Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Philips VE1064 Mic with Schoeps m934 capsule - Anyone know anything about it?  (Read 1932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 0vu

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Hello all, this is a bit of a long shot but I thought I'd try it anyway.

I've been using the virus enforced quiet time of an all but dead live recording scene to clear out some of the darker corners of my stores. Amongst many other oddball bits and bobs, I've found an old mic that I'd forgotten about and which defies any of my attempts to find out about it using Google - a Philips VE1064. There can't be many mics these days which produce no useful search results at all but, unless I'm missing something, this seems to be one.

Intriguingly, it appears to be fitted with a modified (and completely unbranded so could be a copy/fake but on a Philips branded mic I'd be surprised) Schoeps m934 omni-cardioid switchable capsule. Modified in that it has a 3-screw mount rather than the standard coarse threaded mount. A close look suggests that this might actually be an adapter but I dont want to try anything too forceful to try and remove it. The output is on a 3-pin small Tuchel connector, and a bit of careful work with a very small screwdriver reveals that the insides are solid state (no surprise there as a 3 pin plug would make a valve interior unlikely on a mic this old). I'm slightly intrigued by what appears to be a variable capacitor installed in the top third of the circuitry - the tuning screw is unobstructed and there's a hole in the inner metal screening (?) tube which matches the tuning screw so I'd guess that maintenance access is needed to it but I'm not sure what it's for.

I do have the necessary adapters to plug this mic into a preamp but I'm reticent to do it just yet as I want to make sure that I won't kill it by powering it. Guessing that it's a 1960's item, there's no guarantee on what powering it needs - normal P48 is possible but so is P12 or 12V T-power. I'm also wondering whether, given that Philips branded other people's mics, notably Schoeps, this could be based on one of the early Schoeps CMT series that used negative 8.5V Phantom and RF biasing for the capsule (the variable cap and what appears to be a large coil or coils just below the capsule mount make me wonder about this).

I've looked everywhere (including asking Schoeps - they didn't know anything about it other than to verify that the capsule looked like one of theirs) but can't find anything about the CMT20/CMT200 or a suitable powering arrangement for these so I thought I'd ask here - does anyone have any pictures of the interior of these mics or a schematic for them? Or any information on a Philips VE1604? The mic I have appears to be in great condition and I'd like to try it so any help or ideas would be gratefully received.












« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 10:55:05 AM by 0vu »

Offline H₂O

  • (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5707
  • Gender: Male
Looks like a special adapter connects the capsule to the body as it is screwed in place with 3 tiny screws positioned around the body (similar to the CMT 2/3/5 series) but it is a separate piece of metal unlike the CMT series


The capsule and body sleeve will probably come off by unscrewing the bottom three screws - The capsules will probably separate from the body using the top three screws


Pictures of the actual insides would help identify how this mic works.  I would think it is a Schoeps built body based on the font and fact the metal matches (with exception of the capsule adapter plate).  I would think the mic is no newer than 1974-75 based on the font as well - I have owned and seen a bunch of CMMT mics from this time frame and the font changed in around this time to the modern bigger font.  From the capsule arrangement (older style m934) I would think it's earlier - prob no newer then 1971-72.


I would guess it's m934b style cap with a adapter plate screwed onto the bottom and a metal ring around the bottom that the 3 screws attach too.



Music can at the least least explain you and at the most expand you
LMA Recordings

List

Offline 0vu

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Thanks for taking a look. When I asked Schoeps (though only at the time sending a single exterior picture)  what I got back was:

"... this looks like a SCHOEPS M934A capsule but the amplifier part looks strange, maybe some non-SCHOEPS model adapted by someone in the past. The M934A was fixed by a 20mm coarse thread, the picture shows a three screws mount. Rather strange."

I didn't persue it at the time as I was busy and just put the mic away and forgot about it.

The three small screws around top of the body do indeed secure the capsule. When they're screwed in to release it, it appears to have what looks like an adapter ring, screwed to the capsule below the shiny base ring that appears on my other M934A capsules via three screws which go into the capsule vertically (so they aren't visible at the sides). I have some other M934A, B and C capsules on various mics and none has this so I'd guess that it was done for or by Philips, maybe to match something they already had. I haven't tried to remove this adapter as the screw holes are filled with lacquer and I don't really want to chip them out if I don't have to.

