Topic: powering at943's

[jerryfreak]

what sort of power do they want? SP's site says they run on plug in-power, or can be used with the phantom power adapter. in the specs it say sit wants 48V phantom at 4ma per mic (thats a lot for mics this size), i'm assuming that means with the adapter. If powering these caps directly, what 'plug-in' voltage do they want? and what is the current draw at that voltage

[ninjadave]

best powering option for these is 9v 3 wire battery box. you can't put 48v phantom to these unless its with the adapter and down converted to 9v if i am not mistaken. i assume you are talking about the sound pro CMC-8 mics which is the AT943 small body cap.

there are a lot of threads discussing the powering of the AT943 and the AT853 and all conclude that the 3 wire BB is the best way to go since this is a 3 wire mic.

you can do the 4.7k mod to them which would let you run them with a 1/8" plug into a standard 2 wire box like SP sells. you can also run with phantom but you need the At8533 adapter or similar PM4 module which brings the power back to 9v. this is a 3 wire setup as well (XLR). the other 3 wire option is mini XLR and there are boxes to find in yardsale or i think chris church makes them.

i would search 3 wire bb on here and you'll find loads of threads.....

ninjadave.

[Church-Audio]

what sort of power do they want? SP's site says they run on plug in-power, or can be used with the phantom power adapter. in the specs it say sit wants 48V phantom at 4ma per mic (thats a lot for mics this size), i'm assuming that means with the adapter. If powering these caps directly, what 'plug-in' voltage do they want? and what is the current draw at that voltage

The preamp I sold you will work with these mics. But you really should send it back to me so we can get it to work with your Schoeps...

[jerryfreak]

well, i'm actually trying to get it to work with a mic2496 for a fellow ts'er

while i dont expect you to support that product, if you know the voltage these caps want directly, and what the different color wires designate (white, red, ground), that would be helpful. I assume red=power, white = signal, or vice-versa? i know what voltages the mic2496 puts out when jumpered in different ways (although the mic2496 when jumpered down to 9V is actually 'bias' power on the same as the signal wire, so i'm guessing a 4.7K off of this common power/signal wire, connected to the power lead of the mic?)

i tried emailing len last week to no avail. anybody used at943 with a mic2496. Its got 48V phantom, but then the adapters are huge and its not very low-pro.

what sort of power do they want? SP's site says they run on plug in-power, or can be used with the phantom power adapter. in the specs it say sit wants 48V phantom at 4ma per mic (thats a lot for mics this size), i'm assuming that means with the adapter. If powering these caps directly, what 'plug-in' voltage do they want? and what is the current draw at that voltage

The preamp I sold you will work with these mics. But you really should send it back to me so we can get it to work with your Schoeps...

[jerryfreak]

FYI, searching '3 wire battery box' or 3-wire battery box' only brings up this thread. any links to further reading?

[Alchemy]

go here: http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,72994.0.html

3 wire powering is the way to be.

[Church-Audio]

FYI, searching '3 wire battery box' or 3-wire battery box' only brings up this thread. any links to further reading?

Use a pair of 10k resistors and a 9 volt battery with a 10uf poly cap and your set. You can run the mics two wire and they are all good to go let me know if you need any help.

[jerryfreak]

thanks guys, I'll do some homework!

[Church-Audio]

Check this thread out.

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,72994.0.html

[setboy]

EDIT: never mind. sorry

[Church-Audio]

go here: http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,72994.0.html

3 wire powering is the way to be.

Not always lol....   

EDIT I guess I did not say enough in this post.. So I am going to add to it.. WE NEED MORE COWBELL....

Is that better "SETBOY"

[setboy]

go here: http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,72994.0.html

3 wire powering is the way to be.

Not always lol....

i don't see any reason to be laughing at them. that just seems mean. 

[Javier Cinakowski]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

[setboy]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

never mind. you just don't get  it.............................

[Javier Cinakowski]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

never mind. you just don't get  it.............................

I do get it:

I would rather run:
AT933s/4.7k-mod(H/O)>9v Bat Box>AD-20>NJB3

Than:
AT933s(H/O)> jklab modified Samson PM4s>ps2 >AD-20>NJB3


To each their own my freind!

[Church-Audio]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

never mind. you just don't get  it.............................

I was not making fun of this guy.. AT ALL... relax man.. I think going to a three wire setup because its better then my mod is silly but that's just my opinion.. And we know what we say about opinions right... Its all good no need to blow this up into something its not..

