Peter Weihe wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 11:34 |
Great posts Keith, thanks for your time and energy. Peter |
Bubba Kron wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 13:40 |
What are some of your favorite tranny-less mics?? |
wwittman wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 22:26 | ||
Here is my list: |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 20:45 |
So, in selecting a microphone for recording or a live application, I believe their specs could mean very little. |
YZ wrote on Thu, 30 December 2010 19:34 | ||
So, Mr. Vinatea, you do believe that a "home stereo" microphone can be used to produce a stellar recording, don't you? |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 11:07 |
A better question would be, why did Bambi's mom have to die? Edward |
Quote: |
Already asked by the OP, and none of your posts addressed any of his questions. |
Quote: |
However, please enlighten us about a few points raised recently by you in this and another thread: - do specs matter when choosing a piece of equipment during a recording session, or should the engineer rely on his knowledge and experimentation to decide which one to use in order to achieve the sound that the client is after and/or that will better serve the sonic goals at hand? |
Quote: |
- your response to the above applies only to microphones or does it apply to signal processing gear too? - if it applies only to microphones, why is it so? |
Quote: |
There are other points, but the 3 above shall suffice for now. |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 12:10 |
As soon as I answer your 3 points, you'll want to raise more points. Don't waste your time making questions that you already know the answers to based on your empirical experience. |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Wed, 29 December 2010 18:04 |
people who are truly polite and smart usually ask about it before passing a judgment on me or jumping into conclusions. |
YZ wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 09:34 | ||||
May I reply to that with another quote from you:
|
Jay Kadis wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 14:04 |
I have used the TLM-193 quite a bit. It's a neutral sounding mic that comes into play when I want the natural sound to come through with detail but without exaggeration. |
Fig wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 13:41 |
I don't consciously choose a transformer or transformerless mic - I pick the one that flatters the source |
dbock wrote on Wed, 05 January 2011 19:22 |
holding costs irrelevant, I'm going to violate current religious doctrine and state that there actually ARE applications, at least in music, where a transformerless microphone yields superior results to transformer coupled mics. |
Wireline wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 10:24 |
I've never done this, but what would stop someone from putting a 600:600 transformer on the audio legs of the output, leaving the phantom power line untouched? I've seen plenty of examples in which people wired in some sort of 1:1 transformers into their mixbuss for ITB projects with what they describe as noticeable success... Jes asking |
Quote: |
I also agree with you that sometime, a X-formerless mic is preferable. But I want to ask : what are those applications to you? |
dbock wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 23:13 | ||
I have not yet experimented with many instruments and applications for the xfmrless. |
dbock wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 01:13 |
So Far, Large D, inside a piano for fast passages of classical music. |
Fletcher wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 21:27 |
Why not? I've done several classical piano gigs with LDC mics inside the piano. There are no rules other than "please the client". |
wwittman wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 23:32 |
yes and the right tool for music is a mic with a transformer |
Fiasco wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 13:10 | ||
Any thoughts on this? |
Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 03 February 2011 18:27 |
I recently reworked a couple of transformerless mics with good results. I rebuilt a quad set of Milab VIP-50 mics for the San Francisco Symphony last year for Jack Vad. In those I used a new super low noise jfet and bipolar transistors in the head amp and used the new BB OPA1642 dual fet input opamps with great results. The entire resistor matrix was redesigned and I used dale CMF50 precision metal film non ferris resistors. Output loading was reduced and output more than doubled as output impedance was also lowered for greater drive capability. The BB opamps are also rail to rail so this mic will swing 30 volts before clipping. The self noise was reduced about 8 db, quite an improvement as slew rate and THD also improved. They sound wonderful for classical recording as they have no self body resonance and have excellent off axis response. Another was a pair of CAD E-350 mics. That one is all opamp designed so I replaced the older noisy BurrBrown OPA2107 difet opamp and the MC33178 dual output opamp with a pair of BB OPA1642's. That reduced current consumption, increased slew rate, lowered THD and noise. Input bias current is much lower with the OPA1642. Since the input impedance is 2 gig ohms, that helps. Along with some quality caps that mic sounds wonderful, very real in a room. These transformerless mics have a non-euphonic reality sound about them. Everything sounds natural and correctly placed in harmonic balance, at least if you compare to the natural pre-recorded sound. I fully understand why some mostly pop oriented recordists don't like them. They reveal good AND bad. Since pop music is all about illusion, euphonic, colored mics are prefered. In the realm of classical, folk, roots and world music, those euphonic qualities can get in the way. Sometimes the illusion you want to present is an illusion of being there live. |
Quote: |
Well, David, I choose to use tansformers in my solid state phantom powered circuits. They are not as high ratio as some of the early deigns though. |