Nady ribbon
- Thread starter jaybriggs84
- Start date
MichaelJoly
Banned
RSM-5 - 6 micron ribbon, not 2 micron
Got my RSM-5 today and dug in.
The mic I recieved had a 6 micron ribbon, not the 2 micron ribbon as spec'd. Not only was it thicker than spec, it was sagging out of the magnetic gap.
Full report with pics on my site.
Got my RSM-5 today and dug in.
The mic I recieved had a 6 micron ribbon, not the 2 micron ribbon as spec'd. Not only was it thicker than spec, it was sagging out of the magnetic gap.
Full report with pics on my site.
Obi-Wan zenabI
New member
That sucks. MF owes you some gear to make nice. Nady prolly owes MF... and alctron prolly owes Nady.... and so on
PhiloBeddoe
New member
Just want to recommend this report as great reading. The offset ribbon bit is truly fascinating.
mshilarious
Banned
I haven't read the Royer patent, but there has to be more to it than simply offsetting the ribbon in the gap. The Shure 315 and 330 I have/had from the '50s did not have the ribbon assembly symmetrical in the gap. In fact, the pole pieces are tapered to the ribbon. Thus it's possible that Nady is protected by prior art unless there is a special characteristic to the Royer architecture, and Nady copied that.
kojdogg
bollocks redux!
MichaelJoly
Banned
yep. And they all owe Wes Dooley / AEA who has already tipped his hat to Anderson and Olson at RCA for the 44.
MichaelJoly
Banned
Well the Royer patent is here. The basic claim is an offset ribbon in a magnetic gap composed of parallel magnets. I believe the combination of those two design elements constituted a patentable innovation.
MadAudio
Damned if I do
+1 on that.
I may have to move the Nady mod (assuming I even get it - still no word on shipment
) ahead of the MK-012 I had already planned! 
mshilarious
Banned
The combination, perhaps. Clearly the use of non-tapered pole pieces is a function of more powerful magnets available today compared to the '50s. Thus it arguably would be considered obvious to use non-tapered pole pieces IF the early ribbon literature discussed and rejected the use of non-tapered pole pieces due to the lack of suitable magnets. Once suitable magnets became available, then the argument could be that use of non-tapered pole pieces was obvious based on prior art.
The offsetting of the ribbon in the gap is the non-obvious component, and that is fairly clear in the Royer patent. It remains to be seen whether they choose to litigate the matter. Patent litigation is notorious for being interminable.
It occurs to me that the effect would only be desirable on an asymmetrical source, where the initial compression is greater than the following rarefication, such as (one side) of a drum. For a source like a guitar amplifier, an offset design could be prone to asymmetrical distortion.
I particularly enjoyed the section of the patent that claimed that ribbon microphones were desirable in a digital recording environment. Of course, that has nothing to do with the patent, and thus is superfluous. But somehow they couldn't resist putting it in there. And given the patent claims the frequency response of the microphone at a maximum of 15kHz, presumably the goal is to nullify the 44.1kHz vs. 96kHz argument with a microphone that acts as a low-pass filter
MichaelJoly
Banned
Great insights.
Yeah, I got a kick out of that section about the desirability of ribbon mics for digital recording. Like all patents, this one had to impress the patent office reviewers enough for them to give serious consideration to the claims. So perhaps that is the function of the "ribbon mic desirability for digital" section.
Re: Offset - While Royer's particular implimentation of an offset ribbon in conjunction with parallel magnets was novel enough to be given patent protection, I have my doubts about the efficacy of the design to provide much practical SPL handling benefit in real world situations. I mean, the ribbon is offset substantially toward the front, a sound source producing high enough SPL to push the ribbon back into the gap close to the center line is not something I would want to expose my ears to. So perhaps while deemed patentable, the design may have more value as a marketing differentiator
Yeah, I got a kick out of that section about the desirability of ribbon mics for digital recording. Like all patents, this one had to impress the patent office reviewers enough for them to give serious consideration to the claims. So perhaps that is the function of the "ribbon mic desirability for digital" section.
