NADY TCM 1150 Tube Microphone Mods - More Photos
- Thread starter maxwall
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
skipwave
Well-known member
I did a quick before and after clips, but they were negatively affected by some brand new strings that made my acoustic guitar sound like tin.
I'll post some of the clips of the recent recordings I've used it on. I think it sounds great with the Cinemag.
I'll post some of the clips of the recent recordings I've used it on. I think it sounds great with the Cinemag.
sbranco
Well-known member
We finally got around to replacing the transformer with the Cinemag 96322. Had to move both pcb boards up as far as we could. Then just let the tube and transformer float in the body. They really can't float far, its really, really (did I say really) tight in there. The 96322 fits only straight up and we just angled the tube so it would fit in between the transformer and pcb's. the sound guys said the mic is really hot. I guess that is the 8.5:1 ratio versus the 11.5:1 ratio we replaced. Haven't had a chance to adjust levels and check it versus the stock Apex 460. Will try to do that in next few weeks and post some clips.
skipwave
Well-known member
Only about 2 db more loss in the 10.5:1 compared to the 8.5:1, so that's not a big difference. Noticeable, but not big. For instance, I've made that up using 1:14 input iron on my preamp compared to a run-of-the-mill 1:10. :wink:
My version is hot too, I guess I'm just used to that. I just got my first ribbon and that was a shock. Holy-low-output! :shock:
My version is hot too, I guess I'm just used to that. I just got my first ribbon and that was a shock. Holy-low-output! :shock:
sbranco
Well-known member
Hey Maxwell,
The 96322 is a big fat transformer. We were going to try their Nico 2461 but they didn't have any in stock and this one was less than half the price. I decided on it after emailing back and forth with the guys at Cinemag. They said a lot of their customers like this one nearly as much as the 2461. The 96322 is a monster compared to the 2480. We are using a 2480 inside of a Behringer B2 pro we are converting and size is an issue there. Turns out it was an issue in the Apex 460 too but it just made it. No way a 96322 would fit in the B2 pro body.
The 2480 probably fit in the same space as the stock transformer in teh Apex 460. For teh 96322 we had to remove the stock transformer and its mu metal can. No need for a mu metal can for the 96322 since it is humbucking.
Good to know about the difference in volume with the different ratio transformer.
The 96322 is a big fat transformer. We were going to try their Nico 2461 but they didn't have any in stock and this one was less than half the price. I decided on it after emailing back and forth with the guys at Cinemag. They said a lot of their customers like this one nearly as much as the 2461. The 96322 is a monster compared to the 2480. We are using a 2480 inside of a Behringer B2 pro we are converting and size is an issue there. Turns out it was an issue in the Apex 460 too but it just made it. No way a 96322 would fit in the B2 pro body.
The 2480 probably fit in the same space as the stock transformer in teh Apex 460. For teh 96322 we had to remove the stock transformer and its mu metal can. No need for a mu metal can for the 96322 since it is humbucking.
Good to know about the difference in volume with the different ratio transformer.
maxwall
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,134
Interesting, choice of transformers.
Since I have been doing this mod which will take some time to complete. Here are a list of transformers that people have used .
Stock unknown China transformer 10:1 Nady TCM 1050,1150, Apex 460, and others. Has anyone noticed how the capsule design appears. It looks as if they took two capsules and joined them together to operate as one. My other studio mics have one capsule with a front and back diaphram.
1. Lundahl 1550 , 4:1
2. Cinemag 2480, 11:1
3. Haufe T14/1, 11:1
4 Cinemag 96322, 8.5:1
The Haufe T14/1 appears a good choice because of its size , I'm going to try this first to see what type of results I get . It is also a humbucking design. Oliver at TabFunkenwork sells these in two flavors as does Haufe in Germany ( standard, and extra bass response.)
What about capsule upgrades. Peluso , 797 or 32mm stock ?
How is it determined what thickness of capsule is contained in the mic ?
