(I adjusted it by feeding it into my mixing desk and recording it, not on the rig) I spent a lot of time playing around with the mounting, as even small changes drastically changed the frequency response. So I took out the tailored Dynamic Mic Capsule and put in an electret capsule. yet they have all the excellent transient response that you get from a proper high-voltage Condenser Mic.ģ0 years ago I used to go on a local 160m AM net, using my FT101E, which produces really good AM. These cheap Electret Capsules are more than adequate to give a flat frequency response across the limited 3kHz bandwidth. but I wouldn't dream of using one of my Studio Mics on any of my rigs. It makes me laugh all these people using expensive Studio Condenser Microphones on an SSB rig ! I'm a Broadcaster and former Sound Engineer, and have my own recording studio. (although I haven't found any real difference between ANY Electret Capsules) Goldmine Electronics (California) : 5 for $1.49 (limited time sale)Ĭlick to expand.I agree.
#PANASONIC WM 61A CAPSULES PROFESSIONAL#
Professional Audio uses 48V phantom power. Omnidirectional electret condenser microphone cartridge Doesn't need a high-voltage bias from the outside like ordinary condenser microphones. Using the Panasonic WM-61A as a Measurement MicrophoneĬonsists of a high voltage internal electret membrane, metal electrode and a Field Effect Transistor (FET). Sheets/Panasonic Electronic Components/WM-61A.pdfĭIY Fever using the flat-response WM-61A ECM Rob D.Panasonic exited the Electret Condensor Microphone (ECM) market in 2014,īUT these quality units (WM-series) continue to appear on the Surplus market. The WM-61A's have a reputation for very flat frequency response which is also consistent with their edge in high frequency repsonse in this test.
If anything, this placment would favor the EM158's being brighter, but they are not. The two mic stations are about 8 feet from each other with the EM158's being perhaps three feet closer to the sound source. To what extent is the lack of or presence of the cardboard baffle responsible for the subtle tonal differences? Its hard to say with the data we have to work with, but I suspect not very much. It was easy to hear with the aid of this suggestion that the WM-61A's do indeed have more high frequency brilliance which is indicated in the right sonogram with louder (dark blue) harmonics at 5.6KHz, 8.5KHz and 12KHz and a little more (red) at 18Khz as well. After studying the sonogram, I put on the headphones and listened to the #2 strikes. The lessened response to low frequencies with the EM-158's might have contributed to your impression of the strikes standing out more. The greatest difference I hear between the mic capsules is in the low frequencies where the WM-61A's have a stronger response. They sound pretty similar to me despite the baffle discrepancy. Both mics are powered from the Hi-MD's PIP input. The folks at Sound Professionals use the Panasonic WM-61A capsules in their mics so I substituted the manufacturer's model number to be more precise. I added a sonogram of just the 2 o-clock strikes from the two rigs/capsules to add to the data. You made good choice in taking your two samples from the same test so that the capsules' responses to the exact same strikes could be studied.
0 kommentar(er)
