R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Whatever Works => Topic started by: Billy Yates on February 08, 2008, 12:06:34 am

Title: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 08, 2008, 12:06:34 am
Greetings all...
After the NAMM Show Petri Dish affair (everybody got sick) I have finally caught up on things in the shop. I found time to repair an SM2, an RCA BA6A and now I have a Church Mic, one of approximately 200 made...a very robust and well machined item at that.
My question: Does any one here know of its origins and history? I only have a sketchy run down about this...designed by a guy named Church, err...capsules from Germany etc.
I am drawing up a schematic for reference and taking pictures if anyone is interested. another thing that I must find out is cleaning capsules. I won't undertake this mind you but I am sure there are those out there who have done this and whether it is worth it. The capsule on this mic is a bit dirty.
Seeing how this is a rare and expensive item I feel that its important to research any course of action in order to restore it to its full potential.
Thanks,
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: compasspnt on February 08, 2008, 12:08:47 am
Hey Billy,

Try a Search on Klaus' Forum.

There have been several threads mentioning Church mics.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 08, 2008, 12:11:19 am
Thank you Terry. And how have you been?
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: compasspnt on February 08, 2008, 12:14:47 am
All good.

How's that EMT?

Let us know whatever you find out from your meanderings in the Church.

These were made by Stanley Church at MGM in the 50's to be somewhat like a 47 crossed with a C12 (M7+6072), although most 47/12 afficianados don't agree that it quite got there.

Still should be very good if kept up though.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 08, 2008, 12:23:08 am
The EMT...
Finished restoring the electronics, installed but not in the tie lines yet. I'm waiting for the studio to be dark for a few days to catch up on maintenance. Still waiting on the EMT 240, but I do have a 245...does that count?
As to the Church Mic vs U47...all I can say is Capsule, Tube, Transformer. I'll post a thread over at Klause's forum and see what I dredge up. I'm too tired to search the archives tonight.
Thanks again Terry.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 08, 2008, 01:26:54 am
Basically, it's a M7 or K47, a 6072 and a Triad transformer.  I used one of Pearlman's recreations, and thought it sounded like a 47 with too much 10kHz and not enough bottom, and all the people familiar with the originals said that's what they sound like.  But they were supposed to be much better for film sound than U47s.  

If you have any questions about them, I'm sure Dave can help you out.  

Ever since J Po used them, and then turned Jon Brion on to them, they became the cool thing.  

It would be nice if you could take some good pics and upload them for some of our mic porn collections, though.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Larrchild on February 08, 2008, 01:57:04 am
I think it was better suited for distance micing or lower levels than a 47.
I used one once on acoustic guitar and it had wicked-good detail, but on anything much louder, it folded.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Brian Kehew on February 08, 2008, 02:41:34 am
I borrowed one of Jack Puig's once and it made the greatest female vocal I've ever recorded. All the people I know who have them are DAMN serious about gear, none too trendy and all listen closely rather than buy on trends. Damn good mics, but your mileage may vary. FWIW I've never liked C12s on anything, so there you go...

Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Brian Kehew on February 08, 2008, 02:43:11 am
BTW - I know a church that might sell some of their dynamic mics. They would be easy to flog on Craigslist (as "old Church Mic") and piss people off! RACING over to your house to snap them up, and then they see....
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Silvertone on February 08, 2008, 07:37:35 am
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 00:26



Ever since J Po used them, and then turned Jon Brion on to them, they became the cool thing.  





Oh JJ, they were "cool" far before this.

Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 08, 2008, 10:12:48 am
Brian Kehew wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 00:41

I borrowed one of Jack Puig's once and it made the greatest female vocal I've ever recorded.



If you're talking about that green body one in 96, that was a special moment. I remember 3 other mics being put up for that session and that one was an easy winner. Was that the Eleni record?

Have you heard the Pearlman clone yet?

Billy, did you get one of the Bomb Factory mics?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 08, 2008, 11:46:22 am
No, I'm talking about the one they used on the Grays record.  Maybe that one is truly special, because everybody else I know who has used one has not been as excited about them.

Yes, I had the Pearlman for a few days, and it just was not my thing.  I even posted some sound clips on Klaus' forum, if you want to do a search there.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 08, 2008, 12:01:35 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 09:46

No, I'm talking about the one they used on the Grays record.  Maybe that one is truly special, because everybody else I know who has used one has not been as excited about them.

Yes, I had the Pearlman for a few days, and it just was not my thing.  I even posted some sound clips on Klaus' forum, if you want to do a search there.


Thanks JJ, but that was actually a q to Brian.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 08, 2008, 01:30:12 pm
A lot of 10k makes a lot of sense.  As boom mikes for film sound you'd want that high end to make up for highs lost through air absorption over a distance.  I can't believe they were ever intended to be used for close miking.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 08, 2008, 03:22:32 pm
What Barry said makes sense. The 2 engineers that I have talked to about these mics, Ross being one of them sounded excited about their use. Acoustic guitar and group vocals and surely a very good room mic. I'll post some pictures some time today.
After taking the mic apart last night I kept thinking that the transformer looked a bit puny and certainly not enough iron to even compare to a 47. At any rate, it is always cool to get a hold of a unique and rare microphone to check out. The comments posted here coupled with my close up electronic observations and application in the studio should yield some very compelling information to share.
What the hell...it beats playing golf.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 08, 2008, 09:14:56 pm
If you think about the transformers usually paired with 6072s, like a T14/1, it's actually kinda big!