Honestly ,(like Gus from NJ suggested in earlier posts) I would really like to get these mics gutted and do a vintage clone from ground up rather than mess around with a cheap design. Difficult to source parts though. Especially the high Meg Ohm resistors, and good choice of mic capsules.
After recently reading some information about cables, it is quite possible the cheap cables that accompany this mic may also need to be changed out. Apparently this has a effect on mic timbre.
After trying different tubes, 12AT7, 12AX7, 6072 vintage and modern types. I found that 6072A low mu triod tube allows the mic less self noise and just sounds better to me with the metallized polyprolylene cap mods I have performed. I actually used a new Electro-Harmonix 6072A and ran it in the mic for about a week straight. the longer the mic had run the better the sound , really important to let the mic warm up for at least an hour. I also removed cap C6 100uf/25V. C4 was upgraded to a .01uf/400V Siemens Met. Poly cap ( orig was a 1000 nf or .001uf/1KV) . I plan to try to change R8 from 270K to 20K next, these and other mods were suggested on the TCM 1050 mod thread. Both the 1150 and 1050 are the same tube circuits packaged in different mic bodies with different pcb's. Esentially the same mics and same component values for both. Although , I did notice the 1050 had a 1000nf or .001uf/630v Polytyrene, in place of a metallized film cap (.001uf /1KV) found on the 1150. This component is marked C4 on the 1150 and 1050 mics.
Though the mods have opened up the clarity of the mics mids and highs , the bass response still suffers as was pointed out in the Gus' 1050 thread.
If the bass response could be improved this would be a better sounding mic, no doubt. Maybe a capsule and circuit change is inevitable, afterall. Lets see were this goes ..... ?
Since I have been doing this mod which will take some time to complete. Here are a list of transformers that people have used .
Stock unknown China transformer 10:1 Nady TCM 1050,1150, Apex 460, and others. Has anyone noticed how the capsule design appears. It looks as if they took two capsules and joined them together to operate as one. My other studio mics have one capsule with a front and back diaphram.
1. Lundahl 1550 , 4:1
2. Cinemag 2480, 11:1
3. Haufe T14/1, 11:1
4 Cinemag 96322, 8.5:1
The Haufe T14/1 appears a good choice because of its size , I'm going to try this first to see what type of results I get . It is also a humbucking design. Oliver at TabFunkenwork sells these in two flavors as does Haufe in Germany ( standard, and extra bass response.)
What about capsule upgrades. Peluso , 797 or 32mm stock ?
How is it determined what thickness of capsule is contained in the mic ?
Honestly ,(like Gus from NJ suggested in earlier posts) I would really like to get these mics gutted and do a vintage clone from ground up rather than mess around with a cheap design. Difficult to source parts though. Especially the high Meg Ohm resistors, and good choice of mic capsules.
After recently reading some information about cables, it is quite possible the cheap cables that accompany this mic may also need to be changed out. Apparently this has a effect on mic timbre.
After trying different tubes, 12AT7, 12AX7, 6072 vintage and modern types. I found that 6072A low mu triod tube allows the mic less self noise and just sounds better to me with the metallized polyprolylene cap mods I have performed. I actually used a new Electro-Harmonix 6072A and ran it in the mic for about a week straight. the longer the mic had run the better the sound , really important to let the mic warm up for at least an hour. I also removed cap C6 100uf/25V. C4 was upgraded to a .01uf/400V Siemens Met. Poly cap ( orig was a 1000 nf or .001uf/1KV) . I plan to try to change R8 from 270K to 20K next, these and other mods were suggested on the TCM 1050 mod thread. Both the 1150 and 1050 are the same tube circuits packaged in different mic bodies with different pcb's. Esentially the same mics and same component values for both. Although , I did notice the 1050 had a 1000nf or .001uf/630v Polytyrene, in place of a metallized film cap (.001uf /1KV) found on the 1150. This component is marked C4 on the 1150 and 1050 mics.
Though the mods have opened up the clarity of the mics mids and highs , the bass response still suffers as was pointed out in the Gus' 1050 thread.
