Print

Print


If you decide to go with a used re20 you will need to keep in mind that used units often suffer from a degradation of the internal foam that serves as part of the pop filtering system that these mics are known for. When the foam rots it destroys the capsule as well. Getting the capsule replaced from the manufacturer costs around $225.00. It is a very common problem with these microphones. I have owned two older examples of this model and it was an issue with both of them. Luckily they are still available new.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 21, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Jim Long <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I hope the following long ramblings are helpful regarding microphone choice.
> 
> Tom Fine suggested the EV RE20 and (much older and out of production) 666
> and 667.  These are good suggestions.  The 667 was a hand-picked 666 mic
> (for smoothest response) accompanied by a fairly elaborate preamp that
> provided gain of 5 to 20 dB in four steps and a variety of equalization
> curves.  The equalization included bass and treble boost and cut, plus a
> presence peak on/off between 3 and 4 kHz.  I don’t think these EQ
> variations would be useful for your project and I think that the chances of
> finding a mic/preamp combo with a working preamp are very slim (though I
> haven’t tried).  (The mic itself should be fine, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Stamler wrote that the EV ND267 had a rising response peaking about
> +6dB at around 8,500 Hz, probably too sibilant for good disc cutting.  I
> can’t disagree with this, though at least the rise is fairly smooth,
> starting at 1 kHz.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that a bigger problem with a handheld cardioid/directional vocal
> mic is the “proximity effect” that produces low-frequency response that
> varies substantially with working distance.  In the case of the ND267A (and
> the earlier ND267) the “close response” (distance not specifically stated)
> at 100 Hz (the lower end of the vocal range) is 8 dB above 1 kHz.  The “far
> response” (again, distance not stated but probably one or two feet) at 100
> Hz is 8 dB below 1 kHz.  This is a wide and potentially troublesome
> variation.  Entertainers use this effect to “work the mic” and produce
> variations in vocal tonality that sound good to them.  But it seems to me
> that these variations could wreak havoc with a Presto recording machine.  If
> one could maintain a working distance of 1.5 ft or more to more-or-less
> eliminate the low-frequency response variations of proximity effect, the
> far response has significantly rolled off low frequencies, probably making
> the recording sound “thin.”  (The ND267 is −3 dB at 130 Hz, −8 dB at 100 Hz
> and −18 dB at 50 Hz; the ND267A is −30 dB at 50 Hz.)
> 
> 
> The beauty of the RE15, RE20 and 666/667 mics is that, while directional,
> their internal construction is such that proximity effect is significantly
> reduced, so that variations in working distance have little effect on tonal
> balance.  Years ago, EV trademarked this construction, calling it
> Variable-D™.  The RE15 that Paul Stamler mentioned is also a Variable-D mic.
> While no longer made, the RE16 is.  The RE16 is an RE15 with a larger pop
> filter, which would eliminate so-called vocal P-pops when recording the
> human voice and instruments with similar noises up close.  (The RE20
> includes extensive pop filtering as part of its design.)  The RE20 has
> flatter LF response than the RE15: flat to 70 Hz and about 2 dB down at 50
> Hz.  The RE15 is flat to 180 Hz, 3 dB down at 80 Hz and 8 dB down at 50 Hz.
> That said, this is probably sufficient for your Presto machine and the
> voices and the frequency range of The Lost Brothers and Sheesham and Lotus
> and Son.  Dynamic mics with steel cases (like the EVs) are very resistant
> to physical damage, so used units made many years ago should perform as new.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the RE15/16, EV used to make two other less-expensive variations
> of the same design, the RE10 (related to the 15) and the RE11 (related to
> the 16).  Off the production line, somewhat larger response variations
> around nominal were allowed.  I do not think these variations would unduly
> influence your recordings, so a used RE10 or RE11 could be useful to you.
> 
> 
> 
> One more point.  Omnidirectional mics are inherently free of proximity
> effect and resistant to P-pops, meaning that in a fairly dead and quiet
> recording environment (where the lack of directionality is not very
> important), they might be a good choice.  One economical one is the EV
> 635A, still made.  While I wouldn’t record a pipe organ with this mic, it
> certainly covers the range of a Presto machine.  Its low-frequency response
> is similar to that of the RE15 family: flat to 180 Hz, 3 dB down at 80 Hz
> with a slow roll-off below (7 dB down at 50 Hz, a lot more low end than the
> ND267 “at distance”).  For high frequencies, there is a very broad rise of
> less than 3 dB between 4 kHz and 12 kHz.  I don’t this would be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Long