It's a portmanteau of diagonal cutters.
AKG Perception P220 to Neumann u87 5 min mod ( p200, p100, p400, p420? )
- Thread starter kingkorg
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
It's a portmanteau of diagonal cutters.
So many pictures of doing things the hard way. Soldering a SMT 0805 cap on top of or beside the existing device is not difficult, and then there is no concern about glue, support, etc. No need to try to fit in those bulky through-hole devices.
This Digikey link should have appropriate devices listed already, but if someone wants to go to another vendor the parameters to look for are SMT, 0805 package size, NP0 or C0G dielectric, and then just pick the value or values you want to try. With a halfway decent fine tipped soldering iron it takes more time to remove screws and open up the case than to add the new device on top of the existing cap.
330pf-630pf C0G caps at Digikey
This Digikey link should have appropriate devices listed already, but if someone wants to go to another vendor the parameters to look for are SMT, 0805 package size, NP0 or C0G dielectric, and then just pick the value or values you want to try. With a halfway decent fine tipped soldering iron it takes more time to remove screws and open up the case than to add the new device on top of the existing cap.
330pf-630pf C0G caps at Digikey
It would be nice for us paint-by-number noobs if some expert would say EXACTLY what specs a capacitor should have, for this mod, like the type, voltage and tolerance. Basic tips on actually doing it would be appreciated, too.
I'm assuming 0805 size SMT, 100v NP0(C0G) ceramic at 1 percent tolerance is fine, but maybe overkill specs. (Does the tolerance matter much, or will the circuit vary enough due to other factors that to match mics, you'd want to try the next higher or lower standard values anyway? What is the voltage drop across this thing?)
Also, what temperature should I set my fine-tipped soldering pen to? Do I need to clean around the capacitors, and get the flux out from between the old & new capacitors? Is repeatedly dabbing at it with 99 percent alcohol going to do the job?
I'm assuming 0805 size SMT, 100v NP0(C0G) ceramic at 1 percent tolerance is fine, but maybe overkill specs. (Does the tolerance matter much, or will the circuit vary enough due to other factors that to match mics, you'd want to try the next higher or lower standard values anyway? What is the voltage drop across this thing?)
Also, what temperature should I set my fine-tipped soldering pen to? Do I need to clean around the capacitors, and get the flux out from between the old & new capacitors? Is repeatedly dabbing at it with 99 percent alcohol going to do the job?
Last edited:
Correct. But people want to try more values to adjust the sound to their taste.
Repeating the procedure may destroy the PCB.
5% is a more usual tolerance for capacitors, 1% are more rare and more pricey. And likely the already-existing capacitor, not to mention the capsule itself, is at least +/-5% class; likely even more
Let's keep in mind, this is a "pedestrian" microphone, not a metrology-lab-grade instrument
350C should be safe enough, especially since there's no big chunks of copper pour to worry about. Extra flux would help (flux paste, flux pen, or even just adding flux-cored solder).
That only depends on if / how ham-fisted one is (or isn't)
"Dikes" is a common term for DIAGONAL CUTTER PLIERS among US electricians, journeymen millwrights, and other skilled tradesmen. "Dykes" is a common term for ... well, you know. Some will use either spelling, but well informed, erudite DIY-ers know better. James
terry setter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 172
"Dikes" is an older word for wire-cutters. Usually diagonal, side-cutting "pliers".
They're easy to get over an SMC part to snip it in half. I've also cut many through-hole resistors in half so that I could remove one leg at a time and not have to mess with trying to heat both legs simultaneously. (I thought "Dyes" looked funny when I wrote it. Now, thanks to James, I have joined the informed, erudite portion of the DIY community. Thanks, James!)
They're easy to get over an SMC part to snip it in half. I've also cut many through-hole resistors in half so that I could remove one leg at a time and not have to mess with trying to heat both legs simultaneously. (I thought "Dyes" looked funny when I wrote it. Now, thanks to James, I have joined the informed, erudite portion of the DIY community. Thanks, James!)
Last edited:
British vs American spelling?..
(Ok, that's enough topic derailing for now )On a more serious note, in his Rode NT3 modding video, @kingkorg actually demonstrates the easiest(?) method of removing a surface-mount two-terminal passive component with a soldering iron (not a hot-air wand), a method i had figured out on my own a whole bunch of years ago
Blob some extra solder on both ends, then angle the tip so that it melts the solder on both ends of the part. Simple, easy, virtually zero risk of damage to the board or traces (unless you take a jackhammer to it - unnecessary, of course)
But, as pointed out numerous times in this thread already, this mod does NOT require the removal of the already-existing capacitor!
It's not the spelling that matters, it's the scissoring action.