The capsule is connected to the body via a single sprung centre pin and the body metalwork. Between the underside of the capsule and the body is a spring washer.

As you suggested, the body sleeve slides off after the capsule fixing screws and the three screws around the bottom are screwed in.

Under the outer body sleeve is a second sleeve, held in place by six more, even smaller, screws - three at top and bottom. This inner sleeve has a hole lining up with the tuning screw of the variable capacitor.

When the fixing screws are screwed in the sleeve can slide off and the circuitry is visible.

I've taken some pics of things in pieces and internals, below:


















Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3170
  • Gender: Male
This is a Philips-branded Schoeps CMT 25. The CMT 20 series were Schoeps' first solid-state microphones, with germanium transistors in a bridge-type RF circuit with transformerless output. The first few that were ever sold were made near the end of 1963, and the series as a whole (including two subsequent variations, the CMT 200 and CMT 100) continued through 1967.

The CMT 20 microphones were the first phantom-powered condenser microphones on the world market by a few years. The principle of Schoeps' circuit was the subject of a German patent dated February, 1963, and I found and scanned the internal test sheets for when the first microphones were produced, not long after that patent filing was accepted. (The Neumann KM 84, which some people would like to claim was first, wasn't introduced until 1966.)

The CMT 20 series ran on 8.5 Volts delivered through a matched pair of 270-Ohm feed resistors with the positive supply pole grounded, i.e. the reverse of the usual polarity today, and obviously at a lower voltage. The operating current was about 6.5 mA. The sensitivity of the microphone--its output voltage for a given sound level--was more typical of dynamic than condenser microphones. A later variant, the CMT 200 series, was furnished with an additional output stage that made the amplifier's wiring even more crowded, but it raised the signal levels to more typical condenser-microphone levels. The amplifier type CMT 100 was developed for parallel powering, and was also based on the RF-bridge circuit.

It's pretty nightmarish point-to-point wiring, no? I doubt that they were able to make and QC more than one or two of these amplifiers in a day. And the capsules weren't interchangeable, despite being removable; each amplifier was hand-tuned to one particular capsule, and if the user swapped capsules, the microphone often wouldn't put out a signal. The company even put a warning in the catalog that the capsules weren't interchangeable (unlike the company's very successful M 221 B series, which was still being made at this time).

By 1967 low-noise silicon FETs began to be available in production quantities, and at the start of 1968 Schoeps discontinued its RF designs in favor of the new CMT 30, CMT 30p and CMT 40 series, which were distinctly more reliable as well as being simpler to manufacture and maintain. Among those amplifier types, the CMT 30p was the most nearly direct replacement for the CMT 20 or 200, while the CMT 40 replaced the CMT 100; the CMT 30, which used the now-standard form of 12-Volt phantom powering with the negative pole grounded, was new. Finally around 1969 the CMT 50 amplifier for 48-Volt phantom powering was added to complete the series.

--best regards

P.S.: For the cardioid setting, a plexiglass ring was required, as shown in the attached catalog photo; that's why the front end of the capsule housing is indented.

P.P.S.: This capsule type is indeed derived from the M 934 capsules of the M 221 series, but its design and construction are from about ten years later, and it was called the MKT 25. That's more or less an internal name; capsules for this series weren't sold as separate items. -- The mechanical adapter at the bottom of the capsule looks original to me; it exactly matches one that Schoeps has in the display case in their lobby in Karlsruhe, as does the circuitry in your excellent photos.

If this microphone is functional (which would be quite remarkable) do NOT remove the three screws near the pattern selector or attempt to disassemble the capsule any further unless you are prepared to give up that functionality permanently. The amplifier works by means of a dual tuned circuit, one branch of which includes the membrane and backplate as a tuning element. The balance is more delicate than it really should be in a professional product in my opinion; this wasn't a series of microphone that lived up to the expectations for reliability that we think of today, and it is one of the first older series that the company stopped servicing--when they failed, the company would instead offer you a good deal on a later model.

