Apex 460 capacitor change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EdgeGuy
  • Start date Start date
LDT2 said:
Yeh, but it makes an audible difference. I went up to 3w and the mic got brighter. And I'm not talking something only dogs can hear.

Lucio
Sorry, that is complete bullshit. Increasing resistor wattage makes no audible difference (thermal noise considerations aside.) Of course, if the design wattage is too low, then the burning of the resistor and the open circuit that results may be audible. :D
 
crazydoc said:
Sorry, that is complete bullshit. Increasing resistor wattage makes no audible difference (thermal noise considerations aside.) Of course, if the design wattage is too low, then the burning of the resistor and the open circuit that results may be audible. :D

The impedance at this point is so incredibly high that I'd at least be open minded about the insulation of the resistor changing capacitance and thus becoming audible. Still, it would be nice to see a measurement.
 
I'm not making this up, I know what I hear. I've spent the whole day changing resistors and I even went back to the original resistors and back to the new ones for an A/B/A/B comparison.

Maybe it's that the Dale resistors sound better than the stock ones, but I'm leaving the changes in. They even clean up the sound a bit. Maybe it changes the gain slightly, I don't know. But it does make a difference.

I'm not an electrical whiz, just a musician with some soldering ability and a good ear and that's it. I thought maybe someone would want to try some other mods, I mean, these resistors cost less than .50 cents.

Didn't mean to start a controversy, just adding MY experience. Sorry for that.


By the way, if there's still too much brightness in the mics, the Black Gates and Polypropylene caps will add brightness to the mics also.
You can remove C7 to soften the highs while leaving in C6, too.

Lucio
 
Last edited:
You may well hear a difference - I'm just saying it's not due to resistor wattage. I also doubt that the miniscule difference in spurious capacitance would make any difference in that part of the circuit.

My guess would be that you are using 5% or 10% tolerance resistors, and that the possible variance in resistance of R2 from 90K to 110K is changing the frequency characteristics and gain of the RC network it is part of, and that is what you are hearing.
 
The replacement resistors are 1%. I don't know what the originals were, so that makes sense. I'm sure you're correct in your assessment.

Sorry, not trying to argue, I'm a bit ignorant about this stuff, I only know that the change made the mic "sound" better.

Thanks for clearing the details up so no one's mislead.

Lucio
 
Hey guys,

I've been posting over at the Studio Forums thread too. Right now I have a problem that baffles me concerning my 1050.
I'll spare the long story of removing/then putting back in the cathode follower and other mods.

The main thing is before I removed the follower it worked and now that I've re-installed it it doesn't. No sound at all. I've retraced all my steps after re-installing the cathode follower and the mic should theoretically be working. But I'm getting nothing. I've spent hours here and I can't figure it out. it was working w/ the follower removed.

So now, I'm trying to take voltage measurements at different points on the circuit to try and trace down what has gone wrong.

Do you guys have a few reccomendations as to where to measure and what might have gone wrong? And most importantly what I should be looking for?

Tell me if this sounds like a problem:
I was measuring the voltage coming out of the power supply. Pin 1 of the power supply is putting out 110V when not connected to the mic (this seems correct considering the zeners I have in there, 56V which I'll likely be changing to something else but regardless). When I connect the mic, the voltage drops down to 6V at pin 1.
I have the cable to the mic opened up and I'm measuring on pin 1 of the cable just like I was without the mic connected and all the sudden it's at 6V when the mic is connected to the p.s.

As I understand this is the plate voltage and needs to be a lot higher than that by the time it reaches the tube. Right?

Does anybody know what part of the signal path might be effecting this, or some other recommendations as to where I should take some measurements?
 
Low Voltage at pin 1

Ill check my voltages at the plate etc but at first blush I would replace your tube and see if that fixes the problem. Also check your 7 pin cable...are you getting the heater voltage when plugged in??? Bake sure the 7 pin cable connections inside the mike are correct and not getting crossed went the connections are made.

Phil
Santa Fe

I found a fine cap for C8 its called a Clarity Cap...
its 1 mike @ 250 volts and it fits!
They are sold by Madisound.com
 
Sounds like a short to ground. Did you cut all the traces thoroughly at the right spots?
 
I measure 133.9 from

133.9 volts on pin 6 on the plate of the tube to the ground.
I don't like the zeners right there in the PS... Its a direct from zener to plate...
They are kinda like a current source for that second plate (pin 6) and That is very bad.
I have modded two of these guys now and stil have a bunch unmodded (3)...
My first PS is really good and gives up nothin but its a full build. The second rebuild of the stock seems a bit more reasonable...And so it easy to do.
Currently it it uses 3 Black Gates for the heater supply (2200ufd @16v) and for the HV supply one B.G.(22ufd@350v) in the last position (C6). Plus a Solen PP of 3.3 @400v as the last cap. A 2,2 would be better but thats what I had in the junk box. The Solen in that position really helps the PS sound way better.
I replaced C7 with a paper in oil 1 ufd @ 200v.
Also twist the AC secondaries comming out of the power trannie...reduces stray hum

Phil
Santa Fe
 
Thanks guys.

I did swap out the tube. That was one of the first things I tried. Also the heater voltages are fine.

Actually it seems like everything is a heater voltage.

Here is what I'm getting at the tube sockets (w/ tube pulled)

1. 6.6V
2. nothing
3. nothing
4. 6.7
5. 6.7
6. 6.7
7. 6.6
8. nothing
9. nothing

This is by putting the black DMM lead on any point on the main ground, red lead in whichever tube socket is in question. Correct?

Does this possibly suggest that pins 1/6 are shorted to the heater voltage somewhere? Doesn't seem like 7 should be getting the heater voltage either.
 
