R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 04:28:36 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
Hello David,

What you unearthed from the obsolete Neumann Pinboard is indeed fascinating.

As KM56/SM2/SM23 capsules were used in KM88 which were discontinued in the mid-1960s, Neumann must have increased diaphragm tensions on existing capsules in their shop for the last batch they sold.

This would have addressed the on-going issue of arcing holes in these super-thin nickel diaphragms, especially when the mic is used for spoken word: close-up use and consequent 'plosives exacerbate the arcing problem.

It is indeed possible to increase diaphragm tension on these capsules by carefully adjusting assembly components (I have done this), but  it can be hit and miss, trying to dialing in a specific outcome on a metal diaphragm thinner than 1, so I assume quite a few capsules were trashed in the process.

 2 
 on: February 21, 2018, 07:23:36 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by David Satz
Klaus, I found the Pinboard messages about the change in the KM 88's low-frequency response. The essential one from Mr. Schneider is PBD_11554, dated Sept. 1, 2003 (i.e. from the original arrangement of the Pinboard, before its active part was divided into three sections).

I don't think it would be right to post the message here without permission, but its essential point is, the diaphragm tension was increased (thus reducing the low-frequency response especially in the figure-8 setting) because this improved operational reliability when the microphones were used for speech pickup in radio broadcasting. He said that this change had been made in about 1982.

--best regards

 3 
 on: February 18, 2018, 05:54:41 pm 
Started by bicarbone - Last post by klaus
Not at all. This mic is a rare find and requires love and affection from anyone who would dare to dig inside and sort out the pattern switch. Go ahead and make the connection! Just be sure to report back what you found.

 4 
 on: February 18, 2018, 05:50:39 pm 
Started by bicarbone - Last post by Kai
are you repairing microphones yourself?
Not on regular base like Klaus, just from time to time, and this wouldn't be a problem. I've seen you're located in Swiss, so - I'm in Gemany.
But maybe we're hurting the forum rules, for going on you should PM me, or Klaus.
@Klaus, feel free to delete this posting if necessary.

 5 
 on: February 18, 2018, 02:12:18 pm 
Started by bicarbone - Last post by bicarbone
Sorry, I meant sending it to Herr Klaus! I don't know, are you repairing microphones yourself? No offense, hopefully.

 6 
 on: February 18, 2018, 08:49:32 am 
Started by bicarbone - Last post by Kai
...would it be possible to send it to you?
Yes.

 7 
 on: February 18, 2018, 06:42:22 am 
Started by bicarbone - Last post by bicarbone
Thank you Kai for the warning.

Thank you Klaus for the detailed instructions and the pic, very helpful. I thought it was going to be tricky to clean the contacts when I first opened the mic. What you write only confirms this.

I have the feeling it is actually beyond my skills to do it myself. Do you think I could ask any average to good tech to do it? Or would it be possible to send it to you?

Thanks again!

 8 
 on: February 17, 2018, 10:40:32 pm 
Started by aremos - Last post by klaus
Use a wind screen at all times for vocals.

Maybe not at all times, but when it's windy or when extreme circumstances call for extra capsule protection.

The WS87 lops off high frequency and transparency of sound. Besides, with time, it sheds foam which must not be allowed to settle on the capsule's surface.

The better idea for vocals: a stocking screen with a double layer of nylon hose as spit barrier.

 9 
 on: February 17, 2018, 06:55:43 pm 
Started by aremos - Last post by rmburrow
As, during my long career, I never used an U67, how does its sound compare to the 1st generation of U87's?

If the new U67's duplicate the original, you will leave your U87's in the locker when you hear the U67.  I've used U67's on classical ensembles, the "warm" tube sound is apparent.

Use a wind screen at all times for vocals.  I don't use my condenser mics on vocal, period.  Protect the capsule; big money to replace.  I assume the WS67 wind screen is extra.

As for the tube, the JJ Electronik EF806s has a dark anode.  Would be interesting to know the manufacturer of the EF86 used in the reissue.

Neumann was smart to start building tube mics again.  Hopefully the new U67's sell since buyers will get a new proven mic with a warranty.


 10 
 on: February 17, 2018, 11:36:10 am 
Started by aremos - Last post by boz6906
Very good, your point is well taken.

If one needs to manipulate a sample by lowering the pitch, having the f/s very high would keep the artifacts above audibility.  I've encounter that very problem; needing a nice explosion I lowered the pitch of a gun shot... then had to high-pass to remove weird rattily sound...

So clearly there is a need to record at higher f/s for many professionals.  But does it lead to a better musical experience for a straight acoustic recording?

I have seen research using same music sample as A, with B sent through 20kHz low pass.  Subjects picked A, the unfiltered sample.

But the tester provided no info on the filter topology, it could have easily been the problem.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10