The AM Forum

Am trying to get D104 to do ptt for me.  The D104 that I have has what looks to be a 2 transistor preamp (9v battery)and also has a toggle switch on base.  The toggle switch installation looks a little mickey-mouse, but was probably factory.  Mic cable is a sheilded coax with a red and black pair outboard of the sheild.  Looks like there's been a few in here before me playing around, but not too FU.

So I got this thing all hooked up and no ptt.  Seems the black wire was cut and just hanging loose.

What's got me stymied here is the amount of wires coming into the base from up above.  looks like  a sheilded pair for the audio, and then a half dozen small guage.  Blk, wht, red w/purple stripes, drk blu, red/wht, grn/wht.  Looks like the red/wht goes to switch on bottom labeled R&E, which I think means relay & electronic.


Ok, so any info would be good here.  Don't know if schematic available on web???

One other thing, and most important.  Should I even bother with trying to get the big chrome switch on the D104 to operate, or should I just swap out the little toggle switch on the base with a two pole?  Use one pole for ptt, and the other to power up the preamp?

73
NEO


PS, thanks to Rene - MVP, and Bob - TAX for help so far.  Have done the TAX audio mods and gotten FB audio reports with the D104

Tried a lookup on the Web, and darned if I couldn't find a schematic for it.

IIRC, the switch in the neck is a 3-or-4-pole.  One pole takes the 9V negative to ground to engage the amp on Transmit; one pole switches the audio input of the rig to ground on Receive, and to the amp on Transmit; one pole switches a common wire [taken to ground on the Electronic setting, I believe] between Speaker on Receive, and Transmit on, well, Transmit [on Relay setting the common goes to the cable].  [Disclaimer:  This is from very fuzzy memory, so anyone with a diagram feel free to confirm or correct me!]

I did, however, find this wiring code for the cable:

White: Audio
Shield: Ground
Yellow: ?
Blue: Relay common [see above]
Red: Transmit
Black: Speaker

Hope this is of some help; best I could do from work.   :mrgreen:

Also...get the PTT bar working, even if you have to do a complete rebuild of the mic.  A D104 is not a D104 unless you can "choke" it. :badgrin: [I've not been fond of Astatic's PTT "base bar" on the newer models.]

What is the lastest on the D 104?   I've heard that Astatic was sold to, or is now, CTI Audio......I called them about a year ago and they had no more replacement cartridges avaivable for the D 104 altho they had new mics for sale..Something was said about discontinuing the D 104.......I think someone on this board lives near the factory and has a relative working there..(.Conneaut, Ohio?)  Inquiring minds want to know........73       Steve

NEO,

BAMA has some info.
http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/astatic/

73's
     Craig

I have a JPEG of the schematic.  Would you like me to mail it to you?

Jon

Jon,

Please Email schematic to yzordderrex@verizon.net if it isn't too much trouble.

73
NEO

It should be in your in box momentarily

A few years ago I saw a mic for sale at a hamfest. It looked like a D-104, but upon close inspection it turned out to be an exact copy, made in Japan, with some off-brand name.

Since someone made a D-104 clone, I wonder if they might also make clones of the cartridge. I have never seen the Jap 104 clone advertised anywhere.

As many 104's as there are out there, you would think someone would offer an aftermarket cartridge if Astatic has decided to discontinue manufacture. The technology is well known and the mic has been in production since 1933.

Speaking of eBay... :grin:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48695&item=5752742787&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

The D-104 clone is an American Electronics 95-328.  According to a long time friend who formerly worked at Astatic, Astatic took American Electronics to court over the infringement and won the case against them.  It ended American Electronics from selling any more 95-328s.

Since there was no attempt to sell the microphone as an Astatic D-104, and AE merely copied the appearance, I'm wondering under what basis Astatic won the suit. I'm no legal expert by any means.  

I previously worked for a well-known product safety testing lab and it was quite common for submissions to my lab by competing companies to make copies of each others products and not be faced with litigation since there was no copying of trademarks or brand names.  Unauthorized use of brand names or trademarks is counterfeiting, but that did not occur in this case.

Since Astatic eventually was faced with the inability to obtain the raw materials to produce any more crystal cartridges, leading to the discontinuance of the D-104, I feel that they probably should have formed an alliance with the Japanese manufacturer that produced the 95-328 for American Electronics.  I guess they shot themselves in the foot instead.  Now no one makes a D-104, a similar clone, or original type replacement cartridges anymore.

I suppose that some enterprising Chinese manufacturer could probably produce a reasonably close copy of the D-104 crystal cartridge, in its original size with all of its original sonic characteristics, but with relatively low demand they probably don't have the financial motivation to do so.

Pictured is the American Electronics 95-328, not the D-104.



 

I bought a final edition D104 Silver Eagle at Dayton about 15 years ago. It came in a display case. I have never opened the box. It is a true shelf Queen. The Astatic people were set up inside Hara. The fellow I purchased it from told me that the tooling to make the components was worn out, and the low demand didn't justify the expense of retooling. So it is just a story of not enough demand to support the cost. There is a final edition on Epay right now.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIB-Astatic-Final-Edition-Silver-Eagle-D104-Sealed-In-Box-/300832404095?pt=US_Radio_Comm_Microphones&hash=item460b02327f

Some D104 schematics that I've scrambled around over the years...:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b9tha5izsan9p06/vrf22oaqAl

This, I believe is the most common amplifier used in the D-104 mics.

(http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/vv62/mikeinkcmo/Radios/D-104/radioastatic10_zps360eb889.jpg)

If this is not your particular mic, at this link (http://s670.photobucket.com/user/mikeinkcmo/library/Radios/D-104?sort=3&page=1) I have approximately 15 schematics and and pages of print information on the various D-104 mics.

HTH

Mike

One of Mine has a copy pasted on the inside of the base plate. Thought they all came that way, but maybe not.

After reading your post I went and looked at mine.  Some had schematics, some didn't, no conclusion here.

When mine died from the heat, I replaced the element with that from a EV-635A dynamic glued into an aluminum donut plate as a 'stopper'.

Sounds FB, prolly never go bad.  Looks a lot like what's in the Turner 99 construction, looks stock outside.

73DG

What kind of rig are you planing to put the mic on? I have found that on tube radios a D104 works better without the pre amp. I usually just jump it out.  Unless you are looking for that background audio effect.

One of the problems with starting up a thread after 8 years being dormant. The thread was re-started because WB2CAU added a post about a D-104 clone. One would think the original poster has moved on to other projects after 8 years.

Well since someone asked the question and the thread is opened again I will throw my 2 cents in.

I have a collection of D104's and I use them with just about every rig I have. The original Astatic bipolar preamp is not very good and does not supply the very high impedance the element wants to see. I use a simple source follower (MPF102 or equiv.) "preamp" in each stand. It is really not a preamp but more an active impedance matching circuit. The D104 elements want to see a very high impedance for proper operation. Preferably 5 megs or more. I typically use a 7-10 meg "gate leak" resistor. The source following has a low impedance output and matches just about anything. It works well with today's 600 ohm mic input rigs as well as my Ranger with high impedance input. Of course in the case of the Ranger or any other high impedance input rig you would not really need the source follower but it does not hurt to have it in there. If you do run the D104 raw to a tube type rig it is a good idea to raise the grid leak to 5-10 megs. Most have a 1 Meg or less grid leak.

Power for the FET can come from a battery using an available switch contact on the D104 or I use the 8 volts available on all modern rigs mic connectors. I added an 8 pin mic connector to my Ranger wired in Kenwood pinout with 8 volts from an internal regulator.

The circuit is simple but if anyone needs it I can attach it in another message.

No 'Ham' rigs per se.  All TX are HB, more along the lines of 30's or vintage BC gear.

All have a hard 600Z  +4dB input, driven by a soft limiter/compressor from an audio preamp.

73DG

It's generally not a good idea to necro threads. Just start a new one.

Here's a simple FET-based matching circuit for the D-104.

http://w1cki.net/D104schem.htm

The D104 "preamp" I use and the Astatic D104 schematic.

