New SP mics

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonnyc
  • Start date Start date
Ok boys, lets dial it down just a notch...so far this has been nice and civil. I have not posted here in a very long time, and I hope by keeping all of this level, we start something new...

I will defend Chessrock, he is correct, no one would have said anything if that statement was made by someone else. He talked about a mod by Scott, and I am sure did not know the good and bad points of it..so lets nip that in bud and move on with some of "my opinion"

The new mics are better, I like them better. I have been using them the last few weeks on some recording sessions, but they still have that similar character. I think they are less hyped, but then, I never thought the original was objectionably hyped, again, my opinion. I use them...sure I own the company, but I also have hanging in my room a C12, and Neumann mics...I am not saying they are as good, I am saying I do not find them overly hyped.

The new ones are for sure hotter and smoother, and way quiet. In fact at high levels, all I hear is the mic amp noise....nothing from the mics. So if one has old models, you will notice improved subtleties, but not night and day. We improved them internally, externally and the new shock mount is worth the admission. I will try and get a photo of what I mean by the new mount....

Happy to address any other questions, and as always, I express my own opinions and do not state them as fact...
 
If Harvey or Alan could please help me out here. I want a fairly good large diaphragm mic. I'm battleling on whether to buy the AKG Perception 200 or the Studio Projects B1. I have compared the specs and if I remember correctly, the akg can handle a little bit lower db's.
 
Can anyone steer me towards mp3 or wav samples of the C4 mic's on solo acoustic guitar? Preferably done with no processing... but whatever's available. Just curious.

Tim
 
What I hope is that someone will be able

to do head to head comparisons of the new & old C1s etc.

And Harvey, I've asked before, but what's with the JM47? I didn't see a review. In a nutshell, what's your take on it, what's it good for, bad for, etc.?

On a side note, Harvey, I thought of you this weekend. I was cleaning out my late father's yard barn (you would not believe some of the stuff in there) and I came across the vinyl cover to my old Acoustic 610 cab. Can't remember the model # now, I want to say 301, but I don't know why. It went with a 150 head. Man, some memories came flooding back.
 
notCardio said:
And Harvey, I've asked before, but what's with the JM47? I didn't see a review. In a nutshell, what's your take on it, what's it good for, bad for, etc.?
Click to expand...
It's a vocal mic and I find it fits in nicely between my darker. warm mics, like the MXLv67, the ADK Hamburg, etc. Just a warm flavor I think will be useful at times - for the right vocalist.

notCardio said:
On a side note, Harvey, I thought of you this weekend. I was cleaning out my late father's yard barn (you would not believe some of the stuff in there) and I came across the vinyl cover to my old Acoustic 610 cab. Can't remember the model # now, I want to say 301, but I don't know why. It went with a 150 head. Man, some memories came flooding back.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the 610 cabinet model number either, but it was always a favorite of mine (104 maybe). It almost didn't get built. I had a huge fight with Steve Marks, the President of Acoustic Control, over building this box. Steve was convinced they wouldn't all fit onto a 22-1/2" x 34-1/2" baffle board, and still have structural integrity. I actually had to go out into the shop, get a blank board and 6 speakers to show him how they would fit. He finally gave in, and it became a very popular model in the Acoustic line.
 
OH, it had structural integrity all right!

considering what I put it through, not to mention the guy before me, and the guy after me.

I actually used it for bass mostly.

That was one solid cab. Good work, sir.

And the JM must be significantly different, or you wouldn't be getting one. So what kind of vocalist do you envision it would be best for?
 
Thanks for the info Alan. Can't wait to see what the deal with the shockmount is, and did you say 189.99? Anyway I own several of your products and for the money they are spectacular, I'm especially in love with my little 3Q. Anyway, enough ass kissing, was just wanting to thank you for giving us the heads up on the new mics.
 
myhatbroke said:
harvey did you read my question?
Click to expand...
I've never heard the AKG, so I can't give you my opinion; I don't have an opinion.
 
myhatbroke said:
awww shucks :(
Click to expand...


I know this may be ridiculously hard for you to do but why don't you do some research on the mics yourself instead of relying on people to do the legwork for you. Oh and how do you expect Alan to give you an unbiased opinion on these two mics? It's like asking Henry Ford his thoughts on Ford vs. Chevy. Search function, use it.
 