Chris

[Alchemy]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

Just before you laugh at various powering set-ups, please make sure you first correctly identify the AT ES943 microphones as lavalier microphones.

[setboy]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

never mind. you just don't get  it.............................

I do get it:

I would rather run:
AT933s/4.7k-mod(H/O)>9v Bat Box>AD-20>NJB3

Than:
AT933s(H/O)> jklab modified Samson PM4s>ps2 >AD-20>NJB3


To each their own my freind!

Nope you don't get it.
I'm not talking about one piece of gear VS another. What I am trying to get at is, in stead of saying this
[/quote]
Not always lol....
[/quote]

You could add something to the conversion
 beside saying something that could be taken in a lot of different ways.

I was not making fun of this guy.. AT ALL... relax man.. I think going to a three wire setup because its better then my mod is silly but that's just my opinion.. And we know what we say about opinions right... Its all good no need to blow this up into something its not..

Chris

Chris, I like you and your gear sounds damn good for the price, so dont take this the wrong way. But what you posted helps no one.

Oh, and please don't tell me what to do.

[Alchemy]

Chris, no one is comparing mods. Remember, this entire time you were the one going around this forum posting that "your mod" does not work on the AT943 microphones. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that these microphones (of which there are two different types within the 943 series) are "good to go" on two wire powering. There are many times where the 943s have distorted in this set-up. I made the tapes so I know. So as you have told us that your mod does not work with these mics, 3 wire powering is the user's best option.

[Javier Cinakowski]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

Just before you laugh at various powering set-ups, please make sure you first correctly identify the AT ES943 microphones as lavalier microphones.

I am no expert, but this is fun discussions with you chaps!

I'll be happy to go into this again:  The 943 was not designed from the ground up as a lav mic...

The AT ES943 is a modification to an exsiting product (ES933).  The 933 was designed as a hanging choir mic.  Because of user demands AT decided to add a lapel clip groove to the 933 in order to be used as a lavalier microphone. This was not the original intent of this produc t line, but is useful in church situations.  A pastor can use his existing capsules for his hanging mics to use as a lavalier. 

A REAL lavalier microphone is designed to work well when mounted directly on a human body.  The 853/933/943 were not designed with this purpose in mind.  They are a distance microphone.  The lapel clip groove was only added as an adaptation of a current product so it could offer customers a more diverse product....

Now that we have crossed that bridge, does anyone need clarification as to why the resistor mods are just as effective as the 3-wire or phantom powering?

The bottom line is, and illconditioned has pointed this out, the AT phantom adapters use a similar resistor as Church does on the 4.7mod.  In either modification the capsules are seeing similar power....

[Javier Cinakowski]

As far as the 943 goes, they might not need the 4.7k, but the lowered sensitivity sends a lower signal to the preamp/recorder, which often overloads too....

Also, if using the 853 capsules with the 943 and adapter ring, the 4.7k does help.  Esspecially when using the microline capsules of either the 943 or 853(uni-line)

[Church-Audio]

As far as the 943 goes, they might not need the 4.7k, but the lowered sensitivity sends a lower signal to the preamp/recorder, which often overloads too....

Also, if using the 853 capsules with the 943 and adapter ring, the 4.7k does help.  Esspecially when using the microline capsules of either the 943 or 853(uni-line)

Yes because in the case of the 943 the distortion is happening in the diaphragm. Not in the fet. When you put on the 853 capsule * this capsule can Handel higher spl's for some reason * the distortion problem is back to the fet..And my mod will improve the max spl of the mics.

[Javier Cinakowski]

As far as the 943 goes, they might not need the 4.7k, but the lowered sensitivity sends a lower signal to the preamp/recorder, which often overloads too....

Also, if using the 853 capsules with the 943 and adapter ring, the 4.7k does help.  Esspecially when using the microline capsules of either the 943 or 853(uni-line)

Yes because in the case of the 943 the distortion is happening in the diaphragm. Not in the fet. When you put on the 853 capsule * this capsule can Handel higher spl's for some reason * the distortion problem is back to the fet..And my mod will improve the max spl of the mics.

that makes sense...

[Church-Audio]

As far as the 943 goes, they might not need the 4.7k, but the lowered sensitivity sends a lower signal to the preamp/recorder, which often overloads too....

