Head Baskets make a difference in sound?

[k brown]

Don't leave us in suspense!

Still need physical protection, though.

 

[kingkorg]

Don't leave us in suspense!

Still need physical protection, though.

Not really commercially practical i admit. Additional mesh in close proximity to the diaphragm in front wouldn't hurt the sound. Coarse as it has no emi shielding purpose. I use them as overheads, or anywhere where likelihood of getting hit is low.

Not really a rocket science, the diaphragm is grounded, but the construction has to be such that the backplate is shielded from all sides by the diaphragm, and rear delay network backplate. So metal construction all the way around if you get what i mean. I have even one with built in smd fet and 1G smd resistor. They are "buried" between the backplats.

 

[soapfoot]

The studio I work out of has two. They’re just blah, as in uninspiring. I’m betting the circuit could be replaced and that’ll make all the difference. That may happen one day, but maybe not. Between the two of us, we already have way too many mics! Still, it’s sad. Such a waste of two perfectly great capsules and bodies!

Try them outside kick (as you would use a 47FET) or on bass cab (like a B15)

We have two vintage FET47s and the M147 will sometimes win out for outside kick and bass cab.

We never use them for anything else, but in that narrow range of applications we find them quite good

 

[k brown]

Not really commercially viable i admit. Additional mesh in close proximity to the diaphragm in front wouldn't hurt the sound. Coarse as it has no emi shielding purpose. I use them as overheads, or anywhere where likelihood of getting hit is low.

Not really a rocket science, the diaphragm is grounded, but the construction has to be such that the backplate is shielded from all sides by the diaphragm, and rear delay network backplate. So metal construction all the way around if you get what i mean. I have even one with built in smd fet and 1G smd resistor. They are "buried" between the backplats.

Tweezers!

 

[GeorgeToledo]

That's one of the models I was refering to in my last sentence.

My point was, it was many years before they made another mic with a cylindrical basket - and I think it was done for purely marketing reasons.

Oh, I see!

And at Recording Engineer - was in *no way* touting them. Just noting the headbasket and more recent production. It would almost be interesting to just gut one at the prices they go for used sometimes. Too bad it doesn’t have a double gold evaporated membrane capsule.

 

[Khron]

My point was, it was many years before they made another mic with a cylindrical basket - and I think it was done for purely marketing reasons.

... Or cost-cutting reasons (especially if outsourcing at least the parts)...

 

[soapfoot]

That's one of the models I was refering to in my last sentence.

My point was, it was many years before they made another mic with a cylindrical basket - and I think it was done for purely marketing reasons.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.

The U47 was technically produced until 1965, and the U47FET was introduced in 1969, only four years later.

Besides that, I can think of at least one other microphone Neumann made with a cylindrical headbasket in the decades before the M147: the KM88i (an excellent and underrated mic)

In addition, the USM69, the SM69FET, and the KM86 had headbaskets that were at least quasi-cylindrical (though "semi-conical" would probably be a more-strictly-accurate description)

 

[Recording Engineer]

That's one of the models I was refering to in my last sentence.

My point was, it was many years before they made another mic with a cylindrical basket - and I think it was done for purely marketing reasons.

I think it was done for 47-inspiration reasons, which was done for marketing reasons, which was done for what the market was asking for reasons.

 

[Recording Engineer]

And at Recording Engineer - was in *no way* touting them. Just noting the headbasket and more recent production.

I know.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Try them outside kick (as you would use a 47FET) or on bass cab (like a B15)

Will try them there next time for sure. There’s even a vintage B15 too!

 

[Pariah Zero]

Now what would be ultra-cool that no one has done before? Gather all widely-available and popular DIY head baskets to measure what’s truly what.

In some cases, it'd be really easy: I've got one mic where I can swap at least three different head baskets without any other changes. I wouldn't be surprised if nearly every mic with the same diameter as the BM-700 can swap headbaskets, for example.

I seem to recall that Dr. Harry Olson of RCA Ribbon Mic fame wrote on the effects of screens, grilles, geometries, etc.

I've been meaning to look up and attempt to read some of them.

 

[MicMaven]

As a novice builder, I conclude a microphone is always the sum of its parts - change anything and you change the sound in some small way - shoot, even the weight of the cable and the type of stand it is on can make a subtle difference.

