<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Oddball dynamic mics of olden days	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/</link>
	<description>information and ideas about audio history</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 22:38:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ivana		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-429433</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ivana]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 22:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-429433</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have Sennheiser MD, works great. Love the sound.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have Sennheiser MD, works great. Love the sound.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: chris		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-338261</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:01:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-338261</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-338223&quot;&gt;Victor Gray&lt;/a&gt;.

hey victor.  i actually did use it a bit.  this is a very old article.  i bought a 2nd one (which was tough - they are v v rare) and it sounded totally different!  As it stands its not getting much use but i do agree w you, at least this first one i had sounds v good.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-338223">Victor Gray</a>.</p>
<p>hey victor.  i actually did use it a bit.  this is a very old article.  i bought a 2nd one (which was tough &#8211; they are v v rare) and it sounded totally different!  As it stands its not getting much use but i do agree w you, at least this first one i had sounds v good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Victor Gray		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-338223</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Victor Gray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 08:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-338223</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Try the Turner 510 again, it&#039;s wonderful but can be affected by impedance loading. Less than 300 ohms or more than 1000 ohms and they sound lifeless and veiled. But give them the right load and they&#039;re warm and detailed with a natural feeling to the sound .... I love mine!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try the Turner 510 again, it&#8217;s wonderful but can be affected by impedance loading. Less than 300 ohms or more than 1000 ohms and they sound lifeless and veiled. But give them the right load and they&#8217;re warm and detailed with a natural feeling to the sound &#8230;. I love mine!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: chris		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-325597</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-325597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-325596&quot;&gt;Marius Müller&lt;/a&gt;.

its either an XLR3-F, a three-pin Amphenol, or a tuchel.

good luck

c.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-325596">Marius Müller</a>.</p>
<p>its either an XLR3-F, a three-pin Amphenol, or a tuchel.</p>
<p>good luck</p>
<p>c.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Marius Müller		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-325596</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marius Müller]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-325596</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I was very interested in reading about your Microphones. A Shure PE 54 was my first Microphone in thr 60s. I lost it and got it back in 2012. But now i have no Cable that fits into the 3-pole connection. Can you hwlp me?
This would be a great thing!
Greetings and god bless
Marius Müller]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was very interested in reading about your Microphones. A Shure PE 54 was my first Microphone in thr 60s. I lost it and got it back in 2012. But now i have no Cable that fits into the 3-pole connection. Can you hwlp me?<br />
This would be a great thing!<br />
Greetings and god bless<br />
Marius Müller</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-258629</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-258629</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[American D4TS
Do you know the difference between the D4T &#038; S model.
Using mine on amateur radio AM and sounds great!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>American D4TS<br />
Do you know the difference between the D4T &amp; S model.<br />
Using mine on amateur radio AM and sounds great!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Luke Pacholski		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-224837</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Luke Pacholski]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:14:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-224837</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;This is the hi-z version of the Unidyne III… which is the forerunner of the SM57. This is actually a really good sounding mic, but since it’s hi-z, it’s a pain to use. I have an SM56, which is the balanced version of this thing, so this is kinda redundant.&quot;

A few minor points (also to Rick&#039;s comments):

- The PE54 was Hi-Z only, but other versions (PE54D, PE54SH) were switchable to Lo-Z, just like the 545. I&#039;m not 100% certain, but I think in those cases the differences may have just been branding and what the default impedance was set to (or in the case of the Amphenol connector mics, what cable shipped with them).

- As far as I know, the SM mics were closely related to the 5xx and PE mics, but weren&#039;t quite the same. Shure says today that they use different voice coils. I haven&#039;t determined yet if that&#039;s always been the case or not (trying to find out), but today both the 545/565 and SM57/SM58 are in production and have differences. The SM56 was just an SM57 with integrated stand mount and the ability to switch between Lo-Z and super-Lo-Z. The 546 was the 54x version of the SM56 - balanced XLR, stand shock mount, etc.