In other words, I would consider it a "collector's item", all the more so if it works. But it's not a microphone to rely on for any actual recording, beyond the possible curiosity value of doing so (which I can fully understand).

P.P.P.S.: If you look at the flat, ring-shaped surface surrounding the spring-loaded contact pin that points from the amplifier toward the capsule, is there a number engraved on it? If so, may I ask what that number is on your amplifier?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 11:06:20 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline 0vu

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
David, Thank you so much for all this information; it's way beyond what I'd hoped to discover. Schoeps really should pay you to write a book!

I do have some m934 capsules with the plexiglass rings so I could try one on this mic if it turns out to work.

Don't worry, I've no intention of disassembling this any further than I have already, whether it works or not. I know better than to speculatively open Schoeps capsules, especially switchable ones; there's far too much going on mechanically in a very small space for me to want to get involved with that. Before I opened up the amplifier, I'd had thoughts of tracing out the circuit in case it needed any work but I gave up that plan when I saw the point to point wiring and complexity of the circuitry. It must have been a nightmare to build and QC. I can understand why they'd be keen to move on from this design as soon as it was practical to do so.

I might see if I can get an 8.5V positive grounded phantom power supply made up as I'd like to try it out, if only out of curiosity. I have quite a lot of Schoeps mics (just over 60) ranging from M221 and m222 plus various CMC from some quite early CMC5D up to some CMC1L, with an assortment of capsules and accessories, and some V4U. All of them are working tools but a CMT25, albeit in Philips guise, is a nice one to have as a collectable item - even more so if it works.

There is a number engraved on the contact ring - 88 (pic below) - and just visible inside the base of the capsule, under the transparent plastic piece, is the number 9447 (just about visible in one of the capsule underside pictures above).

Thank you again for taking so much time with this. It's much appreciated.

« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 10:51:59 AM by 0vu »

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3170
  • Gender: Male
Thanks for the kind words. Actually I have been working with (and sometimes at) Schoeps for the past few years on their company history. They have a major anniversary coming up--the company will have been founded 75 years ago in March of 2023--and I am indeed expecting to write something for them for that; I'm already sketching out parts of it.

In the meantime, there's been a mostly-weekly series of posts about the company's product history on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, for which I've been the primary author, although we've re-used some older material as well, to the extent that it checked out historically. I don't know how to direct people to those social media postings, since I'm not on any social media myself. They're posted under the Schoeps name in some way, though, and I think the Instagram posts are the "reference" versions while the other two are cut down from those.

--The example of CMT 25 that Schoeps has in their display case has "28" engraved where yours has "88". I don't know what that number represents, and would like to! In the old days Schoeps used to have several internal serial numbers for each part of the microphone; one capsule might have a serial number on the housing and another, different one (or even two other, different ones) on various parts inside. Before (and while) they made the transition to all transformerless amplifiers, for a number of years they wound their own output transformers in-house, and those were each given a serial number as well.

--I am very glad that you gave up the idea of tracing the amplifier circuit. There were a few different versions of it, but you can get a general idea of what's going on from the sketch shown in the materials from the U.S. distributor back then, "International Electroacoustics" (= the late, lamented Mr. Albert Grundy). Basically it's a comparator between a fixed oscillator and a variable oscillator that uses the capsule as its tuning/detuning element.

Normally I don't geek out so much about this stuff except in the "Team Schoeps" thread (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=192489.msg2356721#new), where I assume that people have some tolerance for it.

--best regards

P.S.: Again my hat is off to you for the quality of your close-up photos.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 12:19:34 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3170
  • Gender: Male
Oh, and about suspecting this of being some kind of counterfeit -- capsules are way harder to get right than functionally passable amplifiers. All the counterfeit "Schoeps" microphones from eastern Europe in the 1960s were cheap microphone bodies made to work with Schoeps capsules. The classic case is the Hungarian-made bodies for the M 221 B series. Those were sold with genuine Schoeps M 934 B capsules, which had been bought from Schoeps by a company in Vienna and then shipped to Hungary for resale. During the "cold war", Austria was officially non-aligned, and companies located there could have business dealings with both sides (thus the large number of spy novels set in Vienna, which also hosts several U.N. agencies for the same historical reason).