Re: Offset - While Royer's particular implimentation of an offset ribbon in conjunction with parallel magnets was novel enough to be given patent protection, I have my doubts about the efficacy of the design to provide much practical SPL handling benefit in real world situations. I mean, the ribbon is offset substantially toward the front, a sound source producing high enough SPL to push the ribbon back into the gap close to the center line is not something I would want to expose my ears to. So perhaps while deemed patentable, the design may have more value as a marketing differentiator
mshilarious
Banned
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV
Actually I used to work in administration at a DC law firm with a pretty good IP practice. From what I could gather, the US patent system is pretty much broken. The patent office has been besieged by an overwhelming number of patent claims, retirement among experienced examiners and difficulty replacing them. It doesn't help that the US allows software and business method patents, which I think are ridiculous.So a lot of dubious patents slip through, even though it takes years. The Royer patent isn't too bad, but there are some funny examples out there. There is one small microphone manufacturer with a patent obtained in the 1980s for a method of binaural recording that involves attaching microphones to glasses or a hat. Unfortunately there is also a Sennheiser brochure from the 1970s detailing the technique
There is also Jack Orman's great "patents on parade":
http://www.muzique.com/lab/patent2.htm
http://www.muzique.com/lab/patent3.htm
And my personal favorite, taking shot at the Reamp's patent on the transformer:
http://www.muzique.com/lab/patent1.htm
This is why I will never file a patent, I don't want people making fun of me
MichaelJoly
Banned
RSM2, RSM3, RSM4, RSM5, Apex 205 & Coles 4038
Today I had a chance to do a quick voice test on a number of different ribbon mics. On hand were the Nady RSM2, RSM3, RSM4, RSM5, Apex 205 and Coles 4038.
With the exception of the 4038 which remained stock, all mics were modified with a Lundahl transformer, 1.8 micron ribbon, acoustical damping and a single layer grille. In the case of the RSM3, achieving a single layer grille required cutting away the horizontal bands and installing a new stainless steel grille.
The quick take away - each of these modified ribbon mics is in the same quality league as the 4038, a mic known for its smooth and extended frequency response.
Here's some similarities and differences between them.
RSM3 (oblong "lollipop") and RSM5 ( Royer-look) - both of these mics use a nearly identical motor with a 35mm x 5mm ribbon offset toward the back of the magnet structure as the mic is faced from the front. This asymmetrical placement of the ribbon creates non-matched lobes and a brighter frequency response on the front side (recessed ribbon side). Note that the ribbon asymmetry is the opposite of that used in a Royer mic (probably done to avoid an obvious patent infringement). Once modified with greater open-area grilles the RSM3 and RSM5 are essentially identical. While not optimum for M-S or Blumlein work, the offset ribbon design does offer a chance to experiment with two slightly different high frequency response curves. As a side note, the stock RSM3 grille bands create such complex high frequency interference patterns it is hard to describe their effect - definitely a HF coloration that tends to render "S" and "F" sounds a bit smeary.
RSM4 (round "lollipop") - While this mic also uses a 35mm x 5mm ribbon, it is placed nearly symmetrically in the gap. Yeah, I know - the RSM4 is spec'd as 45mm, but the magnet lengths are 35mm and this measurement is how the RSM3 and RSM5 are specified as 35mm ribbon lengths. The overall sound of the RSM4 is quite similar to the slightly darker "ribbon forward" (back) side of the RSM3 and RSM5. The near-symmetrical placement of the ribbon in this mic makes it a better choice for M-S or Blumlein recording.
RSM2 (large yoked body) and Apex 205 (small blue body) - These 50mm x 5mm ribbon mics tends to have a bit lower resonant tuning than the mics listed above. In addition, the vertical off-axis response falls off quicker in these longer ribbon mics when compared to the 35mm ribbon length mics. Both mics feature symmetrical placement of the ribbon in the gap making them the best performers for M-S or Blumlein recording. Of these two, the Apex 205 has clearly lower headbasket-induced mechanical resonance.
Some thoughts on a comparison with the Coles 4038.
The 4038 is about 3.5 dB more sensitive than the mics above and has outstanding AC hum field rejection. The RSM2, RSM4 and Apex 205 have wiring that can be physically tweaked to improve hum cancellation but still don't equal the 4038 in this regard.
All of the modified Chinese ribbon mics have a very smooth midrange and very adequate top end. In no case was the energy of high frequency "S" and "F" sounds attenuated relative to the Coles. In fact, I would argue that all of the modified Chinese ribbon mics had more accurate HF transient response and a "tighter" presentation of "S" and "F" sounds than the Coles. I believe this may be due to the difference between the minimalist approach I take regarding ribbon damping and motor housing when compared to the Coles which includes ribbon damping screens, low frequency baffles, perforated high frequency reflectors and a perforated metal case. All of these design features of the 4038 were arrived at to solve certain problems, but they do impart subtle, audible artifacts.
