"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Richard Knoppow wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
coffelt2 wrote:

I am currently using an old Turner microphone and like
the
way it sounds.
Also I am a fan of some of the older EV desk
microphones,
which still turn
up cheaply at hamfests. If you find a low-Z mike that
you like, there is
no reason you can't just stick a step-up transformer in
the base to drive
the Viking.

Which model Turner?

Model 252. Low-Z version of the 250 with the lift switch
(which I strongly
discourage the use of). If you were using a Viking II you
would probably want
the 250 or to use a step-up transformer.
--scott

My one and only Turner mic is a 999, a low impedance
dynamic. I came into a windfall of good impedance matching
transformers (UTC 01 Ouncers) so matching is no problem. Its
a decent mic but may not be representative since I had to
remove a dent from the diaphragm. This can be done with
sticky tape and great care. The mic sounds good, less rise
in the high end than my Electro-Voice 635. I think this is
probably the original sound.
Turner seems to be the only one of the original big
four makers of PA mics that did not survive. Astatic,
Electro-Voice, and Shure Brothers all managed to navigate
the vicissitudes of life.
American Microphone was another company who did not
survive. Their last line of mics was a valiant attempt to
break into the high quality broadcast and recording market
but their technology left a lot to be desired. I have a
couple of their high-end cardioid mics.
A friend had a recording made on his Ampex part of
which was done with an experimental American pressure mic
intended for high quality recording and another section with
a "Telefunken" mic, actually a Scheops 201-M. No comparison,
the American mic made all the instruments sound like they
were made of paper boxes. The Schoeps mic is the one that
actually established Telefunken's reputation and is the mic
used for the Mercury Records "Living Presence" series.
The cardioid used a ribbon element with a dynamic just
under it. It has decent patterns in one plane going
horizontally around the mic but, of course, there is no
match whatsoever in the vertical plane and very poor
directivity. Actually, Brush made a similar microphone in
the mid or late 1930s, essentially an RCA Junior Velocity
mic with a Brush crystal element fixed to the top of the
ribbon and facing up. I suspect it had much the same
problems. Brush used a rather complicated network to match
the two sections. I don't think they made these for long.


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL