Once again we are not that different.
The me-62 cap is so far down the tube to make it impossible to do a
pzm. Just the way the thing is and nothing more.
I find my handling noise on the sass more related to mic cables than
the mic when the cable is where the sound comes from. If that makes
any sense and does not become redundant and obvious.
A mkh-110 is not that hard to rebuild in any shape you want. After
all, it is just a simple two npn transistor and two transformer
circuit. Most of the components are just caps for rf isolation
around the crystal.
--- In Walter Knapp <>
wrote:
> Rich Peet wrote:
>
> > The sass in stock configuration is a good ambience mic if you
have a
> > target with a good signal.
> >
> > The upgrades talked about here for the sass are only important
for
> > faint signal recording.
>
> I personally think that even with good signal it would annoy me a
lot.
> It's much more sensitive to handling noise than my modified SASS.
It
> should be ok mounted on a stand with the cables carefully bound in
> place. But I found it very untrustworthy hand held.
>
> Of course maybe I have a bad one. But it does sound ok when I can
avoid
> handling noise.
>
> > a ME-62 can not be used in pzm configuration in a sass because of
the
> > side slots and should not be attempted.
>
> In the SASS as I build it, those side slots would be sealed off
from
> sound by O-ring seals and 1/4" of delrin. I've not tried a ME-62,
but a
> MKH-40, which is both a cardioid when out free and has side slots
works
> quite well in the SASS.
>
> > A MKH-110 can be disassembled and built into a sass and the
switch
> > rewired so that a choice can be made between the 110, or the
stock
> > mics which are very nice and flat on louder signals and very wind
> > resistant.
>
> I agree, this could be done, using the same offset in the opposite
> direction on the boundary surface. Might get a little fiddly
producing
> some protection for the diaphragm, And you would have to disconnect
the
> capsule from the electronics, making the seal mount in the back of
the
> boundary tricky. When taking apart the MKH110 watch out to not
damage
> the hair thickness capillary in the back of the capsule. That's
> essential to it's frequency response according to a talk given by
> Sennheiser. And, since you would be changing things in the middle
of the
> RF circuit, you might also run into trouble that way. RF circuits
don't
> tolerate dimensional changes well. At minimum you would have to
figure
> out the tuning process for the RF.
>
> Personally I think it might be more sensible to redo Crown's
circuits
> and backplate and mount the MKH110 unmodified to have a hybrid.
It's
> less work. In either case it should be realized that this mod is
not
> reversible for the original mic housing, you have to bore holes
through
> the boundary surfaces. You would have to buy a new housing to
reverse it.
>
> > I don't think that Bob is the proper victim to test the rode mic
on.
> > We need someone who hits the trade shows to test drive this.
>
> I agree, and I told him so. What we need is someone who can get
review
> samples. Beginners should try and stick with known stuff.
>
> Walt
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|