I've never heard of anyone counterfeiting a Schoeps capsule prior to the giant wave of imitations from the far East, which of course is still going on. You can take apart genuine capsules all you want, and still not be able to make one that sounds convincingly like the original. You can even have copies of all the original drawings and specifications. Without a knowledge of the exact production and testing methods that were used, it's a one-way deal; you can't clone a capsule beyond a certain point. This has sometimes proved to be a problem for legitimate manufacturers, when they've tried to resurrect an older type of capsule after the people who used to make it had left the company. Again, Vienna comes to mind ...

--best regards
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Online EmRR

  • (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Ok, another RF condenser for the books!   I had a suspicion right away with the number of components and the tuning cap.  Would certainly be great if it works. 

Sennheiser, AKG, and Schoeps....any other RF types I’m forgetting?  Someone at GroupDIY has done an RF mic project with good results, kind of interesting to read through.  The roadblock to following Sennheiser is a lack of data from capsule manufacturers regarding diaphragm tension, though we now apparently know Schoeps and AKG didn’t concern themselves with that part. 

https://groupdiy.com/threads/diy-rf-condenser-mics.71586/
« Last Edit: May 13, 2021, 10:08:16 AM by EmRR »
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, KMR 81i, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN, lots of other studio appropriate choices
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50, portable MOTU based multitrack DAW for client work

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3170
  • Gender: Male
I don't know of any other condenser microphones from central European manufacturers that used RF circuitry. Neumann's first solid-state microphone (the KTM) was introduced in 1965, by which time low-noise silicon FETs were already available. So its audio circuitry didn't have to be RF-based--although being powered at as low as 7.5 Volts, it contained an RF-based DC converter to produce the capsule polarization, as has been common ever since.

> The roadblock to following Sennheiser is a lack of data from capsule manufacturers regarding diaphragm tension, though we now apparently know Schoeps and AKG didn’t concern themselves with that part.

I don't understand--how can any manufacturer not be concerned about diaphragm tension? It's a major parameter determining the resonant frequency, which is an essential part of the acoustical design--although in a condenser microphone, once the capsule is fully assembled, the resonance has been damped to the point where it has no direct effect any more (i.e. it isn't audible or even measurable).

On the contrary, what Schoeps does to ensure correct diaphragm tension in their capsules is one of those things that I have to be careful about what I say outside the company, even though I only know the outline of the procedure. Of course in earlier times there was less precise control over this as well as other physical parameters of capsule construction; tolerances in general were quite a bit wider than they are today, i.e. if the published curve said "plus or minus 2.5 dB" the odds in the 1950s and early 60s were that in any given batch of capsules, both limits were really reached.

Plus there usually were minor, or sometimes more than minor, production changes by all manufacturers within the lifetime of any given type or series. As long as those didn't absolutely require the specifications or the published curves to be revised, the incentive for a manufacturer (especially if they dealt with the then-all-powerful central broadcasting organizations in Germany, France and/or Switzerland) was always to keep their published specs and curves the same even if on average, the capsule or microphone now had a somewhat different sound quality. The process of getting "type approval" from those organizations was expensive and time-consuming. And even if a production change was worth bragging about, it cost something to update your catalogs and spec sheets and get new ones printed, back when printed materials were the main means of promoting companies and their products.

I think that that's actually one key to why some "vintage" microphones have the following that they do--if you have some number of the same type to choose from, the much greater variety among their actual performance characteristics means you're more likely to find one that stands out to you for your tastes and purposes. (The age of the microphones also plays a part in this.) But famous producer or engineer X would sooner commit murder than trade his favorite U 47 or M 251 for any other producer or engineer's favorite U 47 or M 251.

That's also a big reason why, with few exceptions, the major manufacturers don't bow to requests that they re-issue their own past "greats" even if they could do so--there's no guarantee AT ALL that producers or engineers would accept them as equivalents for their own favorite, individual mikes of the same model.