It can get quite confusing; I&#039;d have to count them all up, but I think there were at least a dozen 544/545/546/PE54 variants over the years, depending on if they had an integrated stand mount or not, switch or no switch, Lo-Z/Hi-Z/dual, gooseneck, Ampehnol/XLR/hardwired, etc. Not all were available at the same time, but the catalogs from the &#039;60s show about a half dozen models (three 544 versions, 2 or 3 545 versions, 546).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This is the hi-z version of the Unidyne III… which is the forerunner of the SM57. This is actually a really good sounding mic, but since it’s hi-z, it’s a pain to use. I have an SM56, which is the balanced version of this thing, so this is kinda redundant.&#8221;</p>
<p>A few minor points (also to Rick&#8217;s comments):</p>
<p>&#8211; The PE54 was Hi-Z only, but other versions (PE54D, PE54SH) were switchable to Lo-Z, just like the 545. I&#8217;m not 100% certain, but I think in those cases the differences may have just been branding and what the default impedance was set to (or in the case of the Amphenol connector mics, what cable shipped with them).</p>
<p>&#8211; As far as I know, the SM mics were closely related to the 5xx and PE mics, but weren&#8217;t quite the same. Shure says today that they use different voice coils. I haven&#8217;t determined yet if that&#8217;s always been the case or not (trying to find out), but today both the 545/565 and SM57/SM58 are in production and have differences. The SM56 was just an SM57 with integrated stand mount and the ability to switch between Lo-Z and super-Lo-Z. The 546 was the 54x version of the SM56 &#8211; balanced XLR, stand shock mount, etc.</p>
<p>It can get quite confusing; I&#8217;d have to count them all up, but I think there were at least a dozen 544/545/546/PE54 variants over the years, depending on if they had an integrated stand mount or not, switch or no switch, Lo-Z/Hi-Z/dual, gooseneck, Ampehnol/XLR/hardwired, etc. Not all were available at the same time, but the catalogs from the &#8217;60s show about a half dozen models (three 544 versions, 2 or 3 545 versions, 546).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: chris		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-132957</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-132957</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Great stuff rick, thanks.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great stuff rick, thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: rick chinn		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-132941</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rick chinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-132941</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Shure sold the PE microphones thru music stores. Part of their rationale was to keep the music stores from stepping on dealers who sold the other mikes (like the 500-series mikes, or later the SM mikes).  Yes, these things were high-z only, and they clipped the wires on the transformers inside to make sure you couldn&#039;t convert it later. The PE54 that you show can be converted by removing the internal transformer and wiring the cartridge directly to the XLR connector. The result isn&#039;t quite the same as an SM57 or SM56, as I believe that transformer overload is part of the charm of these mikes, especially on snare drum. The output level isn&#039;t as hot, either, but hey, it&#039;ll make audio.

EV did something similar with their PL lineup. There were rumors that the PL mikes were mikes that weren&#039;t quite good enough to be in their regular lineup, but I never confirmed this, and I worked for one of their divisions at the time. The PL mikes were only sold in music stores.

The Altec 660 looks like the &quot;salt shaker&quot; mike that they (and WECO) made, but the p/n for the salt shaker is 633. I&#039;ll have to look this one up to see what the difference is.

The Shure 777 is a crystal microphone (7xx numbers are crystal), and it is the first microphone I ever bought, back around 1964. I added an FET impedance converter to it, ala a condenser mike, so that I could use it with low-z balanced inputs. It was still a crystal mike. I still have it.

The Shure Commando was a very rugged controlled magnetic omni microphone.  This is Shure&#039;s tradename for a controlled reluctance microphone, confirmed by Shure&#039;s website. A single-coil guitar pickup is a sort of controlled reluctance transducer, with the string disturbing the magnetic field surrounding a coil of wire. In the microphone, the microphone&#039;s diaphragm is coupled to a moving armature that sits in a magnetic field and a coil of wire. These were commonly found in paging systems, at carnivals, and in supermarkets. They weren&#039;t terribly expensive, $22.64 at Allied Radio in 1967, compared with $49.98 for the 545.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shure sold the PE microphones thru music stores. Part of their rationale was to keep the music stores from stepping on dealers who sold the other mikes (like the 500-series mikes, or later the SM mikes).  Yes, these things were high-z only, and they clipped the wires on the transformers inside to make sure you couldn&#8217;t convert it later. The PE54 that you show can be converted by removing the internal transformer and wiring the cartridge directly to the XLR connector. The result isn&#8217;t quite the same as an SM57 or SM56, as I believe that transformer overload is part of the charm of these mikes, especially on snare drum. The output level isn&#8217;t as hot, either, but hey, it&#8217;ll make audio.</p>
<p>EV did something similar with their PL lineup. There were rumors that the PL mikes were mikes that weren&#8217;t quite good enough to be in their regular lineup, but I never confirmed this, and I worked for one of their divisions at the time. The PL mikes were only sold in music stores.</p>
<p>The Altec 660 looks like the &#8220;salt shaker&#8221; mike that they (and WECO) made, but the p/n for the salt shaker is 633. I&#8217;ll have to look this one up to see what the difference is.</p>
<p>The Shure 777 is a crystal microphone (7xx numbers are crystal), and it is the first microphone I ever bought, back around 1964. I added an FET impedance converter to it, ala a condenser mike, so that I could use it with low-z balanced inputs. It was still a crystal mike. I still have it.</p>
<p>The Shure Commando was a very rugged controlled magnetic omni microphone.  This is Shure&#8217;s tradename for a controlled reluctance microphone, confirmed by Shure&#8217;s website. A single-coil guitar pickup is a sort of controlled reluctance transducer, with the string disturbing the magnetic field surrounding a coil of wire. In the microphone, the microphone&#8217;s diaphragm is coupled to a moving armature that sits in a magnetic field and a coil of wire. These were commonly found in paging systems, at carnivals, and in supermarkets. They weren&#8217;t terribly expensive, $22.64 at Allied Radio in 1967, compared with $49.98 for the 545.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: chris		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-35235</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=2185#comment-35235</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-35104&quot;&gt;Curtiss Matovich&lt;/a&gt;.

feel free to email me a pic.  i don&#039;t do facebook.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.preservationsound.com/oddball-dynamic-mics-of-olden-days/#comment-35104">Curtiss Matovich</a>.</p>
<p>feel free to email me a pic.  i don&#8217;t do facebook.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