How about those pics?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Brian Kehew on February 08, 2008, 09:31:06 pm
I haven't heard one of the modern clones. I'm sure it sounds good - it is the EXACT transformer, a clone of the circuit board and a similar capsule. Might even sound better than an original then, but who would know? Older is ALWAYS better. Except in food.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Brian Kehew on February 08, 2008, 09:32:32 pm
BTW - the oldest food I've eaten (not wine) was 15 year old "Elvis" bubble gum. It was the pink and hard stuff, so I thought it was impervious to age. It made me sick though. So I will never eat 15 year old food again; gotta have standards.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: mgod on February 08, 2008, 09:51:42 pm
I have some Easter "Peeps" in our wetbar, approaching 15 years on April 2nd or 3rd. You're welcome to try. They've been the household deities.

People tried to sell me Church mics long before Jon Brion lived here, JJ.

DS

Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 08, 2008, 10:35:19 pm
Whatever.  I just know that Jon's espousing them got them more attention in Gear Slutz type places on the Internets.  
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Matt Winegar on February 08, 2008, 11:02:58 pm
I remember Puigy using one on bass guitar amp years ago. Never seen another.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 12:22:58 am
Okay...you guys are pack of cards! Just so you know, this mic is #101 and done up in milled anodized Black aluminum with the hanger being a U shaped affair with surgical rubber tubing as the shock absorber. From what I gather, they used some sort of line to hang the mount from a boom. The power supply connector is mounted onto the hanger thingy McWidget. Man, those guys were rather anal or ingenious or both. I dunno, but the mic is cool and looks very much like a 47 fet with a personality complex. Internally it is very well built and engineered unlike some of the delicate German/Austrian vintage types that I have repaired. The 1962 SM2 that I just worked on was a joke but that was how it was done back in the day. Bakelite or Micarta is not a useful substrate for copper traces. The bond just ain't happenin...easy with that soldering iron Eugene. Another funny thing about the SM2...where in the flying F*** is one supposed to find 150 meg resistors these days? Thank god I have the left overs from dead Ham Radio guys from the 1950's! You can skewer me all you want about this but I am dead set on the idea that it's ALL in the Capsule, Tube, Transformer and layout...lead dress as it were. Those cracked carbon or wire wound resistors are crap. Do they impart a sonic signature on sound? You betcha, but they are a bitch to work on and are noisy after 40+ years. The caps? Eh, well its a matter of taste I suppose...the PCB's are part of the tone folks and yes, they don't make them anymore. Thank God.
Like the old Tarryton cigarette commercials...I'd rather fight than switch. My rant will no doubt leave me with a black eye but the fact is, those parts are just damned hard to find and all these decades later we find ourselves shelling out huge sums of money for a technology that is no longer supported in the manufacturing sector.
In the end, we have to substitute a part with the right value but it won't sound the same. We can tailor the sonics by changing the value of an RC network to tame down the response to our liking but it still isn't the same. Is it really worth $10,000 dollars? You be the judge. Anything man made is subject to becoming obsolete with age and thats a fact we have to live with.
Stem cells do not apply to audio.
Meanwhile, my ADK GK-67 sounds rather bitchen and I can still afford to make my car payment...amen!
I think I'll just have some fun and see what sounds good on tape and to hell with the emblem on the case.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 09, 2008, 12:36:01 am
This thread is useless without pictures.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 12:38:52 am
JJ...
I'm working on it. I'm using a tripod to take accurate pictures without blur. I want to document this right.
Billy Yates

BTW, most of my posts are worthless!
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Podgorny on February 09, 2008, 01:04:12 am
index.php/fa/7475/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Ross Hogarth on February 09, 2008, 01:05:26 am
I had the pleasure of using Don Gehmans Church mic in the 80's in John Mellencamps Belmont on Johns records and on REM.
These 2 Chuech mics were like said, stubby black 47 fet looking mics
They were amazing
they killed just about any mic put up against them
they just had a special thing that was indescribable
you know when a sound is 3D
it has a special something
like the difference between a nice bright capsule and a nice bright real 47 or 67 or C12
you can only describe it as pulling out the detail of a sound in a very special way
I never had the chance to use them again after Don stopped making Johns records
His 2 mics were amazing tho
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Podgorny on February 09, 2008, 01:07:55 am
I know this isn't Billy's Church 47, but for those who may not know what people are going on about here...




index.php/fa/7476/0/



Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Larrchild on February 09, 2008, 03:38:14 am
Ross Hogarth wrote on Sat, 09 February 2008 01:05

I had the pleasure of using Don Gehmans Church mic in the 80's in John Mellencamps Belmont on Johns records and on REM.
These 2 Chuech mics were like said, stubby black 47 fet looking mics
They were amazing
they killed just about any mic put up against them
they just had a special thing that was indescribable
you know when a sound is 3D
it has a special something
like the difference between a nice bright capsule and a nice bright real 47 or 67 or C12
you can only describe it as pulling out the detail of a sound in a very special way
I never had the chance to use them again after Don stopped making Johns records
His 2 mics were amazing tho

Don's was the one I used on acoustic also, Ross.
Very detailed results.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 09, 2008, 04:21:18 am
Billy, I'm giving you a hard time!  You get the pics when you get them.

Thanks for the pics, Kyle.  What I find interesting is the lack of stock Neumann pattern selector on the mic.  
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Brian Kehew on February 09, 2008, 05:53:10 am
microphones schmicrophones...
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Bill_Urick on February 09, 2008, 06:09:29 am
Yeah, how bout some pics.....

of the Easter Peeps

mgod wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 21:51

I have some Easter "Peeps" in our wetbar, approaching 15 years on April 2nd or 3rd. You're welcome to try. They've been the household deities.



Even a blind pig.......

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/214799/8119/#ms g_214799

I guess this would be sort of a Church mic?




Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: tom eaton on February 09, 2008, 08:08:07 am
I have had a package of Peeps sitting on my tracking room windowsill for 10 years.

Dan, that freaks me out.

t
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 09:52:59 am
Kyle...
Thanks, you beat me to it. Now I know what the threaded holes are used for...that piece is missing on this one. Other than that, the mics are identical. I have to replace the surgical tubing on this one. Here are the pics that I promised...lets see what the Congregation looks like.
Billy Yatesindex.php/fa/7478/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 09:54:44 am
Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?index.php/fa/7479/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 09:56:32 am
Goodness, who spit on this thing?index.php/fa/7480/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 10:00:01 am
Only the oncologist knew...index.php/fa/7481/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 10:02:24 am
"I got yer back"index.php/fa/7482/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 10:08:56 am
This microphone reflects how a great deal of thought and simplicity went into building it. This is a very serviceable unit...all point to point using only a small turret board. I wish all vintage microphones were built this way. Next on the docket will be an AKG C-28 that was ravaged by Dave Royer!
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Ross Hogarth on February 09, 2008, 12:11:47 pm
hey i have a c28
if you can make that mic rock, you are my hero !
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: RMoore on February 09, 2008, 12:13:14 pm
Nice pics,

Wasn't it because of these Church mics that Gotham / Neumann USA refused to sell people spare parts anymore?

As for the capsule cleaning - I recall reading in my Sherman Keene audio book about the old school / Wally Heider studio method of cleaning capsules by gently letting drops of , I believe, Kodak lens cleaning fluid land on the membrane & carrying away the gunk.
*Obviously from a very short distance & the membrane turned on an angle.

Disclaimer: Don't quote me on this & don't try it at home people...
would I dare myself on one of my own LDC's? No way...
the mic doctors that are around in the USA must have their own tried & true capsule cleaning methods...

Good luck with the mic!



Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 12:20:28 pm
Ross Hogarth wrote on Sat, 09 February 2008 11:11

hey i have a c28
if you can make that mic rock, you are my hero !

Bring it on, along with your LA2A. I'll bet that would be a great marriage!
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 09, 2008, 12:34:52 pm
Billy, thank you.  Do NOT put any fluid on the capsule.  It's not dirty enough to make that much of a difference anyway.  At most, take a lens cleaning brush to dust off the capsule, but it doesn't look very dusty.

Looks like the only original passive components left are those carbon comp resistors?  That .5/400 is the coupling cap?  I don't see the Triad.  That's a later K47.  Certainly not of the 60s era, with that plastic tension ring ... not that it makes it sound different.  but this has been worked on.

And two more questions: Is that green cap a wet tant?  And is audio going through the Xicon, or is that voltage regulation for the tube?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: RMoore on February 09, 2008, 12:55:58 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 09 February 2008 18:34

Billy, thank you.  Do NOT put any fluid on the capsule.  


Just out of curiosity J.J. - is the fluid thing an urban myth or a membrane killer? It sounds believable that it could work , not that I'd dare... anyway, what's the word on that? How do the mic doctors perform a capsule clean? Sorry for the 20 questions but curious minds need to know Smile  
Thnx ,
Ryan M..
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 09, 2008, 01:03:57 pm
 Well, there was a thing from Gotham that said you could put distilled water on the capsule and use a very, very soft brush around the inside edge.  The purpose being that you are not really touching much of the gold, and you are removing the dust and stuff that will capture moisture, and act as a conductor between the center termination and the edge, which will short the capsule until the moisture evaporates.  It does work, the chances that you are going to screw the pooch are high, as well.

I have been of the opinion that unless the capsule is just absolutely filthy and weighted down, a particle or four of spit is not going to matter that much.  If it sounds wrong, and it's shorting out with the breath test, then send it to a pro to clean.  

