Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2020, 05:08:48 AM »
Thanks for the explanation Ruud, makes sense to me.
Do you think that Neumann taking the feedback for de-emphasis from a tertiary winding was mostly to straighten out  non-linearities in the transformer they used? 


RuudNL

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2020, 06:34:58 AM »
Yes, I think so.
The problem is that a good transformer with a tertiary winding is hard to find and if you can find them, they are expensive.
A transformer is nothing else than a 'translator' between electricity and magnetism. (And back of course.)
That means that the core properties also reflect to a certain extend to the primary winding. (Lenz's law.)
I have chosen to use HF feedback from the primary winding in order not to overcomplicate the circuit and keep the output transformer (relatively) low cost.
And judging by the people who have replicated the design, everybody is happy with the result.
There is a solution for every problem!

http://www.vansteenisaudio.nl

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2020, 07:04:11 AM »
 Thanks again Ruud. 
Yes I like not being tied to the available transformers with a tertiary, and I like that your HF feedback is not over complicated. 
I was going to be using a Neumann U87ai capsule & headbasket along with some spare Neumann internal rails and bottom bell so I don't know that the kit  boards will physically work there but, I'd like to try your circuit so I'll do a wee pcb layout myself soon.

Cheers  :)
 

RuudNL

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2020, 09:03:33 AM »
Great! I would love to hear about your results.
Some experimentation with the de-emphasis capacitor may be needed for the best result.
Because it depends upon the microphone capsule you are using.

Success!
There is a solution for every problem!

http://www.vansteenisaudio.nl

Gus

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2020, 08:16:34 PM »
I waited a few days to see if anyone noticed what side of the output cap C9 picks up the signal
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 08:37:50 PM by Gus »

dmp

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2020, 03:52:44 PM »
I compared mine with a 'real' U67, but I didn't hear any difference!

You don't hear a difference between the difference in cathode bias to a U67?

RuudNL

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2020, 05:32:45 AM »
You don't hear a difference between the difference in cathode bias to a U67?
No. There may be a small difference, but I didn't hear it.
Anyway: it is good enough for me as it is.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 08:40:48 AM by RuudNL »
There is a solution for every problem!

http://www.vansteenisaudio.nl

abbey road d enfer

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2020, 07:35:58 AM »
You don't hear a difference between the difference in cathode bias to a U67?
The difference between cathode bias and fixed bias is that LF resposne of teh former decreases starting at about 10Hz, falling by 10dB at 1Hz. Does it really matter?
I know that a certain microphone historian claims it is audible because of some elusive phase artifact, but I don't subscribe.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2020, 10:57:14 AM »

I know that a certain microphone historian claims it is audible because of some elusive phase artifact, but I don't subscribe.

I'm aware who you're referring to and I have to say, I've wondered sometimes about the extent of his technical expertise.  I don't wish to speak badly of anyone and  I know he's respected for what he does but...  Hmm?
I'd be curious if there's  a noise difference between both bias schemes due to the impedance at the cathode though.


Regarding Gus's comment over the location of cap C9 in this schematic:  my thinking was more curiosity about the following shunt resistors'  loading effect on the J-Fet (*Edit* : of course, I meant valve)  signal vs the implementation in the U67 where these are shunted across a low impedance tertiary winding.    But I haven't built  or analysed the circuit here so?




 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 01:52:15 PM by Winston O'Boogie »

abbey road d enfer

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2020, 12:52:18 PM »
I'd be curious if there's  a noise difference between both bias schemes due to the impedance at the cathode though.

Regarding Gus's comment over the location of cap C9 in this schematic:  my thinking was more curiosity about the following shunt resistors'  loading effect on the J-Fet signal vs the implementation in the U67 where these are shunted across a low impedance tertiary winding.    But I haven't built  or analysed the circuit here so?
My sim shows no visible difference.
The roll-off seems quite intense, though. -3dB @3kHz, -13 @10kHz.Much more than a real U67.
As far as noise is concerned, I would think the major difference is in the pentode connection, with associated partition noise, as opposed to Neumann's triode connection.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.


Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2020, 01:49:13 PM »
OK, earlier I wrote "J-Fet  signal" which was clearly  an idiotic mistake  :o.

Regarding  the partition noise you mentioned -  the schematic here shows a triode connection so I'm completely lost now!  :D
 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 01:53:57 PM by Winston O'Boogie »

abbey road d enfer

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #31 on: July 01, 2020, 02:12:22 PM »
Regarding  the partition noise you mentioned -  the schematic here shows a triode connection so I'm completely lost now!  :D
You're absolutely right! I don't know what I was thinking...
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #32 on: July 01, 2020, 02:16:32 PM »
You're absolutely right! I don't know what I was thinking...

You said Pentode, I said J-Fet, let's call the whole thing off!   :D

RuudNL

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2020, 03:06:48 PM »
The roll-off seems quite intense, though. -3dB @3kHz, -13 @10kHz.Much more than a real U67.
I think here is a difference between the 'real thing' and a simulation.
With a signal injected in the 'test input', I measured about -5 dB @ 15 KHz. (Re. 1 KHz.) That is with the capsule in place.
-13 dB @10 KHz would result in a very dull sounding microphone!
With an original Neumann capsule, I even had to increase the value of C9 a bit, because with 120 pF is was a bit too bright, compared to a U87ai.
There is a solution for every problem!

http://www.vansteenisaudio.nl

abbey road d enfer

Re: "U67"-ish microphone
« Reply #34 on: July 01, 2020, 03:34:44 PM »
I think here is a difference between the 'real thing' and a simulation.
Don't I know!  :)

With a signal injected in the 'test input', I measured about -5 dB @ 15 KHz. (Re. 1 KHz.)
[/quote] OK; I have to reconcile that with the simulation.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
11464 Views
Last post January 13, 2005, 02:20:33 AM
by bradzatitagain
76 Replies
36329 Views
Last post July 16, 2005, 04:17:56 PM
by louder
3 Replies
1963 Views
Last post May 18, 2005, 05:32:47 AM
by nacho459
1557 Replies
281185 Views
Last post July 01, 2020, 12:23:09 PM
by FarisElek