Gratuitous Sidebar:
Well ... um ... ONLY because this is a very erudite and technically proficient group, I mention diagonal cutters are not quite exactly the same as side cutters. While some operators use the two names interchangeably, there IS a slight difference in the design and operation of the two types of cutting pliers. According to an expert source:
The cutting head of diagonal pliers is slightly bent inward relative to the handle line while side cutters have a straight cutting end that is parallel to the handles. As a result, the inward angle of diagonal cutters allows you to cut materials flush with the surface better than side cutters. And, as a general rule, side cutters are typically more robust than diagonal cutters. For example, for heavy-duty cutting, such as cutting hardened wire, Romex MC cable, ASCR, nails, and screws, side cutters are the better option. But for precision cutting, like for making jewelry, and possibly electronics, the difference is significant. Diagonal cutters cut straight through the material leaving a flush-cut while side cutters leave a sharp end. This makes diagonal cutters more suitable for cutting jewelry because they do not leave sharp ends. Sharp wire ends on jewelry can be injurious. They can poke the skin or catch your clothes, and no one want’s that. Similarly, sharp ends on electronic component leads may be contraindicated for the same and possibly other reasons.
So, you may safely call me picky, but there is a difference between the two types of cutting pliers.
Of course, there is no extra charge for providing this bonus gloss on the topic ... I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
James, in balmy, rainy Michigan.
terry setter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 172
Thanks James. There's never harm in adding relevant, accurate details to a discussion.
We had a charity providing diagonal cutters to kids called Dikes for Tykes, but due to an unfortunate typo on our flyer we got shut down by a local church group. It was probably for the best because two of the kids accidentally cut their thumbs off. But that was my fault since I should have raised the age limit to at least 3.
This needs to be VO'ed in an epic voice and put on YouTube. Please.
Just as an update and with thanks to all who weighed in on this - i had an issue with someone who did a mod for me on a 220...and had misunderstood the original direction. As it turned out- after providing further photo documentation supplied by a few of you - the replacement cap was properly done, in my case, a 510 cap. Honestly, on testing thus far in comparison with stock 220 and a 420? I am not hearing a significant difference in character. I will say it - and the stock 220- as well,
compare quite favorably with my 87Ai. I'm happy about that but...i guess i anticipated a bigger difference but..maybe this
is rather subtle. Maybe too, i would hear a more marked difference had i chosen a higher value cap, as in @kingkorg's OP (680) but for VO, i was inclined to go a bit lower in the value, thinking that might yield a result closer to that of the 87Ai vs the vintage 87. I like the somewhat more modern Ai sound for VO. It's really kinda remarkable to me how even the stock 220
is a very useable mic as-is - and again... hard to distinguish much change with the mod in this case. (and yes i did check
and he did put the new cap in the right place this time : )
I'll also add that on listening back to the stock 420 vs 220...and both of these i have had pretty minimal usage... for some reason to my ear i like the 220 better- and i can't really define why that would be(?). Anyway...now i'm considering doing another mod of one of these...and maybe using the 680 cap.
Wish I were a DIY'er but alas as a talent have always outsourced this sort of thing. If anyone here is in the biz of performing
this mod, i'd be glad PM to see about the logistics of sending it to you for the work! Anyway, thanks again for your help here!
Mike
compare quite favorably with my 87Ai. I'm happy about that but...i guess i anticipated a bigger difference but..maybe this
is rather subtle. Maybe too, i would hear a more marked difference had i chosen a higher value cap, as in @kingkorg's OP (680) but for VO, i was inclined to go a bit lower in the value, thinking that might yield a result closer to that of the 87Ai vs the vintage 87. I like the somewhat more modern Ai sound for VO. It's really kinda remarkable to me how even the stock 220
is a very useable mic as-is - and again... hard to distinguish much change with the mod in this case. (and yes i did check
and he did put the new cap in the right place this time : )
I'll also add that on listening back to the stock 420 vs 220...and both of these i have had pretty minimal usage... for some reason to my ear i like the 220 better- and i can't really define why that would be(?). Anyway...now i'm considering doing another mod of one of these...and maybe using the 680 cap.
Wish I were a DIY'er but alas as a talent have always outsourced this sort of thing. If anyone here is in the biz of performing
this mod, i'd be glad PM to see about the logistics of sending it to you for the work! Anyway, thanks again for your help here!
Mike
Yes, I found time and have now done the same with my old P400 pair. Really sounds much better in the highs now. To be honest, I never used the mics much as I'm not a big fan of the light "scratching" mids on these mics and the highs were a little bit too sharp. But it depends on the source as always. My vocals sound pretty good now with the mod, on an acoustic guitar I'm not convinced. A CK12 style mic is like night and day on the guitar.. 3D, corpus, every nuance. But what's cool is that the shrill character is definitely gone now when you A/B compare a modded to an original mic. Thanks to KK for this super easy mod.
Attachments
Adding this here. My buddy Nate from the Time Preservation Society channel, who has never done a mic mod before being inspired by this thread and the conversation it has started off-site, is doing his part to spread the Mic DIY Virus and did a video on the mod as well.
You might want to let him know the link to this thread wasn't parsed (properly), in the description
The mod reduces high frequency boost. If your source (e.g. male voice) does not have a lot of energy in the high treble you may not notice much difference.
