Jazzy_Pidjay
Well-known member
the design of the Blue bottle seems to be very
similar to the G7 ?
no ?
similar to the G7 ?
no ?
Capsules for the G7
- Thread starter Category 5
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
bradzatitagain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Messages
- 295
[quote author="Category 5"]
The BLUE capsules are all center connected neuman styles, and it dawns on me that the G7 circuit might not be the best choice for these types.
[/quote]
Why not?
The BLUE capsules are all center connected neuman styles, and it dawns on me that the G7 circuit might not be the best choice for these types.
[/quote]
Why not?
dale116dot7
Well-known member
Depends on the capsule tuning (tuning being the hole dimensions and diaphragm spacing, mostly). The U87 and U67 capsule were designed for an amplifier with high-end roll-off. Of course, if you're always boosting the HF then maybe it doesn't matter to have extra HF there.
The Blue 'Cactus' capsule is based on the original M7, which is also what I based my capsule on. It should not require this HF rolloff, and should sound fairly smooth in the top end - even a bit rolled off above about 12 or 14k. Maybe sort of ribbon-ish. I am liking that sound these days. Centre vs. edge terminated doesn't necessarily determine whether the capsule is a good one for the G7 design.
The Blue 'Cactus' capsule is based on the original M7, which is also what I based my capsule on. It should not require this HF rolloff, and should sound fairly smooth in the top end - even a bit rolled off above about 12 or 14k. Maybe sort of ribbon-ish. I am liking that sound these days. Centre vs. edge terminated doesn't necessarily determine whether the capsule is a good one for the G7 design.
Category 5
Well-known member
Thanks Dale. Your reference to the need for HF rolloff was the point of my thinking the nuemanns wouldn't be ideal. I read this somewhere earlier in the forum.
The Cactus capsules seems like it might be a good option. Since I will have eaaily chageable capsules, the Peluso will ikely come first (price) and then possibly the Cactus (unless I get a good elad on a CK12).
It seems there are more variations on the neumann style available than on the AKG style. Nobody knows about the Vienna capsule?
Shane
The Cactus capsules seems like it might be a good option. Since I will have eaaily chageable capsules, the Peluso will ikely come first (price) and then possibly the Cactus (unless I get a good elad on a CK12).
It seems there are more variations on the neumann style available than on the AKG style. Nobody knows about the Vienna capsule?
Shane
bradzatitagain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Messages
- 295
[quote author="Category 5"]Thanks Dale. Your reference to the need for HF rolloff was the point of my thinking the nuemanns wouldn't be ideal. I read this somewhere earlier in the forum.
The Cactus capsules seems like it might be a good option. Since I will have eaaily chageable capsules, the Peluso will ikely come first (price) and then possibly the Cactus (unless I get a good elad on a CK12).
It seems there are more variations on the neumann style available than on the AKG style. Nobody knows about the Vienna capsule?
Shane[/quote]
Shane, if you were building to easily swap capsules why not build in hp and lp eq's that were switched? Maybe add a 10 or 20db pad too for high spl situations??? Swiss Army Knife. Since you're having your mic body custom machined you could include slots for tiny toggles ala the MXL 770, or sliders, or whatever. I like the toggles because you can get pcb mounts and they're no muss no fuss. Do the high pass like the U67; inline pad info can be found at friend Rick's site: http://www.uneeda-audio.com. LoPass, make something up. You're actually inspiring me to make a couple of "test-bed" mics, I like the idea. A few different headgrills too that can swap out. Then you could knock out a bunch of one mic or another or all of them. Take some serious paper route money tho. There's a thread buried somewhere, maybe in the meta as well, about modifying the 797 capsule, Marik took that on I think.
The Cactus capsules seems like it might be a good option. Since I will have eaaily chageable capsules, the Peluso will ikely come first (price) and then possibly the Cactus (unless I get a good elad on a CK12).
It seems there are more variations on the neumann style available than on the AKG style. Nobody knows about the Vienna capsule?
Shane[/quote]
Shane, if you were building to easily swap capsules why not build in hp and lp eq's that were switched? Maybe add a 10 or 20db pad too for high spl situations??? Swiss Army Knife. Since you're having your mic body custom machined you could include slots for tiny toggles ala the MXL 770, or sliders, or whatever. I like the toggles because you can get pcb mounts and they're no muss no fuss. Do the high pass like the U67; inline pad info can be found at friend Rick's site: http://www.uneeda-audio.com. LoPass, make something up. You're actually inspiring me to make a couple of "test-bed" mics, I like the idea. A few different headgrills too that can swap out. Then you could knock out a bunch of one mic or another or all of them. Take some serious paper route money tho. There's a thread buried somewhere, maybe in the meta as well, about modifying the 797 capsule, Marik took that on I think.
Category 5
Well-known member
This is actually a pretty good idea. ...could have an insertable pad, and or filters as you suggest. That might actually help to accomodate the differences between capsule response too, with the G7 circuit.
The other interesting side to this would be the ability to use the same capsules on different circuit designs simply by having multiple bodies and multiple heads. It will certainly be a ton more work, but in the long run the result seems like it would be worth it. ...both experimentally and functionally.
Lawson uses a DIN connector between their capsules and mic bodies. Gold pins/sockets like the ones used for op amps might work well too, although I don't know how many insertions the sockets are rated for.
Shane
The other interesting side to this would be the ability to use the same capsules on different circuit designs simply by having multiple bodies and multiple heads. It will certainly be a ton more work, but in the long run the result seems like it would be worth it. ...both experimentally and functionally.
Lawson uses a DIN connector between their capsules and mic bodies. Gold pins/sockets like the ones used for op amps might work well too, although I don't know how many insertions the sockets are rated for.
Shane
bradzatitagain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Messages
- 295
[quote author="Category 5"]This is actually a pretty good idea. ...could have an insertable pad, and or filters .
Shane[/quote]
All toggles, pad switch, hi cut switch, lo cut switch. Hi cut for the appropriate capsule, lo cut for the singer who has to swallow the mic first before singing (or any other situation where you want proximity effect but need to cut rumble,) pad if your in hi spl regions.
Shane[/quote]
All toggles, pad switch, hi cut switch, lo cut switch. Hi cut for the appropriate capsule, lo cut for the singer who has to swallow the mic first before singing (or any other situation where you want proximity effect but need to cut rumble,) pad if your in hi spl regions.
PatinaCreme
Well-known member
Timthat is beautiful!!!
:green: :grin: :green: :thumb:
Patina
:green: :grin: :green: :thumb:
Patina
PatinaCreme
Well-known member
Dale could you drect me to the ck12 patent. I have searched the US patents online with no luck
Thank you
Patina
Thank you
Patina
dale116dot7
Well-known member
AT180313B
This is an Austrian patent. I use depatisnet.de to search for it. Do a beginner's search and select AT for the country (Austria), and type in the number 180313. Links are session-based (they expire) so I can't just post a link to it.
This is an Austrian patent. I use depatisnet.de to search for it. Do a beginner's search and select AT for the country (Austria), and type in the number 180313. Links are session-based (they expire) so I can't just post a link to it.
SPANDOECK, KALUSCHE, and MUELLER - 1952:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE836955&F=0
Braunmuhl/Weber US patent:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2179361&F=0
edit: Tim C. added this:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=AT180313B&F=0&QPN=AT180313B
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE836955&F=0
Braunmuhl/Weber US patent:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2179361&F=0
edit: Tim C. added this:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=AT180313B&F=0&QPN=AT180313B
Similar threads