--best regards
« Last Edit: May 13, 2021, 03:48:28 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Online EmRR

  • (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
> The roadblock to following Sennheiser is a lack of data from capsule manufacturers regarding diaphragm tension, though we now apparently know Schoeps and AKG didn’t concern themselves with that part.

I don't understand--how can any manufacturer not be concerned about diaphragm tension? It's a major parameter determining the resonant frequency, which is an essential part of the acoustical design--although in a condenser microphone, once the capsule is fully assembled, the resonance has been damped to the point where it has no direct effect any more (i.e. it isn't audible or even measurable).

Sorry, not clear.  Sennheiser MKH capsules are lower tension and less flat response, for higher output, and are equalized to be flat.  They claim an additional noise improvement.   It isn't possible to shop off the shelf capsules for similar specs, as those aren't addressed.  AKG and Shoeps don't appear to have pursued that particular path with RF mics. 
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, KMR 81i, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN, lots of other studio appropriate choices
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50, portable MOTU based multitrack DAW for client work

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3170
  • Gender: Male
Ah, thanks; I understand now. I'm no expert on AKG microphones in general, but as far as Schoeps' amplifiers go (with one exception, the CMC 6 xt), TTBMK the goal has always been flat frequency response, i.e. the amplifier isn't designed to compensate for non-flat response in the capsule. (In Schoeps' CMC 6 xt amplifier, the goal is to have substantial response up to 40 kHz, particularly for sound effects in which a recording is to be "slowed down" by a factor of 2 or more to lower the pitch. It isn't based on any theory that human beings can hear sounds above 20 kHz, for which there is still no repeatable experimental evidence, even though plenty of folks have tried to prove it for longer than any of us has been on this planet. Thus no particular attempt was made to make its high-frequency response flat. It even has a slight response rise below 20 kHz.)

--As you say, Sennheiser's MKH series involves this type of equalization as part of the design strategy. It's not a mere touching-up; they'd be completely unusable without it. And since 1960 Neumann has used high-frequency filtering for various microphones based on its K 67 / 87 / 870 capsule series, which can be harsh sounding if not toned down a few dB on the top end.

There's nothing wrong with that approach in my opinion, but it sometimes leads to misunderstandings. When Neumann introduced the (solid-state) U 87 as a replacement for its vacuum-tube U 67, many engineers compared the sound of the two microphones and thought that they were comparing "tubes vs. transistors" on a fair basis. And yes, they could hear a difference: The transistorized microphone sounded brighter, more "hi-fi". However, the equalization curves built into the two amplifiers were distinctly different, with less high-frequency reduction in the newer model. So a lot of people who honestly believed that they were "just going by what their ears had told them" got the wrong idea altogether.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2021, 07:11:40 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline GerardL

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Ok, another RF condenser for the books!   I had a suspicion right away with the number of components and the tuning cap.  Would certainly be great if it works. 

Sennheiser, AKG, and Schoeps....any other RF types I’m forgetting?

Not European, but the Røde NTG3/NTG5/NTG8 are all RF-biassed.

Offline GerardL

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
I might see if I can get an 8.5V positive grounded phantom power supply made up as I'd like to try it out, if only out of curiosity.

There was an 8 V power adapter available on eBay. It could be configured for positive or negative ground, providing 8 V from standard P48 phantom power. I got a couple for my Sennheiser  MKH 110. Search "Phantom adapter module for Sennheiser MKH 110, MKH 104, MKH 404, MKH 804" or variants on that text. Be aware its just a bare, smd block on a tiny pcb; you have to wire it into a cable and housing. But it does work.

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 408
  • Gender: Male
The classic case is the Hungarian-made bodies for the M 221 B series. Those were sold with genuine Schoeps M 934 B capsules, which had been bought from Schoeps by a company in Vienna and then shipped to Hungary for resale. During the "cold war", Austria was officially non-aligned, and companies located there could have business dealings with both sides (thus the large number of spy novels set in Vienna, which also hosts several U.N. agencies for the same historical reason).

