hz.
My ears confirm this...

 on: May 21, 2017, 06:41:39 pm 
Started by RuudNL - Last post by soapfoot
One thing that comes to mind--

being a stereo microphone, the SM69 will more typically be used at some distance, compared to a U87 or U67, which will very often be placed quite close to a source.

But yes, we have an SM69 FET at our studio, and I haven't ever thought "wow, this mic is a lot brighter than an 87."

I never realized it did not have the built-in de-emphasis network.

 on: May 21, 2017, 01:57:31 pm 
Started by rbond - Last post by rbond
Hi Russel, please note, that Uwe said: "This may be..." The schematics are from this later PSU and there are differencies to be expected:
Scroll down and you`ll find schematics too, the first one with a bit more info.

Duly noted... much appreciated, panman... thx for the link

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]