Post by: frankj on March 29, 2008, 11:17:26 AM
I know this is a subjective question, but are these microphones almost identical in sound, due to sharing an identical capsule?
Post by: amorris on March 30, 2008, 10:20:15 AM
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 30, 2008, 02:58:25 PM
Post by: hopsing on March 30, 2008, 04:40:44 PM
A little of topic, but related question.
I have a md 408 and somebody ( I think J.J.) wrote on this forum, that it has the same capsule as the 409. I asked Sennheiser and they said that this is not the case, since the md408 is hypercardioid and the the md409 cardioid.
Since I never owned a 409 I cannot compare myself, but I find, that the 408 has a very distinct bass rolloff from 200Hz down. making it unusable for toms and the like. On guitar it is ok sometimes since those frequencys often fight with the bass and I tend to shelf them anyway, but still it is not one of my favorites on a guitar cab (compared to a bayerdynamic m160 e.g.) and it is for sure not very versatile.
Is this rolloff the same with md409?
On the frequency charts for the md409 there seems to be a rolloff but not that much and there is no published chart for the md408 on the sennheiser website.
Thanks for help
Tobias
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 30, 2008, 04:49:47 PM
I know the Sennheiser paperwork shows the pattern differences between the capsules, but I'm curious if anybody still there had any experience building or designing the two. I mean, I may be wrong, but I'll be shocked if the difference between the two capsules is anything but that aluminum casing.
Post by: panman on March 31, 2008, 08:00:12 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 22:49 |
I mean, I may be wrong, but I'll be shocked if the difference between the two capsules is anything but that aluminum casing. |
J.J., I agree with you, since I have been experimenting with these Grundig/Sennheiser capsules somewhat. They are very consistent in quality. I however never had a MD 408 and I cannot combine two things: hypercardioid and that afore-mentioned "very distinct bass rolloff from 200 Hz down". I find this very unlikely a combination.
Is it possible that MD 408 is an omni and not hypercardioid? I do not have access to my archives until next week, so I cannot check it out right now. I once fitted this capsule into a MD 21 and it became an omni in that process and a noticeable bass rolloff happened.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: hopsing on March 31, 2008, 08:57:27 AM
I am surprised, that the housing has such an influence on pattern and frequency response. Maybe I should look out for a broken md409 and put the element in there to have a more usable microphone.
The response from sennheiser sounded indeed a little bit like they just had a look at the datasheets, and not like first hand knowledge.
But the 408 has a pretty accentuated cardioid pattern and that bass rolloff, I can hear that clearly.
Tobias
Post by: frankj on March 31, 2008, 10:15:21 AM
It would be less expensive to buy a 408 and a 609 and put the capsule of the 408 in to the 609 than to buy a 409. It would be worth the hassle to me if that combo would sound like the 409.
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 31, 2008, 11:03:07 AM
Post by: rodabod on March 31, 2008, 07:46:50 PM
| panman wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 13:00 |
I once fitted this capsule into a MD 21 and it became an omni in that process and a noticeable bass rolloff happened. |
I thought the MD408 had a smaller capsule? I can't remember exactly.
Fitting a capsule in a new hosuing can affect the polar response. If you force it towards an omni response by blocking the venting at the rear then you will approach a pressure microphone which will have a rising response since the output level is relative to velocity.
I have the GDSM200 and various other mics using the MD409 capsule though some model names shall remain nameless to stop prices rocketing stupidly! I should really compare these mics one day.
Post by: panman on April 01, 2008, 06:12:55 AM
| rodabod wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 01:46 |
I thought the MD408 had a smaller capsule?........though some model names shall remain nameless to stop prices rocketing stupidly! |
Roddy, I think what you are refering to is the shock-mount/alu-casing of the MD 409 capsule, which makes it look bigger. My guess is MD 408 is without it, but I believe J.J. can confirm that.
I agree to the latter part. It is a fact, that those models mentioned here have gone up in price and the sellers on Ebay never forget to mention the MD 409 connection.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: frankj on April 02, 2008, 01:35:27 PM
I found the Sennheiser MDS-1 on Ebay, which was advertised as 2 409s. I paid the same price as one 409 selling on Ebay.
