Thanks for checking out the video and reminding me about the adaptor. I have to see if i updated the design on that site as i recently made a few tweaks to it.

Unfortunately, there's no way to answer this 'correctly' since it really depends on a bunch of factors. The further away from the mic you are the more gain you'll need. The softer you speak the more gain you need. (opposites are true also for both of those). This is one of those audio things where there's no set number for "right". You have to play with it and get your level set according to your situation.

Glad it helps!

Appreciate the support! Yeah, the topology is a little weird. As long as there aren't output issues the "balancing" act doesn't bother me too much. I get where you're coming from though.

Wound up making the kick video. Check it out. Its about an hour long.

Røde without a doubt.

I agree. Ive only used it in sessions on front head for lighter material (jazz, folk, latin)

At 300ohms on the mic the BAE pre in 1200 mode will work fine with it and probably sound amazing. The cloud z wont pass along phantom power to that mic, which it needs. The AEA pre really excels with dynamic and ribbon mics but does still sound good on condensers. Honestly though… i think youre golden w the BAE.

@@meistudiony The mic is a telefunken tf51; it’s a tube mic that provides its own power so would a cloud Z work as far as impedance matching ?… I’m trying to have impedance 10x the 300 ohms of the microphone. So, would cloud z be any good in my situation ?

@@Nighthawkclips you might see marginal low end improvement, but probably not enough to justify the cost of the cloud Z.

@@meistudiony thanks… It also should result in a better EIN; lowering the noise floor ?…

Caps will have voltages on them, not wattage. Anything 50v and above will be fine.

If its in working condition that a grand slam home run find!!! Congrats!

Thanks so much, really appreciate the comment! :)

I have an update to this video thats almost done where i add in the 409 as well. Should be out soon, studios been crazy busy lately. Whatever they did to the 906 it definitely has a different sound than the 609 no matter which way you position the switch. And you make a great point about open/closed back cabs reacting differently. I think perhaps i should start adding in a quick demo of that as well. I have an open back fender combo sitting around I can use for that. Thanks for the comment and inspiration!

The high end on the 103/102 is something that can work on darker sources as theyre kinda bright. Not a fan. The soyuz sounds more full and less harsh to me.

For modern sounds i totally agree! (a 121 for me is king) If you're looking for more of that retro sound though, these can really get it right at the mic and leave little to do on the back end to get "that" sound.

Thank you so much! I really appreciate that!

LOL when youre right youre right! :)

Pretty much anything. This isn't like an sm7b or RE20 that has very low output.

I dont disagree with you but I draw my line in a a slightly different place. When a company copies a product that hasnt been produced in ages… im ok with that. When a company copies a product thats currently in production by the original manufacturer, thats a problem. When a company copies a product and puts the ORIGINAL companies name on it, thats a hard NO, for me. The other issue is build quality. Many of the copies from over seas/bootlegs are inferior when it comes to materials and manufacturing methods. (And subsequently sound). Warm did a great job with this mic for a price point I would say is fair. Charging $3-5k for a mic like this i feel is way over priced like some other companies are doing. Thanks for checkin out the video and leaving a great comment!

@@meistudiony I have to strongly disagree. How do you define over priced? For me, over priced means cheaply produced and artificially made expensive through greed. This is definitely not the case with AEA. At AEA, not only is everything produced in Los Angeles, all parts come from within a half-hour radius of the company. Of course, this is more expensive than assembling parts from China. You can say you can't aford it, but please don't say it's over priced. It's a small company that makes small quantities by hand, of course it's more expensive. A Swiss watch that is made by hand is also more expensive than a Chinese copy. It much more love and passion inside. And by the way: Warm Audio didn't copy RCA, they copied AEA. Watch this to get an idea of the company: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oF68hXRnhNZ1ja8

@@theshill8959 fair enough. I own a few aea mics. I dont think the price they put on their recreations are in line with their more original offerings (r88, nuvo etc). All things considered, i still feel the 44 recreations are priced way higher than they need to be. Its not a matter of being able to afford it. More a matter of placing a dollar amount on something because of its nostalgia factor thats not in line with the rest of the line that doesnt have that factor. Its their decision to price it that way and thats fine. I just dont think a recreation of a mic should be more than the vintage mic that its copying. Same goes for the telefunken mics whose material sources are questionable at best. The new telefunken has pulled some questionable practices in the past.

@@meistudiony As I have already said: I don't think the 44 is about maximising profits. It's simply much more expensive to produce than a Nuvo, for example. The components are more complex to manufacture and, of course, much more expensive if they are produced locally than in the Far East. Anyway. I don't like companies like Warm or Behringer.

I would love to know if you were able to open the head basket. I took a saw to one of the ones i had to try and figure out a way to open it to try and service it, and even after that, I couldn't find a way to do it without being destructive in some way.

@@meistudiony I couldn't open the head basket either. I had one with the same problem as yours. By comparing it to the working ones I managed to locate where the broken wire was supposed to be, did a bit of surgery on the plastic and managed find the wire and repair it. Far from easy. It also initially took quite some time to figure out that the nut at the end of the tube in the bottom of the mic was what was holding the top. Two of the mics I have someone had tried unscrew the head basket like you can do on other mics and that way tearing apart the internal wireing, that someone hadn't found the nut at the end of the tube apparently.

Thank you! I really appreciate the kind words!

I recently ran into a mic that has been on like every live music show from the late 60s into the 70s and early 80s. Electro-voice 635A. Really basic look to it but pretty cool. I'll be doing a vid on this soon hopefully if the studio calms down for a min. Thanks for checking out the videos and commenting (this one and the AKG D190), I really appreciate it!