Also, if using the 853 capsules with the 943 and adapter ring, the 4.7k does help.  Esspecially when using the microline capsules of either the 943 or 853(uni-line)

Yes because in the case of the 943 the distortion is happening in the diaphragm. Not in the fet. When you put on the 853 capsule * this capsule can Handel higher spl's for some reason * the distortion problem is back to the fet..And my mod will improve the max spl of the mics.

that makes sense...

Hence the reason why they dont need my mod it will not fix the problem with the diaphragm. But if people are using a 853 capsule they should consider doing my mod.

[Alchemy]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

Just before you laugh at various powering set-ups, please make sure you first correctly identify the AT ES943 microphones as lavalier microphones.

I am no expert, but this is fun discussions with you chaps!

I'll be happy to go into this again:  The 943 was not designed from the ground up as a lav mic...

The AT ES943 is a modification to an exsiting product (ES933).  The 933 was designed as a hanging choir mic.  Because of user demands AT decided to add a lapel clip groove to the 933 in order to be used as a lavalier microphone. This was not the original intent of this produc t line, but is useful in church situations.  A pastor can use his existing capsules for his hanging mics to use as a lavalier. 

A REAL lavalier microphone is designed to work well when mounted directly on a human body.  The 853/933/943 were not designed with this purpose in mind.  They are a distance microphone.  The lapel clip groove was only added as an adaptation of a current product so it could offer customers a more diverse product....

Now that we have crossed that bridge, does anyone need clarification as to why the resistor mods are just as effective as the 3-wire or phantom powering?

The bottom line is, and illconditioned has pointed this out, the AT phantom adapters use a similar resistor as Church does on the 4.7mod.  In either modification the capsules are seeing similar power....

Why did you post all that info that had nothing to do with what I posted? I am talking only about the AT 943ES microphone. It was only manufactured as a lavalier microphone. That was it's only purpose since the very first day it was "realeased" by AT.

It's right on ATs own website: http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/c008d27ad2e507b1/index.html4

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

[Church-Audio]

I see no problem laughing at phantom adapters or 3-wire setups !

 

Just before you laugh at various powering set-ups, please make sure you first correctly identify the AT ES943 microphones as lavalier microphones.

I am no expert, but this is fun discussions with you chaps!

I'll be happy to go into this again:  The 943 was not designed from the ground up as a lav mic...

The AT ES943 is a modification to an exsiting product (ES933).  The 933 was designed as a hanging choir mic.  Because of user demands AT decided to add a lapel clip groove to the 933 in order to be used as a lavalier microphone. This was not the original intent of this produc t line, but is useful in church situations.  A pastor can use his existing capsules for his hanging mics to use as a lavalier. 

A REAL lavalier microphone is designed to work well when mounted directly on a human body.  The 853/933/943 were not designed with this purpose in mind.  They are a distance microphone.  The lapel clip groove was only added as an adaptation of a current product so it could offer customers a more diverse product....

Now that we have crossed that bridge, does anyone need clarification as to why the resistor mods are just as effective as the 3-wire or phantom powering?

The bottom line is, and illconditioned has pointed this out, the AT phantom adapters use a similar resistor as Church does on the 4.7mod.  In either modification the capsules are seeing similar power....

Why did you post all that info that had nothing to do with what I posted? I am talking only about the AT 943ES microphone. It was only manufactured as a lavalier microphone. That was it's only purpose since the very first day it was "realeased" by AT.

It's right on ATs own website: http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/c008d27ad2e507b1/index.html4

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

Why cant we all just get along... I think we all know lots about these mics.. I think its better to try and help each other then fight I for one apologize that this conversation got so out of hand.

[Alchemy]

No one is fighting. At least I'm not. I think "translation" gets lost in the internet so that it appears we are getting angry, when really we are just having an "educated argument".

Now, I see you deleted the post, but there was some good info in there Chris! It would make sense for the AT943 on two wire powering to overload the analog gain stage on a preamp but...I know some other tapers have had issues with these mics on two wire powering too. And that was with three seperate recorders: a Edirol R-09, the iRiver H120, and a Sony MZ-RH1 (all 943>9 volt bat box>recorder. So I guess they are all just crap then? I don't know.

Personally, I was under the impression that three wire powering would always be superior to two wire because you are providing a full 4.5 volts across the FET, and avoiding that poor set-up of soldering the FET source to the ground wire.

[nameloc01]

Ughh.                     

[Javier Cinakowski]

Why did you post all that info that had nothing to do with what I posted? I am talking only about the AT 943ES microphone. It was only manufactured as a lavalier microphone. That was it's only purpose since the very first day it was "realeased" by AT.