I hope that these can capture that sound.
At the base of the microphone is a thread for direct attachment to a microphone stand that is somewhat inconvenient,
I'm curious if anyone knows of an attachment for that microphone (the 403 has the same thread) that would allow the manipulation options of a mic clip.
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 02, 2008, 06:14:19 PM
Post by: simolino on April 03, 2008, 11:18:36 AM
3/8" male to 5/8" female about $1.50 each at the music store
Post by: frankj on April 03, 2008, 11:28:13 PM
Funny how those things accumulate.
Post by: simolino on April 04, 2008, 01:02:14 PM
| hopsing wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 07:57 |
I am surprised, that the housing has such an influence on pattern and frequency response. |
The housing is responsible for a huge part of sound especially when it concerns a "open back" capsule like the ones of the 408/409 .If the rear "sound entry" is closed it will cut off a considerable amount of bass.This idea is actually used in many microphones to achieve the bass roll off effect. The most known mic making use of this is probably the AKG D19 .. while turning the bass off ring it actually closes physically the rear opening of the capsule. AKG uses this principle also on several philips branded mics to achieve the omni/cardioid effect.
the 408`s capsule`s back is not totally free, the 409`s is
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 04, 2008, 03:07:53 PM
Also, that lack of rear entry might explain the hyper cardioid, and cardioid pattern differences. Less sound entering from the rear of the capsule, out of phase. If it all enters from the front, it will be more in phase.
Post by: rodabod on April 07, 2008, 08:15:32 PM
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1& ;amp ;item=110238228368&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001
I already have one, and it looks like this one may well go cheap judging by the listing. They sell for
Post by: panman on April 08, 2008, 11:02:21 AM
| simolino wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 19:02 |
The housing is responsible for a huge part of sound especially when it concerns a "open back" capsule like the ones of the 408/409 .If the rear "sound entry" is closed it will cut off a considerable amount of bass.This idea is actually used in many microphones to achieve the bass roll off effect. The most known mic making use of this is probably the AKG D19 .. while turning the bass off ring it actually closes physically the rear opening of the capsule. AKG uses this principle also on several philips branded mics to achieve the omni/cardioid effect. the 408`s capsule`s back is not totally free, the 409`s is |
This is what I meant in my previous posting. How can MD408 be a hypercardioid if the back is closed more than in MD409, which is a cardioid? Correct me, if am wrong, but should it not be closer to omni then? And going from cardioid towards hypercardioid normally don`t cause any bass rolloff. On the contrary,the proximity-effect becomes stronger. Or am I missing somehing?
I was not able to find any info about MD408 in my files, but there is another mic by Sennheiser looking almost the same: MD418, which is hypecardioid. Apparently the same mic, but the front and rear halves are separated by a larger diameter disc. This is another not so common a way of achieving hypercardioid, but the principle is the same making the waves from the rear going a longer way.
So it would be nice, if someone could say from knowledge what it(MD408)is!
Regards,
Esa
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 08, 2008, 01:04:31 PM
Post by: hopsing on April 08, 2008, 01:59:49 PM
According to Beyer it is the other way around, md408 hypercardioid and md409 cardioid. But since I could not find any polar pattern measurement diagramm on the net for the 408, Beyer could have just thought that hypercard. is a proper sounding description for a conference speech microphone, while for a more all around mic like the 409 card. is just right, and in reality there is no difference. I cannot compare, I have no 409.
Out of curiosity I opened the 408 and found the rear to be pretty open, not completly, the gooseneck joint closes a part of the capsule at a little distance. But that should rather lead to a more omni mic.
Well that is all rather confusing...
