We've Got A New "King Of The Low End" LDC...

  • Thread starter Thread starter kidvybes
  • Start date Start date
mshilarious said:
This is why Marik's posts on components and topologies, for example on the other thread with respect to tube mic design (grid capacitance, Miller effect, and so on) is interesting, because anybody can try that out for themselves.
Click to expand...

...link please :)
 
mshilarious said:
Well let's be fair, AH took *plenty* of abuse a while back on GS . . . until he was proved right. I don't recall very many apologies there . . .
Click to expand...

Yeah, the funny thing, he actually was giving good reasons. Unfortunately, that is exactly what seems people hate the most--good reason! The better you give, the uglier duck you become. Is it my imagination, or true that people lost last bits of common sense?

Most of the time you feel like bouncing your head against brick wall...
Just a fight with wind mills... Frustrating.

Best, M
 
drBill said:
PHIL - I'm also interested in which one you prefer - and most especially why. :D
Click to expand...

Dang! Sorry drBill! I completely breezed past this.

Hard for me to tell without going through my studio monitors, but my PC monitors aren't half bad. I'll tell you my opinion from here, then after I haul the samples down to my studio.

I didn't really like #1. The shift into the bass region is a bit to much and its both a tad dull and a tad harsh at the same time. Pretty full in the mids, but also sounds like negative feedback.

#2 is probably my favorite. It has that nice mid-range presence and most of "that sound". Sits really well. Makes me think the gain is a bit off on #1, though. The top end isn't too spikey. Its nice and smooth and lively like an M7 would be. Very natural and works well with the singer.

#3 is very nice too. It has that really soft, non-sibilant top end. Full mids, but the presence peak is in a different spot. Sounds a lot like #2 but perhaps a different tube or a transformer. Something is not coming through like it should. Its a little "veiled". Its good though. I'd use it.
 
PhilGood said:
Dang! Sorry drBill! I completely breezed past this.
Click to expand...

No problem. Thanks for the thoughts.....see below


PhilGood said:
I didn't really like #1. The shift into the bass region is a bit to much and its both a tad dull and a tad harsh at the same time
Click to expand...
Neumann U67

PhilGood said:
#2 is probably my favorite. It has that nice mid-range presence and most of "that sound".
Click to expand...
Neumann U48

PhilGood said:
#3 is very nice too. It has that really soft, non-sibilant top end. Full mids, but the presence peak is in a different spot.
Click to expand...
Michael Joly 1050
 
Good on ya PhilGood for offering some impressions. And good ears for spotting the U 67's negative feedback!
 
Last edited:
...the eBay seller that I purchased the Nady 1050 from was kind enough to refund my original payment, and he has now relisted the mic on eBay once again...

...if anyone is interested in getting a clean 1050 cheap, the listing link is below...Michael has chosen not to mod these older versions of the 1050 due to the fact that the tube is directly soldered to the circuit board, but I have since been made aware that both Marik (Mark) and Jim at JJ Audio are offering mods and upgrades to this version of the 1050 and will replace the soldered tube with a socket (for easy swapping of tubes) as well as upgrade the circuit, capsule, transformer, etc. as per the owner's needs...here's the link to the Nady 1050:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130419267265
 
kidvybes said:
...the eBay seller that I purchased the Nady 1050 from was kind enough to refund my original payment, and he has now relisted the mic on eBay once again...

...if anyone is interested in getting a clean 1050 cheap, the listing link is below...Michael has chosen not to mod these older versions of the 1050 due to the fact that the tube is directly soldered to the circuit board, but I have since been made aware that both Marik (Mark) and Jim at JJ Audio are offering mods and upgrades to this version of the 1050 and will replace the soldered tube with a socket (for easy swapping of tubes) as well as upgrade the circuit, capsule, transformer, etc. as per the owner's needs...here's the link to the Nady 1050:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130419267265
Click to expand...

What do these go for new and what was your winning bid?






:cool:
 
moresound said:
Thanks KID and the upgrade price?
:cool:
Click to expand...