As far as cleaning it himself, I'll say this Billy, don't be a hero!  Very Happy


BTW, I found this schematic.  I can barely make out the word "Sprague" in the cap section, like after .47
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 01:41:45 pm
Whoopie! Schematics! (audio porn)
JJ, I would never do such a thing. I am very good at fixing things but cleaning a capsule is like cleaning a hard disk...I ain't gonna do it. Thanks for the warning. I hooked the mic up and it sounds fine even though I'm not at the studio today. Yes it was serviced a few years ago. The "Wet" cap is a lytic, not a tantalum. Now that I have a schematic I can verify everything and spec it out. One thing is for sure, they guy who serviced this mic used the shotgun approach...he replaced everything except for a couple of resistors.
I am going to take it to the studio tomorrow and let it cook for several hours while I listen for noise...maintenance day. I hope to get the EMT 140 up and running for evaluation too...a shot of tequila and a torque wrench! Just kidding. The EMT thread will get an update along with this microphone thread.
Thanks guys! Damn, another schematic for the vault..."Hey Jeeves, this shit IS a science!"
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 09, 2008, 01:50:36 pm
Yeah, sorry it isn't any clearer than that.  Also frustrating is that the column that is supposed to list WHICH cap is missing.  Some guess work will be involved, I suppose.

BTW, the K47 capsule was not introduced until 1960, so I wonder if we can assume that if the schematic says 1954, that these were originally equipped with M7s.  Also, I'm still wondering about these baskets that don;t have the Neumann pattern selector.  I am going to take a wild guess that perhaps the baskets were not made by Neumann.  Lemme see if I can get Klaus or Oli to answer that.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 09, 2008, 02:01:49 pm
Aha...the plot thickens. I wish the original parts were still inside so I could date the thing, just out of curiosity.
I am going to build my own version when I get the time, maybe use a Jensen or Cinemag transformer. Sometimes those capsules come up for sale without having to mortgage the house.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 09, 2008, 02:08:02 pm
See if you can get one of the new Triads from Dave Pearlman.  
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Klaus Heyne on February 09, 2008, 09:25:11 pm
J.J. alerted me to this thread. Sorry to make myself rare here, but life with a six-year-old, a book contract pressing on my back, lousy moods from three months without a single day of sunshine...

As to capsule cleaning of Neumann large diaphragm capsules:
In general, gold sputtering is very lightly attached to the Mylar membrane, and will come off super-easy when triggered mechanically,as by a brush. This is especially true for contaminated membrane surfaces, where a brush, even a very soft one, will drag and scratch hard particles into the gold and remove it quickly.

So, in principle, the advice to just sprinkle some harmless fluid like distilled water on the diaphragm, swill it around a bit and toss it off, is not bad, except:
most Neumann capsules have a pressure relief hole, a tiny needle prick, towards the edge of the membrane. Any liquid deposited on the surface of the membrane will be sucked into the deep, mystical spaces of the backplate behind it, and that liquid will henceforth become inaccessible to most simple drying efforts, and lead to loss of the high insulation resistance between diaphragm and back plate, which in turn leads to thunderous discharges of a collapsed/shorted capacitor.

In addition, when I see the kind of contamination your capsule shows, I pretty much know that these large blobs will not come off without the gold going too. (Notice the rainbow-like discoloration on some of the blobs: deterioration and chemical conversion has already set in.)

One more note about the K47 your pictures show clearly: someone messed with this capsule, and I am not sure whether it even has the original Neumann diaphragms. There is a clear lacquer sloppily smeared over every of the 12 diaphragm ring screws which is not of Neumann origin. Normally this is done when the ring had been off and the screws resealed. (Neumann only uses a tiny bit of a sealer to affix the position of each screw)

Now to the Church specs: lots of info on my forum. (I feel like a pimp stealing customers...)

What is a MUST to be found on any authentic Church mic:

* Genuine Neumann M7 or K47
* GE 5-Star 6072 tube
* Triad transformer (I still can't figure out from your JGPs where yours is??)
* Genuine Neumann U47 (tube) head basket, modified for Church's purposes.

Best regards,
Klaus Heyne
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 09, 2008, 09:59:40 pm
Klaus, thanks for coming by.  I don't think anybody minds cross pollinating the traffic to you.  

So I guess those ARE Neumann baskets that are modded.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 10, 2008, 11:01:58 am
Klaus...
Thanks for dropping by and setting that straight. I won't be worrying too much about the capsule. The mic tested good yesterday and it will remain in this state unless I can source another capsule. The tube in this mic is a GE 5 Star 6072/12AY7. The transformer is located on the very bottom of the superstructure where the cabling exits...I can provide a photo if anyone wishes.
For the sake of description, the transformer is a rather small open frame single bobbin type with the laminations having a bright metal finish. Maybe Nickel? The bobbin is wrapped in yellow tape. The leads exit the bobbin without posts.
When I tested the mic, I only had headphones to use here in the shop. It sounded nice and full, very warm without any noticeable bumps in the upper frequencies. The again, I am a guitarist and my ears are suspect regarding critical assessment.
Ross is planning a visit to the studio this week, so maybe he could have a listen. Maybe JJ could come too...hell, why not all of the LA cats show up and have a Church Party!
I have to say how cool it is to cast something out into this pond looking for tidbits and I end up with a feast. Damn, you guys are amazing.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 10, 2008, 11:57:14 am
If you have a "Church Party," you guys will definitely need a (the?) "Church Lady".

Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 10, 2008, 12:04:14 pm
Lemme see if I can get one of Dave's mics for the occasion.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 10, 2008, 12:31:30 pm
That would be great. I'll see if I can get Ed to come over too. We should do these sorts of things often...keep the networks of people alive and kicking. Mic shoot outs are a good reason for folks to hang out and make music or noise or both...good coffee or good beer.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: BiasRocks on February 10, 2008, 01:07:56 pm
"hey i have a c28
if you can make that mic rock, you are my hero !"

Ross

Get your hands on a Blue/Red B6 head, screw it onto your C28 add a GE 5 Star 6072 and you have a very versatile and great sounding package. Vocals, Bass Amp, Agtrs (not Martins), Gtr Amp, Room Mic are some uses I've found for mine.

Mark
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 12, 2008, 10:38:59 am
phantom309 wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 09:12

Brian Kehew wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 00:41

I borrowed one of Jack Puig's once and it made the greatest female vocal I've ever recorded.



If you're talking about that green body one in 96, that was a special moment. I remember 3 other mics being put up for that session and that one was an easy winner. Was that the Eleni record?

Have you heard the Pearlman clone yet?

Billy, did you get one of the Bomb Factory mics?


I have not heard the Pearlman yet. Clue me into the Bomb Factory mic...never heard of it.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 12, 2008, 10:45:43 am
Billy Yates wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 08:38

phantom309 wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 09:12

Brian Kehew wrote on Fri, 08 February 2008 00:41

I borrowed one of Jack Puig's once and it made the greatest female vocal I've ever recorded.



If you're talking about that green body one in 96, that was a special moment. I remember 3 other mics being put up for that session and that one was an easy winner. Was that the Eleni record?

Have you heard the Pearlman clone yet?

Billy, did you get one of the Bomb Factory mics?


I have not heard the Pearlman yet. Clue me into the Bomb Factory mic...never heard of it.
Billy Yates


It was a very particular church mic that was owned by the Bombfactory Studio in Burbank. They recently closed and sold off the gear. I got the Lustraphone Helios silver preamps from there (from the same desk as the two you have), but the Church mic was already gone. It's just one that I'd like to keep track of! Sounded incredible.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 12, 2008, 10:53:38 am
Okay, now I understand. Those Helios you picked up are rather nice I must say. I'm still working on racking up the 2 that I have. I just finished restoring the RCA BA6A. It sounds wonderful and worth all of the effort. I also finished installing the new rubber tubing on the Church Mic. Now I need to make a mount for the yoke.
I promised to post a picture of the transformer on this mic, I'll do that in a few minutes and get it posted.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 12, 2008, 11:21:24 am
Well, I must make a correction. The transformer is a split bobbin type instead a single bobbin as I stated previously.
Here is picture of the transformer.
Billy Yatesindex.php/fa/7582/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 12, 2008, 11:26:15 am
Here is a picture of the finished installation of the rubber tubing shock absorber. To facilitate this, you need to use a pair of scissors to cut the end of the tubing into a sharp point in order to guide it through the holes of the mount tabs of the mic and then into the yoke. The bare ends are then tied into a half hitch and trimmed of excess material. Works like a charm. The installation took about 20 minutes.
Billy Yatesindex.php/fa/7583/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 12, 2008, 11:42:37 am
Billy Yates wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 09:26

. The bare ends are then tied into a half hitch and trimmed of excess material. Works like a charm. The installation took about 20 minutes.
Billy Yatesindex.php/fa/7583/0/


For those of us whom have never been on a boat:

http://www.realknots.com/knots/hitches.htm


Nice looking rig, Billy. How does it sound?

If anyone's curious and have not heard one of these mics, check out the oft mentioned "RoShamBo" by The Grays. Most, if not ALL, of the lead vocals were tracked using JJP's Church. NO, I wasn't there, but this was told to me by Jon Brion in a conversation about how great that record could have sounded. I still think it sounds great and it was the reason we have a Gibson RVT in the studio. That amp is featured on "Oh Well, Maybe"....all by itself after the keyboard solo/freakout.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: David Bock on February 12, 2008, 02:37:48 pm
Quote:

This microphone reflects how a great deal of thought and simplicity went into building it. This is a very serviceable unit...all point to point using only a small turret board. I wish all vintage microphones were built this way.

I disagree entirely. It was not designed for easy service a la u47, and much of the layout is happenstance. It was designed to prioritize shock mounting of the cable, which is fine. I'm happy most mics were not designed like it.
BTW, what's wrong with that one you have?
regards,
DB
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 12, 2008, 03:15:46 pm
David, did you ever work on JJP's Church?  Is there anything different about it from other Churches?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: compasspnt on February 12, 2008, 04:09:36 pm
I heard it was non-denominational.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Silvertone on February 12, 2008, 04:30:33 pm
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 15:09

I heard it was non-denominational.