Thanks anyway
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 08, 2008, 04:49:29 PM
Post by: panman on April 08, 2008, 06:26:24 PM
| hopsing wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 19:59 |
Beyer could have just thought that hypercard. is a proper sounding description for a conference speech microphone |
Could be so, but I believe more they just mixed up MD408 with MD418. Why? I found this: http://cgi.ebay.de/Sennheiser-MD-418-U-4-Dynamic-Microphone- T_W0QQitemZ270226719099QQihZ017QQcategoryZ26507QQssPageNameZ WDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
You find more pictures there, but here is one:
One photo is showing the box end enlarged. There is a symbol indicating it to be a hypercadioid, but could be a supercardioid too.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 08, 2008, 06:30:15 PM
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 10:26:36 AM
Here couple of info pages from old original sennheiser booklets regarding the md408, mds1 and the later MD409-U3, unfortunately could not find anything of the original MD409-N .
I am affraid only that sennheiser was not quite accurate at the time with this kind of info sheets, a tiny example is the info sheet about the 408 and 405 shown in the same page, while the 405 has a totally different capsule with an extra humbacking coil on top.
So looking at old schematics or data sheets will just make things more complicated.
Back on topic now..
The MD409 has the very same capsule as the MDS1,Grundig GDSM200, MD407 and Echolette ES14 ,All these microphones sound and respond identical to the MD409.
if your mic bares the capsule that is shown below then it is a 409 one , note that these MD409 capsules are markt with a 402 number.
Several ebay sellers claim that their microphones (i.e md408 , md403 and sometimes some other ones) have the same capsule as the 409 but this can not be true unless their capsules are replaced of course.
There were no "B`s" or "seconds" going to Grundig or Echolette as some people think, cause one thing is certain and thats that for sennheiser it had to be O.K no matter for whom they made it for.
Hope this helps.
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 10:28:52 AM
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 10:30:23 AM
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 10:31:36 AM
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 10:33:10 AM
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 09, 2008, 01:23:47 PM
Post by: panman on April 09, 2008, 05:21:47 PM
| simolino wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 16:26 |
if your mic bares the capsule that is shown below then it is a 409 one , note that these MD409 capsules are markt with a 402 number.Several ebay sellers claim that their microphones (i.e md408 , md403 and sometimes some other ones) have the same capsule as the 409 but this can not be true unless their capsules are replaced of course. |
Sorry to disagree. I still believe they are the same. Your pics are not showing the actual capsule, but it is still in that alu-casing mentioned many times during this thread. Since I still have a few of these"Grundig"-capsules, I would like to be 100% sure if they are the same. So those of you, who have taken it out of that casing, please provide pics or look at mine and perhaps we have something. By the way it finally occured to me to test my capsules and yes: they are supercardioids. My time to
. Note, that my capsules have quite an open access to the rear vents. Just add more filtering and you easily get a cardioid.Regards,
Esa
Post by: panman on April 09, 2008, 05:27:33 PM
Post by: panman on April 09, 2008, 05:49:57 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 19:23 |
Anyway, hypercard tends to cause bass rolloff in my experience. Perhaps the frequency differences are due to this. |
It surely is a big part of it. Probably depends a lot of the mic in qestion. With the various mics that I have, it seems to affect the low end, but mainly making the low end responcy not go so low . But not in a way as was described here with this particular MD408. Even more confusing is, that my capsules have absolutely no bass rolloff and do have a strong proximity-effect. All in all they are very similar to MD421 in sound.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 05:55:10 PM
we are talking about the GDSM200 vs MD409 , the capsule you are showing is from the Grundig GDSM202 and has nothing to do with the 409
Post by: panman on April 09, 2008, 06:06:40 PM
| simolino wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 23:55 |
we are talking about the GDSM200 vs MD409 , the capsule you are showing is from the Grundig GDSM202 and has nothing to do with the 409 |
Sorry, but claims without any proof are not the custom of this forum. So if you kindly provide some proof, like did you ever open the alu-casing of the MD409 capsule? If you did, then it is your own experience and serves as a proof to me. Or if you have a pic showing, that it is different, would be even better.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 06:49:13 PM
My knowledge is from first hand, i also posted a pic of the 409 capsule, and now I m telling you that the one you are showing is from the smaller GDSM202 shown below and if You think I am wrong please prove it.