I apologize to Ovu for adding a comment about history that doesn't apply to microphones. This is interesting about the trade in Austria, I did not know it. In the sixties and later,  Austria was neutral, but it belonged firmly to the western block. There was an Iron Curtain on the Hungary and Czechoslovakia border with Austria. But I think that trade in consumer goods between the Eastern and the Western Europa was limited mainly by finances in the sixties, not by propaganda. Of course, only people whom the communist regime trusted could travel and trade with the West. These people were representatives of state-owned enteprises (all companies belonged to the communist state). But the West did not care about low quality goods or currency from the Eastern block. The states of Eastern Europe had very little western currency, so there was nothing to buy. Probably Hungary bought Schoeps capsules from Vienna because they had better contacts in Austria than in Germany or maybe they had more Shillings than Marks. That they only bought Schoeps capsules is not surprising. Only the price for the capsules themselves had to be huge for people in Hungary in these times.

The only "neutral" state between these two blocks was Yugoslavia. They had communism, but they were not under the direct influence of the Soviets. It was the only state that did not have the Iron Curtain and it was possible to cross the border to the West block there. Many people were escaping from the Eastern block through Yugoslavia. But it was rather later and not everyone could get to Yugoslavia. Before, people were overcoming the Iron Curtain and many died there.

But the fifties were completely different. In the Soviet Union and in the east european countries that were under it's influence, there was Stalinist terror, it was a matter of bare life. The sixties and later were fun compared to the fifties. I know personally someone who escaped as a child with parents from Czechoslovakia to Austria through the Iron Curtain in the 1950. At that time, there was not much escapes from Czechoslovakia to Austria, because behind the Iron Curtain was the Austrian part administered by the Soviets. So it was still necessary to move through this part to the part that was administered by the USA or Britain. People were escaping from Czechoslovakia to the West Germany mostly in fifties.
It is also a very interesting history of how Austria managed to avoid division into eastern and western part and get rid of the influence of the Soviet in the half of fifties. I think that Austria and Czechoslovakia were only two states that had a opportunity to join West block. The other eastern states could not decide for themselves. Austria was successful but Czechoslovakia fell into the Eastern block few years after World War II.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 02:19:00 PM by kuba e »

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3170
  • Gender: Male
kuba e, when the government in your country has no trade agreement with the government in another country, you can't have an enforceable contract or business arrangement with any entity in that country. Such was the case for West Germany with respect to Hungary. Yes, the state agencies in Hungary and other Eastern-bloc countries bought certain necessary materials and supplies from Western sources--and as you say, "hard" currency was at a premium in those countries--which is a big part of why its allocation was so tightly controlled by political authorities.

But direct, ongoing, non-governmental East/West business arrangements were impossible on a day-to-day basis because of the broader lack of legal protection, and not just for financial reasons. For example if you ordered something from that country and you paid in advance as you might expect to have to do, but the goods never arrived, or if they arrived but were substandard in quality, you'd have nowhere to file a complaint. If you were buying a product that you wanted to resell or distribute, your customers couldn't count on getting service for that product; the foreign entity would be under no enforceable obligation to them whatsoever.

I visited East Berlin twice while the wall still existed. Each time I was required to change at least 25 West German marks for the same number of East German marks, which of course was a huge win for the government right there. (I changed more money on the second visit, because by then I realized that I would want to buy books, and you couldn't exactly use your MasterCard in an East Berlin bookstore.) What surprised me, though, was that you couldn't leave the country with any East German currency whatsoever--not even a penny as a souvenir. Nor would they let you surrender your leftover change--you either had to spend it, give it away, or leave it somewhere when you hoped no one was looking (as I may or may not have done ...).

Austria definitely was a Western European country culturally, but it was officially non-aligned and had mutual recognition and trade agreements with all the other countries in the region. That was the key difference. The company in Hungary that built the amplifiers and power supplies for the Schoeps M 934 B capsules marked them up and made a profit from reselling them. This in turn enabled them to pay the company in Vienna to order the next batch of capsules for them, and so on. There's nothing inherently dishonest about that. The only dishonesty comes from the dealers or individual sellers since then, who have told false stories about what those microphones are.

--best regards
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 10:46:36 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.058 seconds with 38 queries.
© 2002-2021 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF