Topic: SE RN17 Microphones (Neve content)

[Matt Quinn]

Never heard of these things before, but the RN17 looks like a pretty nice taper mic. Co-designed by Rupert Neve.

http://www.seelectronics.com/se-rn17-rupert-neve-mic

$1999 for a brand new matched pair. Samples sound awesome.

[Gutbucket]

Big transformer wart on a pencil mic body.  Interesting.

Few points against-
No frequency response or polar diagram charts available.
Untruthful BS marketing:

However, a tiny diaphragm usually results in a lack of low-frequency response. How to counter this?

That's a myth and simply false.  Low frequency response is not linked to diaphragm size.  As a microphone manufacturer they should (and presumably do) know better.  However, their marketing department is obviously in control here, not their technicians who probably cringe when they read that.

The amplifiers contain all the voodoo here, but I wonder what the capsules sound like without them (via PFA, Tinybox, some other active system)

[yug du nord]

I think that SE has been around a while..  but I've never heard Neve associated with them before.
I could be mistaken though.  Kinda goofy, but interesting design.

[Gutbucket]

LF rolloff is inherent to the degree of pressure gradient operation. What mechanism partly makes it a function of diaphragm size?

[Matt Quinn]

Ah, bummer. Still the samples sound very good to my ears, marketing-speak aside. Will be curious to see if any of these make their way into the field.

[cybergaloot]

    Acoustical operating principle: Pressure condenser
    Directional pattern: Cardioid
    Frequency range: 20 Hz - 20 kHz
    Sensitivity at 1 kHz into 1 kOhm: -44.5±0.5dBV/ Pa(6mV/Pa)
    Rated impedance: 200 Ohms
    Rated load impedance: 1 kOhm
    Equivalent noise level, CCIR*: 23 dB
    Equivalent noise level, A-weighted*: 18 dB
    Signal-to-noise ratio, CCIR* (rel. 94 dB SPL): 69 dB
    Signal-to-noise ratio, A-weighted* (rel. 94 dB SPL): 74 dB
    Maximum SPL for THD 0.5%**: 150 dB
    Maximum output voltage: 4V
    Dynamic range of the microphone amplifier (A-weighted): 131 dB
    Supply voltage (P48, IEC 61938): 48 V ± 4 V
    Current consumption (P48, IEC 61938): 3mA
    Matching connectors: XLR3F
    Weight: 248 g
    Diameter: 44 mm (transformer), 17mm (capsule)
    Length: 200 mm

[Gutbucket]

I understand that.  Path-length determines the dipole corner frequency.  The degree of pressure gradient operation determines the slope.  But it's not actually the size of the diaphragm but rather the requirement of having a capsule housing large enough to provide sufficient path length through the delay chamber / lowpass resistive filtering labyrinth.  Someone could design a microphone using smaller diaphragm in a larger housing with a similar path-length / resistive filter response to what a  larger diaphragm would use, providing a similar corner frequency.  No?

It's the same path-length aspect which defines the dipole roll-off corner-frequency of a dipole loudspeaker.   Different size drivers mounted in the same size baffle, providing an identical path-length around the baffle, will have the same dipole roll-off corner-frequency.  The difference is that a loudspeaker also needs sufficient driver area and displacement to move air.  A microphone only senses the pressure differential across the diaphragm and sidesteps that power complication.