If the bass response could be improved this would be a better sounding mic, no doubt. Maybe a capsule and circuit change is inevitable, afterall. Lets see were this goes ..... ?
sbranco
Well-known member
OK so here are a couple of pics of the Apex 460 with a GE 5 star 6072a tube and the Cinemag 96322 transformer. It is so tight that we couldnt' get the set screw to hold the 7 pin xlr jack in place. The cable will still click in and hold but the jack slides out when you disconnect it.
We drilled new holes in the pcb with a dremel tool to move it up and let the tube float in its rubber thingy. We removed the original transformer and its mu metal can. All the wires run through the mu metal can surrounding the old transformer. We decided to desolder and resolder the wires to the 7 pin xlr jack to remove the can rather than splice them all.
We have not changed any of the pcb parts. We have a stock Apex 460 as well and I will try to record a couple of sound clips tonight side by side.
I didn't realize the electronics for this mic are the same as the Nady 1050. They look so different from the outside and this is a multi-pattern mic as compared to the single pattern 1050 no? I didn't pay much attention to Gus's post for the 1050 because I did not think I could apply it here. I will have to print out that thread and look it over in more detail. Thanks!
We drilled new holes in the pcb with a dremel tool to move it up and let the tube float in its rubber thingy. We removed the original transformer and its mu metal can. All the wires run through the mu metal can surrounding the old transformer. We decided to desolder and resolder the wires to the 7 pin xlr jack to remove the can rather than splice them all.
We have not changed any of the pcb parts. We have a stock Apex 460 as well and I will try to record a couple of sound clips tonight side by side.
I didn't realize the electronics for this mic are the same as the Nady 1050. They look so different from the outside and this is a multi-pattern mic as compared to the single pattern 1050 no? I didn't pay much attention to Gus's post for the 1050 because I did not think I could apply it here. I will have to print out that thread and look it over in more detail. Thanks!
maxwall
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,134
Sbranco:
Wow , thats a tough fit with the Cinemag 96322. How did it change or effect the sound ? good or no difference. Obviously a hotter signal.
Gus :
Were the original lams material a different composition ? cheaper I'm sure. Whats better ? high nickel or low nickel ?
___________________________________________________________
Yes, the Nady 1050 and 1150 are the same tube mic in two different style bodies same circuitry and components. The Apex sells for more $ , but it to is the same mic as the Nady. Why pay more ?
By the way , Electro Harmonix tubes are too noisey don't use them. I'm going to remove mine after listening tests. $13.00 tube
Find a good old RCA 12AT7, 6201, or GE 6072A these are the best. I've pulled mine from a stckpile of old tubes I have aved over the years. Then listening tests. The stock tubes that come with the new mic are pretty quiet I've noticed(A/B tests) . So someone has selected these especially for mics.
Wow , thats a tough fit with the Cinemag 96322. How did it change or effect the sound ? good or no difference. Obviously a hotter signal.
Gus :
Were the original lams material a different composition ? cheaper I'm sure. Whats better ? high nickel or low nickel ?
___________________________________________________________
Yes, the Nady 1050 and 1150 are the same tube mic in two different style bodies same circuitry and components. The Apex sells for more $ , but it to is the same mic as the Nady. Why pay more ?
By the way , Electro Harmonix tubes are too noisey don't use them. I'm going to remove mine after listening tests. $13.00 tube
Find a good old RCA 12AT7, 6201, or GE 6072A these are the best. I've pulled mine from a stckpile of old tubes I have aved over the years. Then listening tests. The stock tubes that come with the new mic are pretty quiet I've noticed(A/B tests) . So someone has selected these especially for mics.
sbranco
Well-known member
Ok so I finally found a site that will host the sound clip. You will have to use the balance control to hear the modded Apex 460 vocal versus the stock one. On the left is the modded one and on the right the stock one. The Apex mics were used only for the voice. My friend said the levels were identical on the computer but its pretty hard to believe when you hear it. Appreciate any comments, thoughts.
http://download.filefront.com/48485...1b3d6f0372a5713bf840bb299c3e930ff518e02e131c7
You have to choose one of the free public servers and then it should let you download the file.
http://download.filefront.com/48485...1b3d6f0372a5713bf840bb299c3e930ff518e02e131c7
You have to choose one of the free public servers and then it should let you download the file.
sbranco,
Did you change the capsule or is it stock?
