What changes would you make to the SYT5?

[Migs 31]

Keep in mind that if you change the size(s), most available PCBs for DIY microphone won't probably fit anymore.

I get it,

But the difference between the real Mc Coy's height vs the copy is 1 cm at body (PCB) end, not grill.
Diameter difference at bottom of grill is 0.5cm (5mm) !!!
Surely that's possible/faisable.

M

 

[soliloqueen]

the issue is mostly neumann's shape trademarking in the US. the syt-5 is already close enough that they can get angry if you advertise aggressively. I don't want to make it worse...

 

[EarthTone]

That would be great. If you do it, though, I’d say the two most equally important factors would be:

A) Any acoustic improvements that could be made

B) Absolutely MUST fit Dany’s u87 and u67 boards and have ample space for transformers & tubes inside.

I don’t mind the current size. But if it would all fit into a standard sized u87/67 body and the boards & especially the tube based innards would all still fit, then why not go with the traditional body size?

Also, we need an m49 body that fits Dany’s boards (60mm diameter pcb’s) DESPERATELY! The only similar product is the Shuai Yin body and that chassis is only 55mm. Doesn’t fit.

That (m49) would be my preference to start with honestly. But I understand the vast majority of 1st time mic builders are going to want to do a u87. So your idea makes sense. But hey, two birds, one stone? Like, can you do both?

M49 situation sucks. I emailed AMI last month. They said they’d have more m49 bodies “in a couple of weeks”. That was over a month ago…

 

[Recording Engineer]

Also, why hasn’t anyone done an open head-basket for a 47-body… Like the Studio 939’s Type I for the HT-11A, but 47-size?

 

[RuudNL]

I have had a lot of problems with single layer headbaskets, because the shielding ('Faraday shield') is less than perfect, introducing hum if you come close(r) to the microphone.

 

[JW]

Another vote for M49 bodies.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I have had a lot of problems with single layer headbaskets, because the shielding ('Faraday shield') is less than perfect, introducing hum if you come close(r) to the microphone.

I’ve heard this mentioned from a few people. I’ve had absolutely no problems what-so-ever with (3) pairs of mics with different tube circuit-designs and LD capsule-types in Studio 939 HT-11A bodies with the Type I head-baskets.

 

[RuudNL]

I suppose it will make a difference if you put the polarisation voltage on the backplate or on the membrane(s).
But for a multi-pattern microphone there are not many choices...
(With the polarisation voltage on the membranes the backplate could be kind of 'shielded' for external electrical fields.)

 

[kingkorg]

I’ve heard this mentioned from a few people. I’ve had absolutely no problems what-so-ever with (3) pairs of mics with different tube circuit-designs and LD capsule-types in Studio 939 HT-11A bodies with the Type I head-baskets.

The same for me for the longest time, untill i ran into environment with tons of LED lightning. Or once with a pre with external ac-ac power supply. I guess it's highly dependent on the location. It actually happened with one of my Manley Reference Cardioid clones, which makes me wonder if the original has the same potential issue.

 

[soliloqueen]

i get bad EMI even with double and triple baskets here. Then again...I bought a corporate wifi router for my apartment, which may not have been the best idea. I get WIFI all the way down the street, though!