Good one Terry!
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 12, 2008, 04:35:42 pm
dbock wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 13:37

Quote:

This microphone reflects how a great deal of thought and simplicity went into building it. This is a very serviceable unit...all point to point using only a small turret board. I wish all vintage microphones were built this way.

I disagree entirely. It was not designed for easy service a la u47, and much of the layout is happenstance. It was designed to prioritize shock mounting of the cable, which is fine. I'm happy most mics were not designed like it.
BTW, what's wrong with that one you have?
regards,
DB

David...
It depends on what your definition of "Serviceable" is.
To me, it is a very easy unit to work on and very well built. Having never serviced a U-47 I can't compare or comment.
I agree to disagree and so forth...whatever.
The mic was noisy, due to the tube. I replaced it with one from my private stock, a GE 5 star 5751. It sounds fine at the bench here but it will go under the microscope at the studio later this week. I invited Ross Hogarth, JJ Blair and Ed Cherney to have a little shootout with this one, a U47 and maybe another Church that belongs to a friend of JJ's. This should be fun.
Very curious about the results.
Billy Yates

Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: David Bock on February 12, 2008, 05:09:52 pm
Quote:

It depends on what your definition of "Serviceable" is.
To me, it is a very easy unit to work on and very well built.
then you haven't worked on enough of them to see the problems due to the design
Quote:

The mic was noisy, due to the tube. I replaced it with one from my private stock, a GE 5 star 5751

you might want to find a 6072, that mic doesn't need (or want)the extra gain of a 5751
regards,
DB
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 12, 2008, 05:17:31 pm
Billy, I was gonna say, I'd stick with the 6072.

David, any info on the JJP mic?  Anything different about that one?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 12, 2008, 05:21:17 pm
dbock wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 16:09

Quote:

It depends on what your definition of "Serviceable" is.
To me, it is a very easy unit to work on and very well built.
then you haven't worked on enough of them to see the problems due to the design
Quote:

The mic was noisy, due to the tube. I replaced it with one from my private stock, a GE 5 star 5751

you might want to find a 6072, that mic doesn't need (or want)the extra gain of a 5751
regards,
DB

Thanks David. I have several 6072/12AY7's stashed away.
I really don't want to cross swords with you on this David.
I don't design microphones, and you do...there is the difference.
I own them, fix them and use them. I make things work and make music, thats my job in life. So far I don't see anything wrong with the mic as long as it sounds good and does the job it was intended to do. If not, then I'll use something else or build my own.
Thanks for your comments.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Brian Kehew on February 12, 2008, 05:33:53 pm
>>I invited Ross Hogarth, JJ Blair and Ed Cherney to have a little shootout with this one,<<

MIC SHOOTOUT! Psheeww psheeewww (fingers pointed like a gun)
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 12, 2008, 05:36:56 pm
OK Corral?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 12, 2008, 07:22:09 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 15:17

Billy, I was gonna say, I'd stick with the 6072.

David, any info on the JJP mic?  Anything different about that one?


Hey J.J.

I know NOTHING about that mic except that it's green, it scared the bejeezus out of us having to be responsible for it in the studio and it sounds amazing. If anyone from this forum would know the particulars about it's liddle innards, it would be B.K..

Ask Jack!


Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 13, 2008, 12:01:58 am
I don;t know that Jack  is a schematic and component guy.  He's more known for abusing techs than fixing things himself.  But I bet David has had the mic on his bench at one point or another.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Brian Kehew on February 13, 2008, 12:25:17 am
I've been asking about variations on Church mics. Seems there were none, they typically were as Klaus has said, although some have Nuvistors.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 13, 2008, 12:27:37 am
J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 22:01

I don;t know that Jack  is a schematic and component guy.  He's more known for abusing techs than fixing things himself.  But I bet David has had the mic on his bench at one point or another.



Ahh...THAT David. Sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Matt Allen on February 18, 2008, 02:58:57 pm
Did you guys have your Church meeting yet? Interested to see what microphones you guys got ahold of and your thoughts?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Matt Allen on February 19, 2008, 11:40:39 am
Thanks to Rolff over at Blackbird I got a couple shots of a Church for everyone. They have 2 working, and possibly more in unknown states.index.php/fa/7688/0/
Power Supply possibly redone by Korby
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Matt Allen on February 19, 2008, 11:43:48 am
Here's a Body shot:

index.php/fa/7689/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Matt Allen on February 19, 2008, 11:49:37 am
Capsule Front, also notice pattern selector. It is held in place by a wire that rests on top of it. index.php/fa/7690/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 19, 2008, 11:49:45 am
Matt Allen wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 09:40

Thanks to Rolff over at Blackbird I got a couple shots of a Church for everyone. They have 2 working, and possibly more in unknown states.


And what's the prevailing opinion at Blackbird about these mics?

While you're at it Matt, could you ask someone there what they recorded the last Alison Krauss vocals with?
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Matt Allen on February 19, 2008, 11:52:13 am
Back of Capsule:

index.php/fa/7691/0/
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: compasspnt on February 19, 2008, 12:12:21 pm
phantom309 wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 11:49

Matt, could you ask someone there what they recorded the last Alison Krauss vocals with?



With Alison.

The microphone was a far lesser ingredient.