Post by: panman on April 09, 2008, 07:18:28 PM
All I want to know is, if the capsule in my pics is the same as in MD409 and if you can verify it with a pic of the MD409 capsule without that alu-casing. Or can you otherwise verify what you are saying? My doubts are clearly justified, because it looks so much the same.
But you are right, it is from GDSM202, but the point was solely and clearly about, if it is the same as the ones discussed. So please again, say what you know,but with enough backing and we are getting somewhere.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 09, 2008, 08:16:43 PM
I said this already: I have dissected the the 409 capsule out of the aluminum casing, and it was identical to the 408 capsule which I then placed inside that aluminum casing, and then placed inside my MD409-N. That mic now sounds identical to my MD409-U3s.
Draw your own conclusions form that. My conclusion is that the capsule of the 408 is identical to the 409, save for the aluminum casing.
BTW, if the 200 is the same as the MDS-1, the MDS-1 has the aluminum casing.
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 09:12:17 PM
The one of the 408 is much smaller too with diameter of 34mm against 39mm of the 409 and is 21mm deep against 36mm of the 409
that`s with the 409 element disassembled as shown below.
Post by: simolino on April 09, 2008, 09:13:37 PM
Post by: rodabod on April 10, 2008, 06:28:02 AM
Roddy
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 10, 2008, 11:21:08 AM
Post by: frankj on April 10, 2008, 01:29:41 PM
So it really wouldn't sound identical, would it?
Post by: panman on April 10, 2008, 05:00:13 PM
| simolino wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 03:12 |
the capsule of the smaller 202 is much smaller and has visible different diaphragm with yellow ring instead of red of the 409`s |
The diaphragm might be the same though, because some 202:s, that I have opened have had red rings too.MD421,MD21 also have red rings. I also have compared these diaphragms with those of 421`s and found them to be otherwise identical except the domes of 421:s are of double foil, but 202:s only have a single foil, so it is thinner.If this is important,I cannot say.
| Quote: |
The one of the 408 is much smaller too with diameter of 34mm against 39mm of the 409 and is 21mm deep against 36mm of the 409 that`s with the 409 element |
In that case, the 202 capsule measures the same as 408. So is it the same or not?
| J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 02:16 |
I have dissected the the 409 capsule out of the aluminum casing, and it was identical to the 408 capsule which I then placed inside that aluminum casing, and then placed inside my MD409-N. That mic now sounds identical to my MD409-U3s. |
What do we make out of this? We have a serious contradiction of two persons both giving first-hand information. How about somebody finally posting a pic of the MD408 capsule!?
Regards,
Esa
Post by: panman on April 10, 2008, 05:22:27 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 17:21 |
I'm not sure what the 202 proves. |
J.J., I did not mean to cause any confusion with my pics of 202, but obviously that is what happened. The point was, that if it was similar to any of those discussed here and somebody pointed it out, it would have proved something since nobody posted pics of the dissected 409 capsule or 408 capsule by then.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 10, 2008, 05:44:08 PM
Post by: simolino on April 11, 2008, 06:58:03 AM
| frankj wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 12:29 |
I am waiting for an MDS 1 that I bought through Ebay. From the looks of the specifications it is hypercardioid, not cardioid as the 409 is. The specs are different on the low end (50 vs 70 hz on the bottom). So it really wouldn't sound identical, would it? |
I would not pay that much attention to those old spec`s...I know.. in sheets from different periods Sennh. shows other values for these mics!
one thing is sure and thats that the mds1 has the same 409 capsule , the slightly hyper card. pattern that it develops at some freq. might be due to its narrower rounded rear gauze but I m not sure about this, in any way believe me your ear will not be able to tell the difference .
So if the heads are PROPERLY working then you will have 2 409`s in one indeed.
This "proper working" thing is a big issue on ebay , I would only buy from a seller that can answer questions satisfactory cauz looking at his feedback only dont say much, people may leave positive just because they dont know better , but this is a diff. topic.
