Does anyone have any use for the rsm-3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter junplugged
  • Start date Start date
junplugged

junplugged

Taking the slow road
if it really sucks, then you've saved me some doe for now...but i'll just end up spending some on something else, got the buy itch, one thing a month...or more...

but seriously, is it a totally useless pos? or what

:D
 
I've used it (Alctron HRM-10) on guitar amps and as an overhead in conjunction with the Alctron HRM-4. I like it for overheads - really mellow. Not terrible for vocals, but not my favorite. C'mon, you know you want one. ;)
 
Scrubs- do you know of a source/link that explains which alctron ribbons are in which mics? I have an RSM-4, and wouldn't want to accidentally double up on ribbons. I'm also just curious.

Even more helpful would be a quick blurb on the tone of each alctron ribbon model. I'd like having another chinese ribbon, but would ideally get one with characteristics that differ from the one I've got.
 
just found one...

quoted from a Michael Joly on GS:

"The Alctron-manufactured HRM-8B sold as the Apex 205 (et al) for $99 from a number of on-line retailers (not me) is a great deal. Works pretty well right out of the box and can be improved if you're experimental. This mic seems to have better HF response than its bigger and earlier brother.

Lately I've been putting Lundahl transformers in them in addition to the acoustical / mechanical mods I've written about. The Lundahl gets rid of the stock transformer-induced midrange peakiness, resolves harmonic chordal information better and improves HF transient response detail.

I did a full mod on one yesterday and compared it with my Coles 4038. The fully modifed 205 was every bit as good as the Coles and then some. The Coles has a very flat and extended HF response (unusual for a mic of its age), the modded 205 matched it nicely. Midrange was as smooth also. The deep bass on the modded 205 was better than the 4038 but that is to be expected when all the acoustic filtering is removed during mods.

This small body mic has other benefits - has less mechanical resonance than its big bodied brother and is easier to place.
__________________"
 
wow 99. how about shipping, they are supposed to be really fragile, right? so are they secured somehow?
 
Obi-Wan zenabI said:
Scrubs- do you know of a source/link that explains which alctron ribbons are in which mics? I have an RSM-4, and wouldn't want to accidentally double up on ribbons. I'm also just curious.

Even more helpful would be a quick blurb on the tone of each alctron ribbon model. I'd like having another chinese ribbon, but would ideally get one with characteristics that differ from the one I've got.
Click to expand...

I'll try to do a head-to-head this weekend and post something. The three cheap ribbons I have are the Nady RSM-2, Alctron HRM-10 (=Nady RSM-3), & Alctron HRM-15 (=Nady RSM-4). I would not be at all surprised if the guts of the HRM-10 and HRM-15 were nearly identical, with just different housings, but I'll check it out.
 
How would you characterize their differences, scrubs?
 
Obi-Wan zenabI said:
How would you characterize their differences, scrubs?
Click to expand...

Here are some very unscientific clips of the RSM2, HRM10 (RSM3) and HRM15 (RSM4). I recorded each mic on:

1) mono drum overhead ("front" side of the mic centered over the bass drum, pointing directly down between the rack toms, about 6 feet off the ground)

RSM2
HRM10
HRM15

2) acoustic guitar (mic sideways, with null at 14th fret, "front" side toward bridge, "back" side toward nut, about 8" away)

RSM2
HRM10
HRM15

3) vocals (each clip contains "front" side, followed by "back" side, mic about 8" away, using Stedman pop filter)

RSM2
HRM10
HRM15

All clips were recorded through the Rane MS1b preamp into a Delta 66 card. I attempted to match levels, but there are some differences between the performances. The "front" and "back" of the two Alctron mics are somewhat arbitrary, as they are not labeled from the factory. At some point in the past, I had decided which side I liked best for my own voice and marked it as the "front." I should also note that my HRM10 came with a ribbon that was too long and it was flapping around making a buzzing noise when I first got it. As a result, I pulled some of the slack out of the ribbon. That modification may be responsible for some of the results.

As for my general impression, I tend to like the RSM2 best for OH, followed by the HRM15 and then the HRM10. The HRM10 seems to have a greater high frequency rolloff and/or worse off axis response, as it did not capture the hihat or cymbals as well (again, this may be due to the "repair" I had to perform on this mic). For acoustic, it was a tossup between the HRM15 and the RSM2. I liked the smoothness of the RSM2, but the HRM15 had a little more detail. On my voice, I prefer the RSM2, as it seems to have more proximity effect.

Damn, seems that I need to get another RSM2 for a second OH. Wish they weren't so darn big and heavy, though.
 
Nice. I just listened thru some heavy duty hi fi speakers/monitors (Thiel CS 3.5) and could really hear the differences. The RSM 2 was muddier to my ears on all the examples, rather than the smoother response that you heard.

I thought that the hrm 10 had the least high end rolloff as it emphasized the pick attack the most out of all three on the AC cuts. It also had the most radical difference front/back. I think the back was not really useable in the vocals unless you wanted it on background-- a great way to get them to sit in the back of the mix w/o eq.

I didn't like the HRM 15 on the overheads or ac as much as the 10, but thought that it was the smoother one on the vocals. The 10 had what I would call a presence rise that didn't sound the greatest on my system... wait.. let me switch speakers...

OK I still have all the same opinions except now I totally agree about the RSM 2 on the overheads. I love how well it picked up the little taps on the ride at the end and also tamed and almost compressed the louder hits.

It got a lot more of the room sound, though... which is why I didn't like it at first. I think your drums are in too live a space for that mic, but that could just be all in my head. I guess that would make the RSM 2 a contender for a good room sound mic, too!

Awesome clips. Thanks.
 
Yeah, I hear what you're saying about the muddiness on the close-miked sources (vox & acoustic). I think it has the most proximity effect of the 3, and it has several layers of mesh inside to "protect" the ribbon. I took one layer out, which helped, but it does kind of muck with the sound.
 
Obi-Wan zenabI said:
The RSM 2 was muddier to my ears on all the examples, rather than the smoother response that you heard.
Click to expand...

A lot of that is because while the Chinese output transformers are pretty widely varied in quality, they range from bad to worse. :D A good Lundahl will open them right up. It's about a thirty minute mod unless you go nuts like I did and add a switch to reenable the factory transformer for grins.
 
scrubs said:
As for my general impression, I tend to like the RSM2 best for OH, followed by the HRM15 and then the HRM10. The HRM10 seems to have a greater high frequency rolloff and/or worse off axis response, as it did not capture the hihat or cymbals as well (again, this may be due to the "repair" I had to perform on this mic). For acoustic, it was a tossup between the HRM15 and the RSM2. I liked the smoothness of the RSM2, but the HRM15 had a little more detail. On my voice, I prefer the RSM2, as it seems to have more proximity effect.

Damn, seems that I need to get another RSM2 for a second OH. Wish they weren't so darn big and heavy, though.
Click to expand...

The size is probably one of the reasons they work well for overheads. The wider mesh presents a larger surface area for sound to permeate, which I would expect to affect the sound less than a smaller headbasket would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top