These Chinese ribbon mics have striking visual differences. But once the acoustical artifacts of the different grilles and bodies are minimized, state-of-the-art transformers are swapped in and lower mass ribbons (the Coles is a 0.6 micron, 1" ribbon) are installed and tuned similarly, all of these mics sound quite similar - and very good indeed, like real recording instruments in the class of the 4038.
Today I had a chance to do a quick voice test on a number of different ribbon mics. On hand were the Nady RSM2, RSM3, RSM4, RSM5, Apex 205 and Coles 4038.
With the exception of the 4038 which remained stock, all mics were modified with a Lundahl transformer, 1.8 micron ribbon, acoustical damping and a single layer grille. In the case of the RSM3, achieving a single layer grille required cutting away the horizontal bands and installing a new stainless steel grille.
The quick take away - each of these modified ribbon mics is in the same quality league as the 4038, a mic known for its smooth and extended frequency response.
Here's some similarities and differences between them.
RSM3 (oblong "lollipop") and RSM5 ( Royer-look) - both of these mics use a nearly identical motor with a 35mm x 5mm ribbon offset toward the back of the magnet structure as the mic is faced from the front. This asymmetrical placement of the ribbon creates non-matched lobes and a brighter frequency response on the front side (recessed ribbon side). Note that the ribbon asymmetry is the opposite of that used in a Royer mic (probably done to avoid an obvious patent infringement). Once modified with greater open-area grilles the RSM3 and RSM5 are essentially identical. While not optimum for M-S or Blumlein work, the offset ribbon design does offer a chance to experiment with two slightly different high frequency response curves. As a side note, the stock RSM3 grille bands create such complex high frequency interference patterns it is hard to describe their effect - definitely a HF coloration that tends to render "S" and "F" sounds a bit smeary.
RSM4 (round "lollipop") - While this mic also uses a 35mm x 5mm ribbon, it is placed nearly symmetrically in the gap. Yeah, I know - the RSM4 is spec'd as 45mm, but the magnet lengths are 35mm and this measurement is how the RSM3 and RSM5 are specified as 35mm ribbon lengths. The overall sound of the RSM4 is quite similar to the slightly darker "ribbon forward" (back) side of the RSM3 and RSM5. The near-symmetrical placement of the ribbon in this mic makes it a better choice for M-S or Blumlein recording.
RSM2 (large yoked body) and Apex 205 (small blue body) - These 50mm x 5mm ribbon mics tends to have a bit lower resonant tuning than the mics listed above. In addition, the vertical off-axis response falls off quicker in these longer ribbon mics when compared to the 35mm ribbon length mics. Both mics feature symmetrical placement of the ribbon in the gap making them the best performers for M-S or Blumlein recording. Of these two, the Apex 205 has clearly lower headbasket-induced mechanical resonance.
Some thoughts on a comparison with the Coles 4038.
The 4038 is about 3.5 dB more sensitive than the mics above and has outstanding AC hum field rejection. The RSM2, RSM4 and Apex 205 have wiring that can be physically tweaked to improve hum cancellation but still don't equal the 4038 in this regard.
All of the modified Chinese ribbon mics have a very smooth midrange and very adequate top end. In no case was the energy of high frequency "S" and "F" sounds attenuated relative to the Coles. In fact, I would argue that all of the modified Chinese ribbon mics had more accurate HF transient response and a "tighter" presentation of "S" and "F" sounds than the Coles. I believe this may be due to the difference between the minimalist approach I take regarding ribbon damping and motor housing when compared to the Coles which includes ribbon damping screens, low frequency baffles, perforated high frequency reflectors and a perforated metal case. All of these design features of the 4038 were arrived at to solve certain problems, but they do impart subtle, audible artifacts.
These Chinese ribbon mics have striking visual differences. But once the acoustical artifacts of the different grilles and bodies are minimized, state-of-the-art transformers are swapped in and lower mass ribbons (the Coles is a 0.6 micron, 1" ribbon) are installed and tuned similarly, all of these mics sound quite similar - and very good indeed, like real recording instruments in the class of the 4038.
Last edited:
surfmaster
New member
the price at MF is now $79. I had to pick one up.