Did you change the capsule or is it stock?
sbranco
Well-known member
capsule is stock in both Apex 460 mics. The modded one has an RCA 6072a tube and the cinemag 96322 transformer. No other difference except what appears to be the level cause right now I have trouble hearing the stock one to compare it. the modded one has a hotter output because of the lower ratio transformer. i asked my buddy to bring them both to the same levels and he said he did.
sbranco,
I would really like to hear more clips with the levels more matched. There is a lot of difference in the sound of the clips. The modded one is much more bassy. Can you hear the difference?
Some acoustic guitar samples might give us a better picture of what your mods have done.
Craig
I would really like to hear more clips with the levels more matched. There is a lot of difference in the sound of the clips. The modded one is much more bassy. Can you hear the difference?
Some acoustic guitar samples might give us a better picture of what your mods have done.
Craig
sbranco
Well-known member
I can hear the difference but to really compare them the level of the stock one needs to be brought up. I can probably get some acoustic guitar samples but it might take a couple weeks. Others have complained about the bass response from this mic so it is encouraging and would likely be due to the transformer. If it was just vocals on the sample it wouldn't be so bad you could use the balance but you wind up blown out by the guitar the way we mixed it.
skipwave
Well-known member
Since these mics begin their lives in a nearly identical form, I'll just add to this thread. I think I mentioned this session earlier in this thread. Anyway, my modified ADK GT2 was used all over the recording of this band, with the ever present caveat that these are not final mixes and are unmastered... compression sucks...etc,etc. We tracked 12 songs in two days, crazy pace but fun session.
www.myspace.com/thedawnofthingstocome
Edit: I was just reminded of how absolutely horrifying that myspace mp3 compression is. I will try to get a good quality clip uploaded soon.
www.myspace.com/thedawnofthingstocome
Edit: I was just reminded of how absolutely horrifying that myspace mp3 compression is. I will try to get a good quality clip uploaded soon.
I read left modded, right stock...
In which case, the stock is bassy and loud and sounds like I expect
the cabinet did. The Mod side sounds thin and detailed, much like I don't hear out of most guitar cabinets.
Even with the levels "matched".
In which case, the stock is bassy and loud and sounds like I expect
the cabinet did. The Mod side sounds thin and detailed, much like I don't hear out of most guitar cabinets.
Even with the levels "matched".
sbranco
Well-known member
If its my clip you are referring to cwatkins, the mics were used only on the vocals. Guitars were entirely different with no mics at all. Didn't get a chance to record another sample or remix the old one. It will be at least another week now.
Oh. I wish it was just the vocals. The guitars with different sounds really introduces a huge variable.
I will post clips of my modded apex 460 as soon as mine comes in.
To understand the "weakness" of the capsules you need a good microphone with a good capsule to compare. So get a real microphone like a Brauner VM1 or a u87 or gefell or .................. and compare the capsules and microphones.
I have two nady 1050s. The circuits are redone (good tube circuits) tried different transformers its a waste of time to mod the microphones except to learn with the stock capsules IMO.
Stock circuit has some problems that a tube, caps and transformer change will not help.
Yes I modded a lot of china microphones but it was more a learning thing than expecting them to sound great.
I have two nady 1050s. The circuits are redone (good tube circuits) tried different transformers its a waste of time to mod the microphones except to learn with the stock capsules IMO.
Stock circuit has some problems that a tube, caps and transformer change will not help.
Yes I modded a lot of china microphones but it was more a learning thing than expecting them to sound great.
Similar threads