...MJ is charging $359 for his version (which is not applicable due to the soldered tube)...JJ Audio offered similar mods with more variables (capsule, tube, transformer, headbasket, re-capping) for a range of prices from a similar to slightly more expensive ballpark...Marik also offers simple options which start with tube-socket installation ($20) to capsule EQ'ing and circuit/transformer upgrades at reasonable prices...best to contact them directly for more specifics...suffice to say, you can spend what you want depending on all the upgrade options...all three modders are more than reputable...Marik practically wrote the book... ;)

...keep in mind that Advanced Audio in Canada offers a completed mod including the mic starting at $735...so I believe the options above are a more cost effective route...
http://www.aamicrophones.com/tube_mics/cm_47.htm
 
...we now return you to our regular scheduled programming:

"Just How Good Is The Newly Revised MXL 2003A?"
(hey!, I'm a moderator!...kinda)
 
kidvybes said:
...we now return you to our regular scheduled programming:

"Just How Good Is The Newly Revised MXL 2003A?"
(hey!, I'm a moderator!...kinda)
Click to expand...

How will I insure that when I order this that I get the new factory up graded model?






:cool:
 
PhilGood said:
What do you think ADK is doing in the custom shop? They're modding their 797 built microphones, which are pretty good to start with. They upgrade the capacitors and put in a high tolerance, QA'd capsule. Not much to it. Did you know the original Nady TCM1100 is the same mic as the ADK TC, just a slightly different shell? So, you can take a $200 mic, throw in a well made capsule, adjust a few caps and you've got the same thing as an ADK custom shop mic. No loop.
Click to expand...

This is true regarding most of the older ADK mics, such as the TL, TC, TT, SC-2, etc.

I do not believe the newer ADK products are off the shelf 797 designs, such as the Hamburg and Vienna Au variants, A6, S7, or CS variants. The new 3 Zigma CHI system (modular with 8 different capsules) isn't either.
 
It's a bit hard to believe the comment about the Auteur preamp being quieter than the AEA, especially when AEA provides an equivalent input noise spec and BLA does not. Also, there are many reports about the Auteur's noise, including from well-regarded engineers such as RCM . . .
 
gee, with your clout here you should ask both companies to provide samples to you so you can test them before passing judgment mr. moderator.

I do business the old fashioned way - I learn who to trust and take them at their word. I have good reason to believe the Auteur is quieter than the AEA preamp. I've used and actually listened to both - in addition to looking at the spec sheets. Have you?

And, as you should know, an "equivalent noise spec" is A-weighted and does not reveal what the noise level is in the critical 2-8kHz octave bands. A preamp may have a lower A-weighted noise spec but actually sounds noisier due to noise that peaks in the HF range we're most sensitive to.

But your preamp digression is not relevant to the OP's topic: "We've got a new king of the low end LDC" .
 
Last edited:
MichaelJoly said:
gee, why don't you ask both companies to provide samples to you so you can test them mr. moderator.

I do business the old fashioned way - I learn who to trust and take them at their word. I have good reaon to believe the Auteur is quieter than the AEA preamp. I've used both.

And, as you should know, an "equivalent noise spec" is A-weighted and does not reveal what the noise level is in the critical 2-8kHz oktave bands. A device may have a lower A-weighted noise spec but actually sounds noisier due to its noise spectrum which rises in the bands we are most sensitive to.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't work on trust, it works on repeatable observations. You could say it operates on distrust . . .

EIN does not have to be A-weighted, and it's not hard to measure (even so, A-weighting focuses on exactly the spectrum to which you refer. Perhaps you are not familiar with the weights by band; in fact the highest weight is assigned to 2.5kHz). So measure the Auteur, weighted or unweighted, and post your findings.

A claim to be quieter than AEA (-130dBu-A, probably ~ -126dBu unweighted) is a very bold claim, especially when the average GSer finds the Auteur to be too noisy for their SM7Bs.

Or were you unfamiliar with this thread:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/499490-does-sm7b-like-auteur.html

Multiple observations of high noise with the Auteur. I've never seen anything like that for the AEA; it has a sterling reputation.

So are you going to measure noise or not? Post the full spectrum noise analysis, it is not difficult, and you have a lab, so let's see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top