It's right on ATs own website: http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/c008d27ad2e507b1/index.html4

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

I think you need to go back and read my post more carefully.  The 933 has everyhting to do with the 943 and is very realated to your post.  Your link is bunk, but if you do go to the ES943 site is says

"designed for quality sound reinforcement, professional recording, television and other demanding sound pickup applications"   The mention that it is "intended" to be worn on the clothing, but it wasn't designed from the ground up for that purpose...

As I said, the 943 is exaclty the same as the 933, except for the clip groove.  The 933 was not designed as a lav...  That is all I am saying...

[Javier Cinakowski]

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

That is no longer true.  The old "933" used the 853 capsules.  The current 933 uses the smaller capsules as well as the 943...

[Church-Audio]

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

That is no longer true.  The old "933" used the 853 capsules.  The current 933 uses the smaller capsules as well as the 943...

In the grand scheme of things who cares.. I have used all of these mics as lapel mics so have alot of sound engineers if it smells like a lapel mic talks like a lapel mic looks like a lapel mic it is a lapel mic So lets move on shall we?

Chris

[Alchemy]

Why did you post all that info that had nothing to do with what I posted? I am talking only about the AT 943ES microphone. It was only manufactured as a lavalier microphone. That was it's only purpose since the very first day it was "realeased" by AT.

It's right on ATs own website: http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/c008d27ad2e507b1/index.html4

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

As I said, the 943 is exaclty the same as the 933, except for the clip groove.

In terms of body, yes. But the 933 bodies contain the 853 capsules, and the capsules in the 943 bodies are completely different i.e. a 943 capsule, making the mics completely different.

There was a "4" at the end of the link, but if you take that out, it goes to the page. But you quoted from it anyway so...it's all right there...

No matter how you add it up, those 943s are lav mics. OK, as they say in the UK "Cheers". I understand your point, but I disagree. So let's agree to disagree.

[Javier Cinakowski]

In terms of body, yes. But the 933 bodies contain the 853 capsules, and the capsules in the 943 bodies are completely different i.e. a 943 capsule, making the mics completely different.

That is completely incorrect. They have the same body and capsule, just the length and termination of the cable is all that varries. 
 the 933 and the 943 both use the small 933 capsules.

In the past the 933 used the bigger 853 capsules with an adaptor ring (AT-ADAPT).

NOW, the 933 uses the small caspule.  When AT made upgrades to the ES line they made small capsules for the 933 and added the 943 (with lav groove) 

[Javier Cinakowski]

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

That is no longer true.  The old "933" used the 853 capsules.  The current 933 uses the smaller capsules as well as the 943...

In the grand scheme of things who cares.. I have used all of these mics as lapel mics so have alot of sound engineers if it smells like a lapel mic talks like a lapel mic looks like a lapel mic it is a lapel mic So lets move on shall we?

Chris

I've used lapel mics as boundry mics, but that doesn't make them boundry mics....  Or does it?

I am having fun hear Chris!  Don't rain on my parade!

[Alchemy]

In terms of body, yes. But the 933 bodies contain the 853 capsules, and the capsules in the 943 bodies are completely different i.e. a 943 capsule, making the mics completely different.

That is completely incorrect. They have the same body and capsule, just the length and termination of the cable is all that varries. 
 the 933 and the 943 both use the small 933 capsules.

In the past the 933 used the bigger 853 capsules with an adaptor ring (AT-ADAPT).

NOW, the 933 uses the small caspule.  When AT made upgrades to the ES line they made small capsules for the 933 and added the 943 (with lav groove) 

Still going.   This is getting funny...

Actually what you posted is wrong because...there is no such thing as a "933 capsule". In fact, when AT released this "943ES" model, they actually only created an omni and card element for it. At the same time, they came out with the 933, which was little more than a smaller body with an 853 capsule on top.

But again, you are going off track from the original topic on whether the 943ES mic is a lav mic or not...

[Alchemy]

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

That is no longer true.  The old "933" used the 853 capsules.  The current 933 uses the smaller capsules as well as the 943...

In the grand scheme of things who cares.. I have used all of these mics as lapel mics so have alot of sound engineers if it smells like a lapel mic talks like a lapel mic looks like a lapel mic it is a lapel mic So lets move on shall we?

Chris

I've used lapel mics as boundry mics, but that doesn't make them boundry mics....  Or does it?

I am having fun hear Chris!  Don't rain on my parade!

Parade? What parade? I proved that the 943 is a lav mic. The rest is just funny.