I have done my research. And the differences are very slim.
 
Its a good thing that he SP mics are geting updated. Improvements are a good thing, particularly if they address an earlier version's shortcoming. I'm more interested in SP's new "E" line of mics (I think that's what it's called). New designs, a notch up the quality scale.
 
alanhyatt said:
we do not use his mod because his mod is not very good and flawed. There is no adjustment for the bias to the voltage for the rails on his mod, specifically his old mod that was going around these boards. We do not put much into that mod, but others seem to pass it around. Scott is not a mic designer and should know this mod has issues.
Click to expand...
I'm following this discussion with some interest, as I have built and used Scott's Shoeps circuit (though certainly not on a Studio Projects mic!). Since Scott isn't a member here, I posted a note to him about this topic. It turns out that he does have a good reason for the fixed voltage in his simple design:

Scott Dorsey said:
Feel free to print on my behalf that the reason that the board I used doesn't have any adjustment for voltage is because many of the stock Chinese capsules should not operate at higher than 35V and the consistency is better at low voltages. This is detailed in the original Recording article if anyone bothers to read it.

If Alan's microphones have more consistent capsules, he can operate them at higher voltages. But the run of the mill Feilo capsules should not be operated at the higher voltage because it exaggerates differences from poor production consistency.
Click to expand...
Again, my purpose in posting this is simply to provide some balance to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Gilliland said:
I'm following this discussion with some interest, as I have built and used Scott's Shoeps circuit (though certainly not on a Studio Projects mic!). Since Scott isn't a member here, I posted a note to him about this topic. It turns out that he does have a good reason for the fixed voltage in his simple design:


Again, my purpose in posting this is simply to provide some balance to the discussion.
Click to expand...


Thanks Jim.
I sent a pm your way.

Brent Casey
 
myhatbroke said:
I have done my research. And the differences are very slim.
Click to expand...

Then there's your answer.

And of course, anyone else's results are going to be different from yours. Your voice, your pre, your room, etc, etc, etc.

Not that it's not a valid question, it's just that there are a lot of other variables involved. If the differences you've found so far are slim, then chances are the differences you would experience are also slim.

The important thing is to just get something and get at it. And before you get pissed at me thinking I'm getting preachy, I'm sure I'm way worse about this than you are, trust me. So let's just both get off our asses and get to work. ;)
 
Brent Casey said:
Thanks Jim. I sent a pm your way.
Click to expand...
Brent's PM correctly pointed out to me that I had set up something of a non-sequitor in my earlier post, making it appear that Scott's reply was in direct response to something that Brent had posted. In fact, that is not the case at all, Scott's reply was directed to the overall discussion of his mic circuit within this thread. I've removed Brent's quote and replaced it with one of Alan's that seems to have a more direct relevance, but even that shouldn't be seen as having a direct one-to-one correspondence.
 
Gilliland said:
Brent's PM correctly pointed out to me that I had set up something of a non-sequitor in my earlier post, making it appear that Scott's reply was in direct response to something that Brent had posted. In fact, that is not the case at all, Scott's reply was directed to the overall discussion of his mic circuit within this thread. I've removed Brent's quote and replaced it with one of Alan's that seems to have a more direct relevance, but even that shouldn't be seen as having a direct one-to-one correspondence.
Click to expand...

In fact, I don't think the Alan's quote is relevant here either, as he is talking about biasing FET, not the capsule.

The most relevant here would be a Flatpicker's passage, quoted by Harvey. On the other hand, IIRC, Flatpicker mentioned here on the board about Scott making this point of operating those capsules at the lower voltages.
 
I think the most important point here is that Studio Projects decided to improve their mics without a huge increase in price. The increases in performance are notable, from everything I've read. That's commendable, whether you're a fan of their products or not.

Scott Dorsey's "mod" really shouldn't really enter into this discussion, because it's a side issue. As Scott, and others, have mentioned, his mod is not a "cure all" for every mic on the market.

Over the last few years, Studio Projects has sold a lot of mics (mics that many people find very useful), and their warranty service should be a model for a lot of other manufacturers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top