Cascade Fat Head ribbon..Anyone A/B'ed the stock vs. Lundahl

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

bluezplaya

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
676
Location
Alabama Gulf Coast
That's right, I purchased the Fat Head with stock transformer for $159 and have had it for a couple of months. I've tried it on a few things in my studio but haven't listened critically or extensively. It has a dark, dull sound of some ribbons. I've tried it on guitar cab, my vocal, a female vocal, and a drum room mic. Anyway, just wanted to know if anyone has used these with the Lundahl tranny and can tell a significant difference. If so, can you describe the difference?

Thanks,
Adam
 
Soon. I have the Lundahl version, and hope to get it together with the stock version soon.

I believe Matta did his own Lundahl versus stock sample recording with a Shiny Box ribbon. Should be able to find that here.

I did put up a pre-war RCA 44B and did some comparisons agains the Lundahl Fathead, and they were similar at first impression. The Fathead had more extended highs and lows. The output levels were identical. I'd not considered the 44B lacking in any way, having used it as a main pickup mic for many duo bluegrass recordings.

If it sounds dull, back it off and see if you've got too much bass boost. Even with a thin sounding singer I find too much bass if any closer than 1.5 feet.
 
Thanks for the reply. I just spoke with Michael, the owner of Cascade, on the phone. He said that the Lundahl mic gave more extended lows and highs, but very subtly. And when I asked if using th estock mic and boosting a little EQ would it come closer to the sound of the Lundahl, he said "pretty much". That being said, I will save $64 from K and K and not buy the Lundahl and just turn a few knobs, or change mic placement!

I will say, if you check out the cascade website there is a YouTube video on there with a jazz quartet playing at a college radio station using all Cascade mics. It sounds great and I am really liking the sound of the Elroy on the singer's voice. I had interest in the Elroy mic (tube condenser) when I first checked out his line of stuff and for $299, I might get one soon.
 
The Lundahl is a much better transformer than a stock one and has less hyped bottom and smoother, more clean and neutral top, and different sound flavor. Usually, there is a definite improvement when used with long/wide ribbons.

I had one Fathead for mods and it happened to have a 6um ribbon vs. 2.5um advertised. The CEO M. Chiriac was assuring me that it was from the first batch of mics, which later was replaced with advertised. He even posted a pic of a micrometer showing exactly 2.5um thickness. On the other hand, this is not a proper way of measuring ribbon thickness, and can be manipulated even without knowing it.
Also, assuming that the first batch was 6um and it is true that it was later changed for 2.5um, I never saw anything like recall, to make things right.

Anyway, I never had a chance to work more on those (esp. with later S/N)and check what's up with all that 6um vs. 2.5um issue.

Re-ribboned with 1.5um foil it had a quite healthy (for ribbon) output. I also re-machined a motor to get more HF extension and less proximity.

Best, M
 
Anyone know if the Fathead is the same as a Nady RSM4? Also will the Lundahl fit in the RSM4? (Seems like I knew this at one time but now I can't remember.)
 
Check out fum's samples of ShinyBox ribbons with stock, Lundahl and Cinemag transformers.

Not a Fathead, but it might provide some frame of reference.

http://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=9226
 
[quote author="Marik"] On the other hand, this is not a proper way of measuring ribbon thickness, and can be manipulated even without knowing it. [/quote]

I was thinking the same thing. Part of my job involves dealing with very thin metal films (0.3-2 microns). A very good micrometer has a tolerance of +/- 1 micron, but most micrometers under $200 will be +/- 2.5 microns. In practice, those error ranges are too conservative to begin with (ideal conditions).

Weighing the ribbon with a known area on a good 4 decimal balance will give you a pretty good result. You just need to know the density of the foil and do a quick calculation. A 5 cm^2 aluminum ribbon will weigh about 0.0034g, giving an error range of about +/-3%. If a film is well bonded to a thicker substrate, stylus and laser profilometers will do orders of magnitude better.

Marik, do you have any other suggestions for measuring thin films/foils accurately?

-Chris
 
[quote author="Emperor-TK"]
Marik, do you have any other suggestions for measuring thin films/foils accurately?
[/quote]

Nope, the weighing is the only one reliable I am aware of and that's what I use. My digital scale has only .001 resolution so I figure I am maybe about 10% off, but it is quite enough for my purposes.