Ive had 3 different mics from gtz. I would say the MP is definitely better quality. But the MP S87 isnt trying to be a U87. It just uses a K87 style capsule.

Yes it is! Im going to be looking at a domestic boutique ribbon in a couple weeks. Love seeing stuff like this. Small builders making great products.

Thanks for checking it out, theyre a classic that is just unmatched.

OK! Thanks for the comment! Lets take a dive into this and see if we can clarify this! From Shures website, the Unidyne I, II and III (and 4 which was in the 548 but didn't take off) refer to the cartridge types. The Unidyne I was the big boxy thing (video coming soon) found in the original 55 mic. The Unidyne II was the first "smaller" version and close to what we have now. The III was about the same as the II but had some added shock mounting features which made the handling of the mic improved over the previous version. (essentially some rubber suspensions and some sponge rings) and what we see in the 545, 57 and 58 (and probably others). "The Unidyne III microphone cartridge first appeared in the model 545 in 1960." - www.shure.com/en-GB/performance-production/louder/shure-unidyne-75-years-of-the-worlds-most-recognisable-mic Same cartridge, different assemblies. (the 57, 58 and 545 all unidyne III's). Rick, (the guy you quoted) has an interesting take. While yes the 545 came out in 1960 and the 57 in 1967, that only means that one was released before the other. When the SM57 was released, the tape ring around the head basket said "SM57 Unidyne III" and the 545 said "545XX Unidyne III". Mic model and cartridge type. In his FULL quote he mentioned that the grilles and housings were different, and, hes just wrong on that. The grilles are different in color only (silver for the 545 and grey for the 57) . Shure only makes a single head basket for both models. (www.shure.com/en-US/products/accessories/rk244g?variant=RK244G) I recently had a couple of mics in for repairs and the parts guy mentioned they've only ever had a single assembly for the baskets, so not sure where Rick got that info. I've repaired mics from the 60's all the way to the 2000s and they all use the same head basket. As far as the housings go, they too are identical, except for the material they are made out of. (545 being plastic and the 57 being all metal, to be more resilient for live use, where as the 545 was seen more as an installation type mic). The rubber at the top and bottom of the assembly is identical, the two sponge rings inside are identical, and either capsule fits into either assembly, and either assembly can screw on to either mic handle (the dimensions and threading are all identical). As far as the capsule assembly itself... again identical. The diaphragms are identical as well. The magnet assemblies have undergone some changes over the years, where some seem CNC bumpy and others smooth. Both are made from the same material and weigh in the same as well (smooth and riged). The voice coil, however IS different. So that part is at least true. The ones i had in had their diaphragms detached and i have both sitting in front of me right now. The 545 is a more reddish copper color whereas the 57 looks more "new penny" kind of. Weight wise, they both come in at less than 1g. (with the diaphragm and coil connected). The magnet assemblies both weigh in at 91g with the mesh ring and no diaphragm attached. Where he got the "the assemblies are different" thing, I dont know, but they just arent and as far as i can tell, never have been different. Ricks original comment was meant to debunk the myth that the SM57s were just 545s that passed all the QC and the 545s somehow didn't... that theory just doesn't even make sense to me. How much of a difference JUST the voice coil makes? Well, the weight COULD make a difference, but when tested, its really not a big one, as we see in the responses in the video. And in the context of a mix (recording or live) I'd go so far to say its a moot point once EQ and compression enter the conversation. Are they different? From a voice coil stand point, it would appear so. One could argue the bigger difference would be with the transformer which has multiple impedances on the 545 and a single on the 57. As far as the leads to the transformer, the black was just a ground that was connected to a washer clip on the magnet assembly. It wasn't connected to the capsule in that no signal was going through it. After shure realized that it made no difference since the entire body was grounded, it was dropped. The black lead is still used on the 545 since the upper is plastic and non conductive. Thanks for bringing this up, its been a fun dip into the knitty gritty of these mics.

@@meistudiony the sm57 was released in 1965, not 1967. The sm58 was released in 1966

@@meistudiony “A lot of the variations and the basic design were before my time, but I did know the designer, Mr. Seeler. They were all variants of the original Unidyne III, designed about 1960. The patent didn't issue till 1966. The biggest change I know of was the switch to the aluminum voice coil in the 57. There were probably many minor changes in things like transformers. But the biggest difference from one to the next is the tuning. The capsule is multi chambered and the response is tuned by varying those chambers. Originally the last chamber was actually tunable by turning a little nut inside the capsule. Otherwise it's a function of things like felt density. The classical tuning was for a bass rolloff to compensate for proximity, and of course the +6 at 6K mid peak.” - some guy on GS.

@@meistudiony If the voice coil is different, the capsules are not identical. The voice coil is part of the capsule. That you would continue to call them identical after that basic fact has been established is bizarre

@@APMTenants the magnet assembly and diaphragm are identical. The coils are different. Thought thats what i said. Apologies.

Yeah. Its slight and once you hit any of em w eq/compression all bets are off.

I have one from the 70s and one from around 2018 or so, theres pretty much no difference. (no more difference than any two bought today or back then). So if anyone is selling this at a premium because its "vintage", you're not getting anything more special or different.

So the E signifies a canon or regular xlr connector. Ive never seen the M suffix (theyre more rare) from what i can tell the M has a different setting on the 3 way switch. Instead of BMS it has BMO (possibly off?). Other than that, likely the same capsule.

​@@meistudiony Thank you!