Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radio Shack "Vintage" Condenser Microphones...

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:36:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ok, now that you have all stopped laughing :)  , I have a pair of these
things.
They are late 70's early 80's and are pencil type mics that sort of look a
bit like Sony ECM series (I'm guessing here) of the same period.
They take a 1.5v AA battery and are unbalanced 1/4 inch connection.

Any mods?
Sleeper mics? (Like the Pro77 monitors?, Crown PZM's)
Complete Junk?

I remember using them as overheads on drums and close miked piano way, way
back when and at the time (Otari 8 track) I thought they sounded decent.

So what's the skinny?
Bigger battery?
Mods to balanced?

Hey, I'm bored and who would have thought a 1979 Marantz (actually
Superscope) receiver would fetch $700.00 on ebay?

--
Dana Larsen
(Leave one 6 and remove everything after to reply)
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 2:30:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dana Larsen <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ok, now that you have all stopped laughing :)  , I have a pair of these
>things.
>They are late 70's early 80's and are pencil type mics that sort of look a
>bit like Sony ECM series (I'm guessing here) of the same period.
>They take a 1.5v AA battery and are unbalanced 1/4 inch connection.

They are made with inexpensive back-electret capsules that may even have
been Sony ones.

>Any mods?
>Sleeper mics? (Like the Pro77 monitors?, Crown PZM's)
>Complete Junk?

I think they are complete junk, but you could probably make the capsules
work with Phil Rastoczny's PZM circuit if you want to try and get a
balanced output with remote powering.

>I remember using them as overheads on drums and close miked piano way, way
>back when and at the time (Otari 8 track) I thought they sounded decent.
>
>So what's the skinny?
>Bigger battery?
>Mods to balanced?

One of the problems with the cheap electret capsules is that many of them
lose their charge as they age. A Shure SM-81 purchased in 1975 should be
down less than 1 dB in sensitivity due to electret leakage, but a Sony
mike purchased at the same time will probably be unusable.

>Hey, I'm bored and who would have thought a 1979 Marantz (actually
>Superscope) receiver would fetch $700.00 on ebay?

It's a weird world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 7:25:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have one of these mics I think, except mine has an xlr connector. It
actually works really well on high hat.
Related resources
June 16, 2005 12:24:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

OK, my curiosity got me.

What do you plan to record with them?

malachi

"Dana Larsen" <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sKKre.182$Lg4.6@fe12.lga...
> Ok, now that you have all stopped laughing :)  , I have a pair of these
> things.
> They are late 70's early 80's and are pencil type mics that sort of look a
> bit like Sony ECM series (I'm guessing here) of the same period.
> They take a 1.5v AA battery and are unbalanced 1/4 inch connection.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:28:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"blackout420" <blckout420@aol.com> wrote in news:1118874311.860944.123490
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I have one of these mics I think, except mine has an xlr connector. It
> actually works really well on high hat.
>

I may have the same microphone. Mine is Realistic catalog 33-1080, says so
both on the box and on the microphone. While the microphone itself has a
male XLR connection, the supplied cable converts this to 1/4 inch TR (could
this resolve the reported discprepancy). I used it regularly (and wished I
had two--it was a parent gift, and parents saw no need for stereo to record
me playing piano. When I went back, it was no longer carried) until I got
a pair of AKG C1000S about ten years ago. The C1000S pair was quite a bit
better--and you know how bad folks here say those are!
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 1:49:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:28:04 -0500, Peter A. Stoll wrote:

> "blackout420" <blckout420@aol.com> wrote in news:1118874311.860944.123490
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I have one of these mics I think, except mine has an xlr connector. It
>> actually works really well on high hat.
>>
>
> I may have the same microphone. Mine is Realistic catalog 33-1080, says so
> both on the box and on the microphone. While the microphone itself has a
> male XLR connection, the supplied cable converts this to 1/4 inch TR (could
> this resolve the reported discprepancy). I used it regularly (and wished I
> had two--it was a parent gift, and parents saw no need for stereo to record
> me playing piano. When I went back, it was no longer carried) until I got
> a pair of AKG C1000S about ten years ago. The C1000S pair was quite a bit
> better--and you know how bad folks here say those are!

That's the beast!
Mine were the original model which was later replaced with the XLR model
from what I remember.
They actually do sound nice on high hats, sizzler cymbals and when micing
up an old upright piano for the clanky piano sound, ala Jerry Lee Lewis.
I didn't plan on using them for anything in particular and I haven't used
them in years, but I was just curious about them.


--
Dana Larsen
(Leave one 6 and remove everything after to reply)
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 5:00:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:30:37 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> One of the problems with the cheap electret capsules is that many of them
> lose their charge as they age. A Shure SM-81 purchased in 1975 should be
> down less than 1 dB in sensitivity due to electret leakage, but a Sony
> mike purchased at the same time will probably be unusable.

Is that why new SM81s sound harsh?
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 5:01:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Agent 86 <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:30:37 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> One of the problems with the cheap electret capsules is that many of them
>> lose their charge as they age. A Shure SM-81 purchased in 1975 should be
>> down less than 1 dB in sensitivity due to electret leakage, but a Sony
>> mike purchased at the same time will probably be unusable.
>
>Is that why new SM81s sound harsh?

No, the old SM81s sound harsh too. That's part of a deliberate design
decision to make the mikes more rugged, partly.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 10:26:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Dana Larsen" <dana_larsen66615kl4k3@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Sleeper mics? (Like the Pro77 monitors?, Crown PZM's)
> Complete Junk?


Hey... I have a half dozen of the Radio Shack (metamorphed Crown)
PZMs. There are a few sites with mods for those. I still use them on
closed lid piano every now and then. They aren't _complete_ junk. <g>

DM
June 16, 2005 6:12:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I had a pair that I sent off to that great eBay auction in the sky.

I never did find a use for them that I liked. They sure looked pretty,
though.

malachi

"Peter A. Stoll" <Lyn1Stoll_spamdel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9676C6086634DHaifa10Kulim07Michel@216.196.97.138...
The C1000S pair was quite a bit
> better--and you know how bad folks here say those are!
!