Sometimes I'd use a micrometer (I have a digital with 0.5um resolution) and compare results with foil of known thikness, but this is only as a very unreliable ballpark only to see if the foil falls into 2um or 6um range.

The problem is not only the micrometer tolerances but also the Al of those thicknesses is extremely soft so the clutch resistance will respond very differently to hard metals and Al foil. For example, I consistantly measure 5um Ni foil, while 5um Al is every time all over the place. Also, most of the time the foil is deformated by corrugation... in short, you name it...
 
[quote author="Flatpicker"]Anyone know if the Fathead is the same as a Nady RSM4? Also will the Lundahl fit in the RSM4? (Seems like I knew this at one time but now I can't remember.)[/quote]
FWIW, I guess the FH is alike the T-Bone RM700 (might be with 6um foil)
but with better QC (for the Cascade).

So that stereo-set from Cascade looks tasty, but I gave up on them after the umpteenth unresponded email.

So I've been considering getting two of those RM700's from Thomann but they don't sell pairs and don't make any claims w.r.t. decent matching for same-batch samples. As I even understood w.r.t. getting a more or less matched pair you'd do better by getting another RB500 to complement a previously bought RB500 from a few years ago (since QC for these T-Bone is best for the RB500) than to get two RM700's at the same time.

So much for expectations, can imagine reality can vary from this.

Regards,

Peter
 
[quote author="clintrubber"]As I even understood w.r.t. getting a more or less matched pair you'd do better by getting another RB500 to complement a previously bought RB500 from a few years ago [/quote]

My dillema exactly. I have a cinemaged RB500 from a few years ago but am hankering after a stereo pair of ribbons for OHs and some blumlein fun. Interesting to note that an unmatched pair of RB500s may be closer in tolerance than a pair of 700s. I may go this way as it will be much cheaper.
 
[quote author="Jim50hertz"][quote author="clintrubber"]As I even understood w.r.t. getting a more or less matched pair you'd do better by getting another RB500 to complement a previously bought RB500 from a few years ago [/quote]

My dillema exactly. I have a cinemaged RB500 from a few years ago but am hankering after a stereo pair of ribbons for OHs and some blumlein fun. Interesting to note that an unmatched pair of RB500s may be closer in tolerance than a pair of 700s. I may go this way as it will be much cheaper.[/quote]
That's at least what I was told by Thomann.
Note that Rossi did an A/B test (more an +A -B test actually) on two RB500's that were bought 'apart' IIRIC and the differences were small.

I guess though that in case the RB500 you already have is from the 'hot' era (a different TX with higher turns IIRIC) the differences might be more obvious - but could be corrected by TX-swap.
(Rossi, please correct me if I'm talking BS here.)

As for getting two RM700's & hoping for the best, I don't know what kind of differences we're actually talking about. Not matched w.r.t. sensitivity is a no-brainer of course, but I guess it's not as easy as that.

Please keep us posted about your moves & findings.

Regards,

Peter
 
[quote author="clintrubber"]
I guess though that in case the RB500 you already have is from the 'hot' era (a different TX with higher turns IIRIC) the differences might be more obvious - but could be corrected by TX-swap.[/quote]

Hi Peter

I swapped out the stock transformer for a cinemag and must say i liked the difference immensely.

I would do the same with a second RB500 in the hopes of getting a relatively close matching. I'll let you know how i get on if I go this way.
Cheers

Jim
 
[quote author="Jim50hertz"][quote author="clintrubber"]
I guess though that in case the RB500 you already have is from the 'hot' era (a different TX with higher turns IIRIC) the differences might be more obvious - but could be corrected by TX-swap.[/quote]

Hi Peter

I swapped out the stock transformer for a cinemag and must say i liked the difference immensely.

I would do the same with a second RB500 in the hopes of getting a relatively close matching. I'll let you know how i get on if I go this way.
Cheers

Jim[/quote]
Oops yes, if you had a hot one it'd be gone already because of the TX-swap :oops: :wink:

Bye,

Peter
 
Back
Top