In fact, none of this really matters, does it? LOL...

[Javier Cinakowski]

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

That is no longer true.  The old "933" used the 853 capsules.  The current 933 uses the smaller capsules as well as the 943...

In the grand scheme of things who cares.. I have used all of these mics as lapel mics so have alot of sound engineers if it smells like a lapel mic talks like a lapel mic looks like a lapel mic it is a lapel mic So lets move on shall we?

Chris

I've used lapel mics as boundry mics, but that doesn't make them boundry mics....  Or does it?

I am having fun hear Chris!  Don't rain on my parade!

Parade? What parade? I proved that the 943 is a lav mic. The rest is just funny.

In fact, none of this really matters, does it? LOL...

You have proven that the ES943 is marketed as a lav mic.  However, I have shown strong evidence that the ES943 was a product variation of the ES933 and was not designed as a lav mic from the ground up.

Does it matter?  Sure.  Funny?  Absolutly.

There is no reason why we can't all share information here without getting emotionally involved. 

I could talk about this shit all day long.  That is my parade. 

The Audio-F'n-Technica Parade!

[Alchemy]

Sounds good to me! Just don't play with matches. You never know when you might get burned. 

[Javier Cinakowski]

Sounds good to me! Just don't play with matches. You never know when you might get burned. 

Touché

[Liquid Drum]

As far as the 943 goes, they might not need the 4.7k, but the lowered sensitivity sends a lower signal to the preamp/recorder, which often overloads too....

Also, if using the 853 capsules with the 943 and adapter ring, the 4.7k does help.  Esspecially when using the microline capsules of either the 943 or 853(uni-line)

Yes because in the case of the 943 the distortion is happening in the diaphragm. Not in the fet. When you put on the 853 capsule * this capsule can Handel higher spl's for some reason * the distortion problem is back to the fet..And my mod will improve the max spl of the mics.

This whole thread is confusing, lol. Anyways after reading this post from Chris I think I'm now understanding this whole 'Distortion' thing with the AT933/43 mics.

I'm guessing that to stop the diaphragm from distorting its best to use windscreens?

[Javier Cinakowski]

I'm guessing that to stop the diaphragm from distorting its best to use windscreens?

It is best to use a different microphone.

Windscreens can reduce some low frequency problems (like wind and plosives), but they will not reduce the powerful slam of a kick drum pumping through a PA....

[Church-Audio]

Windscreens might help. The wind could be what is the problem here. It might explain why my test at 1k showed this mics have very good spl handling. I dont know its worth a try. I dont think these mics are junk by any means. I want to be careful here I dont want people getting rid of these mics!

[soundpro]

Hello Everyone:

I thought I would take a moment to clarify a few things here. There are in fact several versions of the mics you are all talking about (AT933, AT943, ES933, ES943, etc).

OK, here we go.....first, the "ES" prefix stands for 'Engineered Sound' and is AT's line of mics that are only available to installed sound contractors and OEM customers (FYI, The Sound Professionals is an OEM, Professional Products and Consumer products customer of AT's, not an installed sound contractor). The "AT" prefix is just a standard Audio Technica product.

Anyway, to keep this simple, the oldest version was the 933, a hanging mic, and did not have it's own set of mic elements. It used a flared adapter and used the 853 elements, which made it only slightly smaller than the AT853.

Then, a few years ago, AT created 3 new elements for the mic (Omni, hyper cardioid and cardioid) and the new mic had a little groove added to the body to accept a clip. At this time, they added a new version with a thinner cable, so there was now a lapel version (with thinner cable) and a hanging version (with heavier cable).

Then, about a year ago, they redesigned it again (along with the AT853, now U853) and improved the RFI rejection and made them RoHS compliant.

So, what we now have is the lapel version (lightweight cable) and the hanging version (heavier cable) of the ES943 (our part # SP-CMC-8) and the old standby AT853 (now U853), which is our part # SP-CMC-4U. Lastly, the close cousin, which does not get talked about much here, but is actually our best selling cardioid mic, the AT831, which is our part # SP-CMC-2, which has not changed in the 10 years we have sold it.

Lastly, all of these mics work on the same powering principals, they are all 3 wire mics. Their maximum high SPL performance is realized with this power supply:

http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/AT8532

next best is a phantom adapter like this:

http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/NADY-CBM-40T

next is a battery module:

http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/category/310/mics


Hope this clarifies things.

