Any comments on these Studio Projects mics?

[sweetbeats]

Opened up my Studio Projects C1, and one of the B3's...

Here's one of the B3 PCB's

Here's the other PCB

Here's a side view

Here's one side of the element

Here's the inside of the screen

Here's the C1 PCB

And a side shot of the same

The C1 element (looks vaguely familiar)

And the C1 screen

Comments?

 

[mshilarious]

Seems like good quality stuff to me; I would leave it alone.

 

[evm1024]

Beats......

No more PROJECTS till you power up the M___ mixer or get your 58 running.

 

[sweetbeats]

Okay...okay...uncle!

You guys...

That was like a team-tag...I respect you both...yer playing, like, good-cop bad-cop...

Msh focuses on the subject of the mics and Ethan drops the hammer.

Just for clarification, I was looking into it because I've seen some other "797 Audio" mic mods secondary to poor design that were simple and very beneficial, and I'd had issues using either of these mics on a recent project where they sounded harsh and brittle, but this (pulling them apart and polling for opinons) was kind of the final straw to putting the question to bed as to whether or not the issues were mic related or something else in the signal path. I think it may have been a cable issue or something else. Tracked again last week with an SM57 and SM94 array through the M-520 and the sound was very smooth even after ADC on playback monitoring the DAW. Granted I'm not using the C1 or B3, but the harshness/brittleness was present to some degree with any mic before this last session...its gone now, and to top it off I did some tracking of my 3 1/2 year-old son's latest creation last night, vocal and acoustic guitar. Signal path:

• B3 x2 in a simple X-Y array at relatively close proximity to source, polar patterns set to cardioid, no low cut or pad -->
• Tascam MX-80 (phantom power supplied by a Stewart Audio single channel supply into the MX-80 phantom rail) -->
• MX-80 SEND jacks to Tascam 424mkII LINE inputs 1 & 3 direct to tracks 1 & 3

Wow...tracked at 3 3/4ips with dbx on, and just monitoring off tape with Sennheiser HD280 cans I...could...not...believe...the presence and detail.

So, yeah. I'm going to leave them alone...your comments nailed the lid. Thanks.

Ethan, sorry to bust your balloon here...you're right. I do need to focus, but I'm hot on the M-520 mod warpath right now...just 4 channel's worth, but recapping is becoming a relatively easy task now, and caps are cheap...I need to pull cards to clean contacts, and if I'm gonna pull the cards I may as well recap and swap out some opamps...you may have read in another post but the M-520's behavior on that recent tracking session was nearly embarrassing...not the mixer's fault but when you have to dicker with source-select and assign switches every few minutes because you keep hearing excessive noise and/or losing signal completely, its time.

I want to try and have at least two of the 4 done (or hopefully all 4) by the next session which is on the 18th.

Then my attention is going to turn to the 48-OB, which is looking promising as far as actually having that ready to run amidst the current project...Then it may be time to do more M-520 channels, then the BR-20T, then the 58...the M-___ will certainly keeping popping in and out because its just too interesting...nearly ready to put the frame and motherboard assembly back together on that one...

 

[dgatwood]

Since nobody has mentioned it yet, C21 is a tantalum capacitor, probably used as the coupling cap for the capsule. Replacing that with any film cap should reduce the brittleness and significantly reduce the muddiness in the top end.

Of course, if I were modding it, I'd replace every tantalum cap in it, and possibly replace some of the ceramics as well.

Funny, though, I don't remember seeing any tantalum caps in my B3. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, though, or maybe I just didn't see it.

 

[sweetbeats]

dgatwood,

How long ago did you get your B3? I got both of mine about 3 years ago. Might have changed 'em.

And you are talking about a Studio Projects B3 and not a Behringer B3 right? I find that they seem to get confused in the marketplace.

I opened it up again...I see 4 caps that look like C21...if they look like C21 can I assume they are the ones of which you stated you'd probably replace all of them?

C21 is labeled "10"...the other three are labeled "471", "6.8", and "27". What...do those numbers mean???

If those are all the tantalum caps, which ones are the ceramics?

 

[dgatwood]

dgatwood,

How long ago did you get your B3? I got both of mine about 3 years ago. Might have changed 'em.

And you are talking about a Studio Projects B3 and not a Behringer B3 right? I find that they seem to get confused in the marketplace.

Yes, SP B3. I don't remember when I bought it. It was after they added the second switch, but.... Maybe two years ago....

If those are all the tantalum caps, which ones are the ceramics?

On the C1, there's a ceramic in the corner. It looks like a pinkish disc with a black stripe along the edge at the top to indicate that it is not polarized. The ones that look like that are ceramic. I didn't see any in the B3 pictures, but I wasn't looking that carefully. When I made that comment earlier, I didn't realize I was looking at photos of two different mics.

 

[sweetbeats]

So what do the numbers mean on the tantalum caps so I can get the right value film caps...?

 

[dgatwood]

So what do the numbers mean on the tantalum caps so I can get the right value film caps...?

http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/components/capac.htm

That tells all the different types of numbering systems. With tantalum caps, chances are you want the section called "Capacitor Number Code". Short answer is that if it is labeled with just a three-digit number, you take the third digit off and add that many zeroes to the first two digits.

A numeric code of 136, for example would be 13 * (10^6) pF, or 13,000,000 pF, or 13 uF.

 

[sweetbeats]

To quote myself:

C21 is labeled "10"...the other three are labeled "471", "6.8", and "27". What...do those numbers mean???

dgatwood, thanks for your response...I learned something of the numbering nomenclature from a different post, but the one that says 6.8 for instance...so I'm looking for a 6.8pF polyester film cap at Mouser and there isn't one...?

Is it not 6.8pF, but 6.8µF??

So would the following be true:

"6.8" = 6.8µF
"471" = um...470pF??
"10" = 10µF
"27" = 27µF

And what voltage?

 

[sweetbeats]

I was reviewing the page at that link above...

So maybe the numbers on those caps reference neither µF's or pF's, but rather nF's?

Then the values of those caps would be"

"6.8" = 6.8nF = 0.0068µF
"10" = 10nF = 0.01µF
"27" = 27nF = 0.27µF
"471" = 470nF = 0.47µF

Am I getting it???

 

[sweetbeats]

Anybody?

*bump*



Sorry...just wondering whether or not I am reading the values of tha tanatalums correctly in my last post. Thought I'd rattle this thread since another question on tantalums has come up in another thread.

I did refer to the link on reading cap values but it doesn't, to my reading, specifically address/confirm/disconfirm my question...

Thanks!

 

[dgatwood]

So I looked at the photos of mine and compared them with these. They are very similar, but the color on yours was a little off, so I misdiagnosed C21 very badly. C21 is actually a ceramic cap, and it isn't the coupling cap. The coupling cap is a film cap on the other side (C19).

According to:

http://www.solarbotics.net/library/pieces/parts_elect_pass_cap_code.html

if you have only two digits, it is measured in pF, not nF. Just pretend that the third digit is a zero.

It's really hard to find caps down in that range, but you can apparently get mica and polystyrene caps as low as 6.8 pF. This took some digging:

http://www.surplussales.com/capacitors/AxialMoldedMicas/AMM2-50.html

Since you have yours apart, could you put together a list of the number of each part needed? I only have a partial list.

Photo 1:
1. cap at the upper left: 6.8pF
2. cap hidden behind the switch next to the FET: 27pF
3. cap at right center: 10pF

Photo 2:
1. cap hidden between the switch and the red poly film cap behind it: ???

Is that last one the one you meant when you said 471, perhaps? So 470 pF?