k brown
Well-known member
What's the marking on the FET?
Beware of Plastic BM800's
- Thread starter billkaroly
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
K596 B 01
According to Tascam, TM-80 has 18 mm capsule.
Just as Marantz and ISK AT100.
Depends how one defines capsule diameter, I guess.
The described in the thread Vibrato has 13 mm active surface and the capsule and the circuit (Mosfet) seem exactly the same as Marantz's and TM-80's.
https://www.isk-audio.com/products_detail/c-_detailId=989917216242225152.html
BTW. I measured my Marantz - 18 mm outside diameter, +/- 13,5 mm diaphragm, edge to edge aluminium or aluminised surface.
Last edited:
Cynical and sarcastic me, keep in mind
Wait, what did i do?
Duh ... Um ... er ... I edited my previous post to correctly refer to Mr. KBrown. Prufe reeding is knot my strong soot.
[Although I am equally confident whatever assessment YOU may have is also correct !!!! ]
JHR
k brown
Well-known member
I have one coming, so I'll pull that baby apart.Duh ... Um ... er ... I edited my previous post to correctly refer to Mr. KBrown. Prufe reeding is knot my strong soot.
[Although I am equally confident whatever assessment YOU may have is also correct !!!! ]
JHR
Last edited:
k brown
Well-known member
The oddest thing about these mics is the placement of those chunky electros right under the front of the capsule, rather than behind it or under the board. If these mics turn out to be worth the effort, the first thing I'm doing is moving those diffraction-producing buggers and cobbling together a semi-sphere in their place.
k brown
Well-known member
Interesting - so in between the TSB-165 and the 'KK12' capsules.
k brown
Well-known member
TM-80 just arrived (new from Amazon; factory box). First report:
- My example has output wired out of phase!
- Does sound quite good; very good rear rejection and 180 off axis sounds very un-scooped. Overall, slightly richer, smoother than "KK12" V2, but top-lift quite similar (not over-bright, like V1).
- NO RF caps on the XLR pins, with, of course, loong wires to the board.
- No enamel on the pot, as seen in the other photos.
- The mic is far quieter than stock Takstar CM-60 or '63 (even though the capsule is considerably smaller).
- Touched tip of my tongue to the capsule, and the metal housing was much colder than the diaphragm; so, must be polyester - but that is the most dense sputtering I've ever seen (pretty sure @MicMaven meant opaque, not transparent.).
- As already noted, very solid body; far thicker than BM-x00s. Rings like a bell on it's own, but not with headbasket attached. Basket better made (though more easily dented). Body appears to be merely painted, so may look a bit rough over time.
Overall, (except for no RF caps on the XLR, and the electros just below the capsule, I'd say well done iSK.
From the capsule on down: nothing like the BM-x00 types.
______
Let the body-shortening begin! Wasted space like that just puts my teeth on edge.
- My example has output wired out of phase!
- Does sound quite good; very good rear rejection and 180 off axis sounds very un-scooped. Overall, slightly richer, smoother than "KK12" V2, but top-lift quite similar (not over-bright, like V1).
- NO RF caps on the XLR pins, with, of course, loong wires to the board.
- No enamel on the pot, as seen in the other photos.
- The mic is far quieter than stock Takstar CM-60 or '63 (even though the capsule is considerably smaller).
- Touched tip of my tongue to the capsule, and the metal housing was much colder than the diaphragm; so, must be polyester - but that is the most dense sputtering I've ever seen (pretty sure @MicMaven meant opaque, not transparent.).
- As already noted, very solid body; far thicker than BM-x00s. Rings like a bell on it's own, but not with headbasket attached. Basket better made (though more easily dented). Body appears to be merely painted, so may look a bit rough over time.
Overall, (except for no RF caps on the XLR, and the electros just below the capsule, I'd say well done iSK.
From the capsule on down: nothing like the BM-x00 types.
______
Let the body-shortening begin! Wasted space like that just puts my teeth on edge.
Last edited:
k brown
Well-known member
I was impressed enough with this TM-80 capsule that I swapped it for the AT825 capsule I had in this little guy (they're the same diameter). Capsule removed from the multi-hole ring, which I've found makes SDC capsules less directional at low frequencies (I assume to imitate the behavior of LDCs), which I don't want.
Got a Marantz coming soon, so I'll have a stereo pair of these. They're also much quieter than the ATs.
______
Since at least some iSK mics use Transound capsules, can iSK be making these capsules themselves?; if not, any guesses who might be? Whoever it is, they have a little value winner on their hands.
Got a Marantz coming soon, so I'll have a stereo pair of these. They're also much quieter than the ATs.
______
Since at least some iSK mics use Transound capsules, can iSK be making these capsules themselves?; if not, any guesses who might be? Whoever it is, they have a little value winner on their hands.
Attachments
Last edited:
Since I dug out the Marantz, yesterday I run not very quick but very dirty comparison with my OPIC fitted with a "blueback" capsule.
Conclusions from this absolutely non-scientific, by ear only, comparison are similar to @k brown 's.
The capsule seems smoother than the "blueback", the mic is astonishingly quiet (what I noticed before but only now could compare to OPIC) and has better RF rejection than OPIC (in a BM 700 body though). Lows seem fuller a bit.
Conclusions from this absolutely non-scientific, by ear only, comparison are similar to @k brown 's.
The capsule seems smoother than the "blueback", the mic is astonishingly quiet (what I noticed before but only now could compare to OPIC) and has better RF rejection than OPIC (in a BM 700 body though). Lows seem fuller a bit.
Attachments
Similar threads