I am fairly new to building / assembling /modding microphones and I have experienced the differences in both head baskets and bodies - even in my modest, average guy "studio." Based on comments in this forum, I have exchanged the BM-700 basket for the BM-800 and also with another one, and I have changed the "guts" (i.e., the circuit board, capsule, and saddle) from one body to another, and got a noticeably different sound each time. I also messed with using different types, thickness, and density polyurethane foam in and around the head basket, and even that changed things up a bit. Another thread inspired me to add automobile sound dampening material (like coax seal radio operators use to waterproof PL-259 connectors outdoors) - and that also noticeably changed the sound, although I cannot say if that is because of the conical shape of the stuff I molded to the base of the saddle, or from its ability to dampen or deaden vibration - nevertheless it made a sonic difference. I have even experimented with filling hand-held mic handles with different substances, even a sort of plaster mud. I cannibalized a really cheap Chinese microphone I purchased solely to use as a donor handle, and it came filled with a fine cement, giving it heft and dampening handling and other "microphony" vibration. (hoping I used that word properly...)

Of course, none of this is news to veteran microphone mavens and real recording engineers. I mention my own experience only to reinforce the point changing components DOES change the sound and it shows even to the rookie.

For example - Shure company told me the SM57 and SM58 use the exact same cartridge - they sound different from each other because they are deployed in different ways - one model puts the diaphragm more forward and closer to the grill, and the other model has it sit farther back, providing a larger space between diaphragm and grill - hence a noticeable difference in sound. I also wonder whether the different shape and materials of the handles have a noticeable sonic impact on their sound signature ... I would vote yes if I had to bet on it.

Just MY take ... your mileage may vary. James - K8JHR -

 

[evil grill]

How does a lollipop headbasket affect the sound?

 

[kingkorg]

How does a lollipop headbasket affect the sound?

The answer everyone hates - it depends.

You have extremes like Soyuz, BM3000, or M-audio Sputnik. But in general, well designed lollipop with thin frame should be pretty transparent.

 

[rock soderstrom]

The answer everyone hates - it depends.

You have extremes like Soyuz, BM3000, or M-audio Sputnik. But in general, well designed lollipop with thin frame should be pretty transparent.

Do you have an example of a well-designed lollipop headbasket?

 

[kingkorg]

Geffell CMV563 capsule sounded and measured pretty much the same in the body, and outside the body when I tested it.

I should have added disclaimer that this is in my opinion, I like transparent headbaskets.

Not to say Soyuz design is bad, but it is definitely changing the sound of the capsule, and is important part of that mic's sound. BM3000 is terrible for example, as it creates large nulls in the response, and messes with pollar pattern.

 

[rock soderstrom]

Geffell CMV563 capsule sounded and measured pretty much the same in the body, and outside the body when I tested it.

I should have added disclaimer that this is in my opinion, I like transparent headbaskets.

Not to say Soyuz design is bad, but it is definitely changing the sound of the capsule, and is important part of that mic's sound. BM3000 is terrible for example, as it creates large nulls in the response, and messes with pollar pattern.

Thanks for info!!

 

[ubxf]

Geffell CMV563 capsule sounded and measured pretty much the same in the body, and outside the body when I tested it.

I should have added disclaimer that this is in my opinion, I like transparent headbaskets.

Not to say Soyuz design is bad, but it is definitely changing the sound of the capsule, and is important part of that mic's sound. BM3000 is terrible for example, as it creates large nulls in the response, and messes with pollar pattern.

Are those"Geffell CMV563 capsule " the old Neumann Lollipops?

 

[Marik]

Do you have an example of a well-designed loolipop headbasket?

The main problem with lolipops is their housing works as an obstacle for the sound in the 90 degree area where the off axis still has a lot of sensitivity. To my knowledge, the only microphone free of this deficiency is our own Samar TF10, where the housing is not around the capsule, but is a part of the capsule itself, so the off axis (which in my opinion the most important part of the sonics and phase integrity) is not affected in any way. Also, the screen mesh is very open and is pretty close to the diaphragm, so all the reflections moved to very high frequencies, which are out of the bandwidth.

Best, M

 

[k brown]

It can't be for no reason that Neumann hasn't made a 'lollipop' head mic for many, many decades.