Here a pic of an open mds1 head
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 11, 2008, 10:54:28 AM
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 11, 2008, 10:55:44 AM
Post by: panman on April 13, 2008, 07:31:49 PM
But on the pic, that Simono posted of the same type of capsule , the hole is bigger. Anyway this hole according to my experience is only important for the lower bass, so it would not explain the bass-rolloff.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: spacee on June 28, 2008, 01:01:38 AM
Time for my $0.02...
The MDS1 and 409N capsules are IDENTICAL - I just disassembled 3 409Ns and a fresh, never opened, MDS1.
The holes on the reflectors are exactly the same size (on the mics I have).
My questions are about foam on the 409N.
It appears that two different styles of suspension/support and foam were used in the 409Ns I disassembled. Both capsules have some old foam residue on the top front (the reflector), and I cannot tell what is original, but my experience is that most 409Ns and some 409U3s I've seen have had pretty serious foam rot.
Example One: (one 409N)
The capsule is isolated and held via rubber pads on three plastic semicircles that are screwed to small ears on the gold grille. There is a small hollow circle of foam glued on the reflector around the little hole on the capsules front, and a larger hollow circle of foam glued on the aluminum capsule housing on the back. There is also a silk-like screen on the inside of the gold grille. The front pictures posted by J.J. Blair are just like this 409N, except his 409N appears to also have a cork-like ring on the outside top front of the capsule. The back pictures posted by J.J. Blair do not show the foam ring on the capsule back mine has...
Example Two (two 409Ns):
The capsule is isolated via a foam pad about the depth of the capsule with a cutout for the capsule. The three gold ears are still on the gold grill, but are flat to the grille - apparently not used anymore, and never used. There are also thinner (about 1/4") foam pads inside the black and gold grilles - a foam support system like all my 409U3s, and 609s.
My questions are: Am I missing any foam pieces in example one? It has less bass, but sounds "rounder", maybe even better, even when I switch the capsules, or use MDS1 capsules - so apparently the way the support and foam is configured is affecting the sound of the mic.
And...
Does anyone else have 409Ns using the suspension/support I described in example two? Just foam pads - like a 409U3 or a 609...
And...
I have the terminal on the right as my Tuchel pin 1 (positive) - how's your phasing?? (-:
I was able to obtain 609/906 foam rebuild kits from Sennheiser - I have yet a few more 409Ns that need foam, and apparently never used example one's suspension/support system, so I would like to rebuild them as example two 409Ns.
I'll post some photos if anyone is interested.
Thanks -
Post by: Acca on June 19, 2010, 08:42:13 AM
is there anyone here who can explain me exactly HOW TO OPEN UP an MD 409 U3?
I don't want to spoil it, but I need to open it up as it is not working anymore.
Any help is appreciated!!!
PS. Is the service manual anywhere available on the web?
Post by: panman on June 19, 2010, 11:44:20 AM
Take off the plastic inlays to reveal the two screws shown in the pic and remove them. That enables you to take the thing apart.
Regards,
Esa
Post by: Acca on June 19, 2010, 01:19:18 PM
just one more question: how do I remove the plastic inlays? In other words, do I have to spoil them or there's a "safe" way to remove them?
Thanks!!!
Post by: panman on June 19, 2010, 05:53:14 PM
Regards,
Esa
Post by: Acca on June 20, 2010, 05:06:20 PM
many thanks for your help.
I just managed to open it up and I discovered that the red cable is disconnected from the capsule, so it's highly probable that the capsule is ok.
Do you think Sennheiser has a foam replacement kit still available?
Post by: panman on June 21, 2010, 10:26:45 AM
Esa
Post by: danbir on September 04, 2010, 08:48:19 AM
I have a sennheiser md 409 to, and the foam inside has erroded, and the capsule is kinda loose inside. The previous owner put cotton inside, and it seems that its not totally ideal solution.
In addition to get it refoamed, id also like to get the mic tested/capsule cleaned, to see if it working up to top specs.
Any suggestions what i should do?
Thanks danbir