Best Regards,

Chris Carfagno
The Sound Professionals, Inc.
3444 Sylon Blvd
Hainesport NJ, 08036
800-213-3021
609-267-4400
609-267-0054 fax

[soundpro]

Hello:

I think I did :-)

The best way to power them is with the AT8532 power supply.

Chris

[Church-Audio]

And if you don't feel like spending any money and want a DIY 3 wire battery box that will work just as well as any AT box. You can see this thread on how to build a simple battery box that will properly power these mics as well. http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,72994.0.html And I have also noticed that you can use a 9 volt battery box and wire these mics 2 wire and get the same performance as three wire with out the 12 db loss in signal that 3 wire gives you.

Chris

[illconditioned]

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

That is no longer true.  The old "933" used the 853 capsules.  The current 933 uses the smaller capsules as well as the 943...

OK.  I've bought and sold (too) much AT853 related gear...

The AT943 and ES933 both take the "small" capsules.
The AT853 and related all take the "larger" capsules.
The '933 models ship with either small capsules, or the larger ones, using an adapter.
Same goes for the different series of gooseneck mics, except the small diameter ones always seem to use an adapter and the bigger capsules.

It you got a choice, there is a mild preference for getting the '943 or '933, since you can run both capsule types, small for stealth, and larger for a bit better sound (IMO).  FYI, the adapters are really cheap at soundprofessionals.com.  They were something like $5 each.

As far as powering goes, I can't imagine the 933/943 capsule itself overloading before the (2-wire setup) FET.  Have you verified this in your workshop, Chris?

  Richard

[ninjadave]

the 933/943 MAY overload for some but i ran these for years and at the loudest shows in the world and there was never any specific distortion i got anywhere....sometimes it wasn't the "cleanest" recording and that probably was just me and my ears but these can surely handle all the spl you can throw at them in 2 wire with a 9v BB.

i recently switched to the 853U just to see if they are any better (3wire)....we'll see. have not run them yet. ciao.

ninjadave.

[Church-Audio]

I never said anything about the AT853 or AT933 (which use the AT853 caps).

That is no longer true.  The old "933" used the 853 capsules.  The current 933 uses the smaller capsules as well as the 943...

OK.  I've bought and sold (too) much AT853 related gear...

The AT943 and ES933 both take the "small" capsules.
The AT853 and related all take the "larger" capsules.
The '933 models ship with either small capsules, or the larger ones, using an adapter.
Same goes for the different series of gooseneck mics, except the small diameter ones always seem to use an adapter and the bigger capsules.

It you got a choice, there is a mild preference for getting the '943 or '933, since you can run both capsule types, small for stealth, and larger for a bit better sound (IMO).  FYI, the adapters are really cheap at soundprofessionals.com.  They were something like $5 each.

As far as powering goes, I can't imagine the 933/943 capsule itself overloading before the (2-wire setup) FET.  Have you verified this in your workshop, Chris?

  Richard

I am not sure what "Chris" your talking too... but I will assume its me lol..

Here is the thing.. I have measured these mics wired 2 wire at 114db at 1k the distortion was 0.5% the exact same distortion level as my 4.7k mod. NOW... what might be happening is the distortion is at low frequencies... That is the only thing I can think of as you know finding a transducer that has low distortion at 114 db at say 50 hz is a pretty tall order and I would have to do a free field measurement.. Not ideal for me my nabors would kill me.. So I am not saying that these mics dont overload. I am saying they dont seem to have any issues when wired 2 wire at high frequencies.. So if the distortion does exist I think it must be something to do with the way the diaphragm is tuned or it might be that there is such a small gap between the diaphragm and the back plate that the diaphragm is bottoming out at high spl. This of course would not happen at high frequencies. Only low.. Not to many company's test there microphones at low frequencies for distortion at high SPL because the test is almost impossible to do with out introducing distortion * sympathetic resonation *  So I dont know. I have talked to the guys at the NRC in Ottawa they said they cant even test for distortion below 100hz... This ultra low distortion might be a reason why some people dont have any issues and some people do.

Just a theory.

I am more then willing to test anyone's 900 series mics for free if they want to send them to me. In my tests again at 1k with a 9 volt supply terminated with a 10k bias resistor into a 10k load these mics did not distort at 1000Khz.

Now I did not do a test with an 853 capsule onto a 900 series body.. maybe I should do that and see what happens.. But it might just be that the electrical output of the capsule is higher on the 900 series then the 800 series.. I am not sure. Again all I know is that I could not get them to distort.