The preamp even more so.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Larrchild on February 19, 2008, 12:28:16 pm
When you open your mouth and angels fly out, the electronics is secondary.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 19, 2008, 12:41:03 pm
Matt Allen wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 08:49

Capsule Front, also notice pattern selector. It is held in place by a wire that rests on top of it.


That's the standard U47 switch.  That's how it's done.  The bent wire provides the tension, and as you slide it, it lifts the contact and engages the backside.  The metal nipple that sticks out is not Neumann, however.

The capsule is also new-ish.  The shunt resistor and cap are not original.  
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 19, 2008, 01:01:26 pm
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 10:12

phantom309 wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 11:49

Matt, could you ask someone there what they recorded the last Alison Krauss vocals with?



With Alison.

The microphone was a far lesser ingredient.

The preamp even more so.



Oh gee guys....I KNOW this, for God's sake. I'm just interested in what they used. Of course she's got a spectacular voice and talent...as does the engineer. I just love her music. But the detail and sonic purity of these recordings fascinate me. I record a LOT of female voices (for some odd reason) and I'm just trying to learn something...not attributing the magic to a gadget.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: tom eaton on February 19, 2008, 01:22:28 pm
http://www.3daudioinc.com/040719_VMIpt1.mp3

go to about 5:45

Gary uses a Sony C800g with Alison.

Into a Mastering Labs or V76 pre.

He comments on the amount of work he has to do after the fact to remove the stuff he doesn't want, but believes the detail of the mic is worth the post effort.

-tom
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 19, 2008, 01:25:00 pm
tom eaton wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 11:22

http://www.3daudioinc.com/040719_VMIpt1.mp3

go to about 5:45

Gary uses a Sony C800g with Alison.

Into a Mastering Labs or V76 pre.

He comments on the amount of work he has to do after the fact to remove the stuff he doesn't want, but believes the detail of the mic is worth the post effort.

-tom


Thank you kindly, sir.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 19, 2008, 04:31:06 pm
Quote:

Gary uses a Sony C800g with Alison.


Just goes to show, she'll sound good on ANY mic.
Title: Re: Church Mics @ Blackbird
Post by: Rolff on February 19, 2008, 05:29:27 pm
Hey Matt,

Great to see you this morning at the shop.

For the record, we have 3 functioning Church 47 mics.

Also, somewhere in this place, we have a 'multi channel' set of what I am pretty sure are either Church pre amps or a Cinemag mixer with pres that came with the ones we bought or were sent to us as a result of having the 3 already. I recall someone telling me they were thought to be built by Stanley Church, but let me confirm that.

The last time I saw it, about a year ago, it was built in to a leather case (it pretty ratty and old) and I don't think it was in 100% working order. These were apparently made with portability in mind so they could be used on location and might have had a battery hook up as well.

Not sure, but when I locate it, I'll post some pics of it.

Rock on!
Rolff
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 19, 2008, 06:14:57 pm
Thanks Rolff! Please add what you can...we appreciate it.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: J.J. Blair on February 19, 2008, 06:39:26 pm
Rolff!  It's nice to see you, my man.  Stick around, please!
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: compasspnt on February 19, 2008, 11:49:56 pm
tom eaton wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 13:22

...a Sony C800g



Yikes!
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: E Merrill on February 19, 2008, 11:55:30 pm
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 23:49

tom eaton wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 13:22

...a Sony C800g



Yikes!




Note the difference in her vocal sound between her early records and more recent releases.

Both are good but they are VERY different.



Eric
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 20, 2008, 12:00:16 am
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 22:49

tom eaton wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 13:22

...a Sony C800g



Yikes!



Terry...
A bit off topic, but...
I am curious about this mic. For the amount of money they fetch and the comments I see about them, whats your take? Yikes can mean good or bad...for that money I could buy a couple of really good mics.
That heat sink looking thing makes me nervous.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: compasspnt on February 20, 2008, 12:18:14 am
Yikes bad.

To my ears, the 800 is "pre-EQ'd" in a not very pretty way.  It seems to work a lot on Hip-Hop sessions, where everything needs to thrash through the muck.  Very (almost artificially) bright sounding.

I would guess that's why the post says there was much work to be done after the fact.


I would personally not have one of the beasts.

For that money, there are many nice mics to be had.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: tom eaton on February 20, 2008, 12:25:39 am
In the discussion that I linked above, Gary talks about the relative brightness of the mic and that he spends quite a bit of time removing mouth noises and manually riding ss.  What's the plural of s?  ss?

Anyway, yes.  Big expensive bright mic that sounds good if you take out all the stuff that sounds bad about it.

-tom
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 20, 2008, 12:26:34 am
Eric Merrill wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 21:55

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 23:49

tom eaton wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 13:22

...a Sony C800g



Yikes!




Note the difference in her vocal sound between her early records and more recent releases.

Both are good but they are VERY different.



Eric


Hence the question in the first place. I've been following Alison since I first saw her in a fiddle contest in Winfield Kansas...which she won rather handily. Then she got this great career as a vocal star with Union Station going and her sound HAS changed a lot over the years and I couldn't figure out why this soft, gorgeous tone was so dynamic in detail.