Finally! I figured it out. I had a solder bridge (underneathe the tube socket somehow!) between pin 5 and 6 on the tube.

Jeez. I spent hours trying to get that one. okay . . . carry on.
 
Power Supply Upgrade

C6 replace with 22ufd @ 350v Black Gate
C7 replace with 1 ufd @200v Western Electric paper in oil
C8, C9, C10 replace with 2200ufd@16v Black Gates
R15 replace with Mills 20 ohm at 5 watts
After C6 install Solen 3.3 ufd @ 400v

Insulate all PC chassis mounting screws. One ground connection only.
Tightly twist both secondaries.

Let it run in for at least 48 hours. (with load)

Black Gates take a week of working to come up to snuff.
Dont try to judge the sound until its broken in.

Phil
Santa Fe
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0001[1].webp
    DSC_0001[1].webp
    11.7 KB · Views: 574
Nice, Phil!

Did you put anything after the zeners on that one? What do you think the optimum voltage is for the zeners to be putting out?
 
After the zeners

The Solen 3.3 mike is after the zeners...
Phil
Santa Fe
 
Zeners and the noise they make...

I have tried doing a few things to kill the zener noise.
Bypass each zener with a 10 ufd tantalum. Tantalums are really good at this. They have no place is audio circuts other than this.

Phil
Santa Fe
 
transformers concerning cathode follower removal

Hey guys i thought I'd ask about a couple of the transformers that you're using for the 1050/460 etc mics.

I have a 1050 w/ a Peluso BV8-P transformer in there. I've removed then re-installed the cathode follower, and I'm undecided as to which I like best.

It seems the other two transformers that people commonly use are the Cinemag 2480 (10.5:1) and 2461 (6.5:1)

I'm not sure what the impedance ratio of the Peluso BV8-P is.

Anyway, concerning the cathode follower removal, which transformer do you believe would be the best? (Or I suppose the most logical)

Which would be the best with the cathode follower still in place?

Does anybody know the impedance ratio of the BV8-P?
 
The Peluso BV8 would be comparable to the Cinemag 2461. Both of them are supposed to be emulating the transformer that was in the U47.
 
So which make more sense concerning the "to follow or not to follow" cathode decision concerning these mics?
 
O.K. I've been trying alot of different parts out on both mics and have come to some conclusions. Here are some schematics that I've made up that show the mods that I've done to each mic. I have 2 for the 1050, one with the cathode follower and one without (which is how I have it at this time). The schematics also show voltages at different points for reference. The voltages change quite a bit depending on which resistors you use at different points. I'll update them as I finalize my mics, but I'm pretty much done at this point and plan to use them like this for awhile and see how they work.

Apex460_CEK-12_schematic_1237x882.jpg

This is as close to the C24 schematic as I could get, but with R6 and R10 with the C12 values and I left C1 and C2 in as they just filter AC from the circuit and are present in the C12VR. Removing R1 and changing R3&R4 to 499k's opened up the highs. Removing R5 made it a bit thin but removing C3 filled things back out. Think of C3 as a bypass to add highs back. So is C7, which I also removed because it's not present in the AKG's. Dropping R7 to 2.49k adds bottom extension and C6 controls how much you want to actually hear. The stock 100uf adds alot of bottom and also gain. The 2.49k adds the gain and fills out the mic without too much bottom, like the originals. C5 also acts like a bypass and by dropping to .oo47uf it opened up the "air" and clarity nicely. I'm really liking this mic as the open, clear yet full mic in my collection. I have the original zeners in the PSU, two 1N4761(75v).


Nady1050_CEK-47_schematic_1237x882.jpg

I ultimately wound up removing the cathode follower because I have other mics that sounded about the same so I decided to try it without the CF and now it has a different character than my other mics. I must say that I'm not sure if this will be it's final configuration until I try it with some other voices to see if it fills a void in my collection. I actually tried a 3M and 2M at R3 and R4 respectively, which is the size used in the U47, but it dropped the voltage to around 45v at the capsule (before R10), so I stuck with the 499k's. I added R5 back as it thickened up the mic where before it was too close in sound to the Apex for me. I'm thinking about trying a 23ohm resistor at R7, which is what the U47 uses, just to see. The PSU originally had one 1N4764(100v) and one 1N4762(82v) zener, which was too high so I kept the 1N4764 and changed the other to a 1N4758(56v).

Nady1050_CEK-47wCF_schematic_1237x882.jpg

This actually sounded very good but, as I said above, I have other mics that sounded pretty much the same. I would probably put R5 back in if you're looking for a more U47ish response. You can also add a 1000pf cap where R2 connects to tube pin 1 and this softens the highs more if you want something even darker. Zeners are the same as the other 1050 schematic.

Overall observations are that;

R1&R2-control voltage to tube pin 1 and 3.
R3&R4-control voltage to the capsule.
R5,R10&R6-effect the sound of the capsule-smaller=darker, larger=add highs.
C4-effects the sound of the capsule also-larger=favor lows, smaller=add highs.
R7-effects the low freq extension-smaller=more bottom.
C6-effects low end depending on size-larger=more bottom. Also adds gain.
C7&C3-bypass to add highs.
C5-effects high end depending on size-larger=more bottom.
C8-effects low freq extension-Larger values=more bottom.
R8-smaller value adds bottom but loses gain.
R9-only part I haven't changed.

Hope this proves useful.

Lucio
 
Last edited:
Some of these changes may increase transparency at the cost of performance specifications. For example, you've removed noise filtration at two points, and RF filtration at the output. In more difficult RF environments, this could be problematic, especially with the removal of one level of screening. I would also be interested to know if there is a change in self-noise.
 
Back
Top