That mic may be a very expensive paper weight in every other case, but with that engineer and his method on that woman's voice, it's enchanting.  

Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Larrchild on February 20, 2008, 12:28:49 am
And I didn't mean to diminish the question. Sorry. I just like saying how great she is at every chance.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: tom eaton on February 20, 2008, 12:46:46 am
Perhaps she could be a guest moderator.

t
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: phantom309 on February 20, 2008, 12:52:28 am
tom eaton wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 22:46

Perhaps she could be a guest moderator.

t


Indeed. Especially now that she's moved into producing other people. She did a great job with Alan Jackson.

Wide ears.
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 20, 2008, 12:55:28 am
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 23:18

Yikes bad.

To my ears, the 800 is "pre-EQ'd" in a not very pretty way.  It seems to work a lot on Hip-Hop sessions, where everything needs to thrash through the muck.  Very bright and harsh sounding.

I would guess that's why the post says there was much work to be done after the fact.


I would personally not have one of the beasts.

For that money, there are many nice mics to be had.


Thank you.
I have never worked with one and when I saw the post about having to work through its personality to remove what was objectionable it seemed like a waste of time. Maybe there is merit with an inverse approach to capturing tonal depth and then going back to remove what isn't needed is a long path to the desired result.
Am I missing something here? I remember when these mics hit the market and everybody seemed to get one because they were the new kid on the block. I guess the 251 and 47 get the nod for a reason.
Lets get back to the Church.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Larrchild on February 20, 2008, 01:20:08 am
I was so jazzed by the Church mic on acoustic about 25 years ago I took a FET 47 capsule and built a 6072 stage and a totem-pole cathode follower after it, ala Sax. I still used a transformer, but a fat one, in the PS.

index.php/fa/7710/0/
It worked pretty good for the low level stuff actually. Same vibe, but grainy compared to the Church. I still have it here now and your mic build is making me want to start again with it with some new circuits, Billy.

I can always snap it back on the FET body if it's a dud. Cool
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: David Bock on February 22, 2008, 02:12:58 am
That Korby supply bears little resemblance to the stock psu, especially w/the silicon, which is left to your devices to determine the value of. Hell,  people own Bradley psu's and thing their Neumanns sound right in this day and age! The mic photo also shows mods which are "value judgements".
JJ- John's mics are mostly stock (!), including the brown leather bound psu.
Yates- I understand what you are saying based on how many mics you and I have respectively been inside of. It is well built compared to some of the things out there, new and vintage. I just know all the flaws so I can't hold it in quite the esteem that I hold others. It's the curse of designing and thinking from a mfg/service viewpoint: if the performance is not beyond spectacular the flaws become more evident.
regards,
DB

Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Billy Yates on February 22, 2008, 10:43:54 am
dbock wrote on Fri, 22 February 2008 01:12

That Korby supply bears little resemblance to the stock psu, especially w/the silicon, which is left to your devices to determine the value of. Hell,  people own Bradley psu's and thing their Neumanns sound right in this day and age! The mic photo also shows mods which are "value judgements".
JJ- John's mics are mostly stock (!), including the brown leather bound psu.
Yates- I understand what you are saying based on how many mics you and I have respectively been inside of. It is well built compared to some of the things out there, new and vintage. I just know all the flaws so I can't hold it in quite the esteem that I hold others. It's the curse of designing and thinking from a mfg/service viewpoint: if the performance is not beyond spectacular the flaws become more evident.
regards,
DB



David...
That was stated very well, thank you.
Defining the flaws and correcting them is an interesting subject.
At some point you have to consider what course of action to take which leads me to these questions David...
In evaluating and passing a high grade onto a microphone, what gold standard is used?
Is it just ears? Reference measurements using test apparatus?
All of the above and more? If you could, describe a typical test and evaluation set up. For many...myself included, this is one of the most fascinating aspects of audio.
For the record, my studio is the microscope and the gold standard are several good sets of ears. Then trying to get 2 or more engineers to agree is another story.
Again, thanks for posting David.
By the way, please contribute on PSW when convenient, your participation is greatly appreciated.
Billy Yates
Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: David Bock on March 07, 2008, 08:45:25 pm
Quote:

In evaluating and passing a high grade onto a microphone, what gold standard is used?
Is it just ears? Reference measurements using test apparatus?

At this point for me it is a combination of the two, with the test equipment usually confirming what I think I hear. Of course, construction, servicability, style, etc factor in as well. Mics with obvious gimmicky design, funny names, and poor finish are of little interest to me.

Title: Re: Church Mic
Post by: Rolff on February 25, 2011, 07:12:24 pm
J.J.

So, its been a coon's age since I posted this when Matt had the mic?!

Man did I ever drop the ball on this one!  

I went looking for some info on the Church 47 when I had an inquiry this week and found I had not followed up on the thread. Lame!

Still have not seen the Cinemag pres in the bag. I'll still keep my eyes peeled since I know it's here...possibly stashed in the tech shop somewhere.

Busy is good. Smile

Have a great wknd all!

peace/love
-Rolff