I never found it necessary to bypass the element although you may need to if you have RF issues.

Moderators:
Can the AMFONE software clean out old posts over a certain age? Or if the thread is over a certain time; someone wanting to bring it back up would get a message to start a new thread.

What exactly is the 'problem' with adding to an 8 year old discussion anyway?  The information I added was discovered long after the last post was made and I thought I had something to share that was informative.  The subject matter has not expired and other posters have continued the original topic with good input to the discussion. Many of the posters were not participants on this site when the thread was started in 2005.  The topic is new to them.  

Why is it a sore point to the moderator and the administrator?

I don't get that either. Maybe adding a disclaimer like "I know this is an old thread but..." will keep you out of radio prison. Sri fer the hijack Jack.

I always randomly restart conversations I had 8 years ago. Sometime I restart conversations I wasn't even involved in. Doesn't everyone?  My friends and coworkers love it.

I think it pays to keep old threads available.  Over time, some go semi-viral caused by people doing Google searches - or searches on AmFone.  We just don't know which subjects will become hot.  Some get referenced on other sites like QRZ and get momentum.

I believe there are a few threads on this site that ended at about 2,000 hits and later went on to gather over 10,000+ from external hits or from newcomers to this site.


T  

Still sorry for the hijack. I love impedance converters.

Thinking about this today. Some people have almost total recall and probably do not think it strange to pick up on a moldy subject because it's new and shiny in their memory.

Others have a different filing system.

This is the message you get when a thread has not had a post in 60 days:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 60 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Cleaning out old posts is probably not a great idea since many posts, especially in the technical forum, have a lot of great information. The QSO section probably has considerably less long-term information value but there's still some good info there if you can find it. The QSO section threads, at times, tend to be more rambling in nature with sometimes multiple dialogues going on about somewhat different topics unrelated to the original poster's topic.

The "problem" or "issue" with resurrecting old threads is that new posters will respond to the earlier posts months or years after the original posters have moved on. Many times, the original posting date which is under the title header in each post. Ex:Reply #3 on: April 03, 2006, 09:36:24 AM doesn't ring any bells.

 In Eric's posting, he had some great info there. Even I didn't know that at one point some manufacturer actually was marketing a D-104 clone. If I was posting the info, I would have started a new thread, "D-104 Clone is Real" (or something like that) and would have referenced this original thread with a link and a mention about Don's comment years ago about a D-104 clone. The possible discussion would move on from there. As it turned out, after Eric's posting, all we had was a bunch of postings about D-104 schematics and no further discussion about this clone D-104. If members wanted to read the original 2005 D-104 thread, they would just click the link. Actually, if you love reading about your D104, there are over 200 separate threads where  D104 and D-104 are mentioned or discussed on the forum.

The last thing we want to do is try to manipulate or selectively remove the knowledge posted by so many over the years. That's how stuff gets lost. I used to think dragging back an old thread was the result of a timid poster. Maybe sometimes it is. More often it's more a case of folks spending too much time online instead of on the air, honestly. It takes much longer just to search the archives than to start a new thread. It's not a matter of whether it 'hurts' anything to do it, it's just a back-asswards way to make a new post IMO.

I also found Eric's info very interesting and well worth having here. I just think the best way to post it is not to hunt around for some old D-104 thread to tack it onto, but rather to simply start a new thread. As Pete said, if it somehow relates to a previous thread (really though - doesn't everything we discuss?), it's simple enough to reference the original thread(if you really feel the need to go did up a dead one) or start off by saying "Someone previously mentioned a Japanese clone of the D-104. I came across one [or photos of one], thought you might find it interesting".

It would be nice if we could auto-lock them after a period of time, but the software doesn't appear to allow for that. Thankfully, very, very few members do it.

8 years, though....I think you're now the record holder, Eric. Congrats. Not the most ridiculous, though. That would go to the guy who pulled back a 4-5 yr old thread about a group of us meeting on 7.160 after the foreign broadcasters had vacated. His reason for pulling this thread back? To say "I've been hearing more AM on the bands lately". You cannot make this stuff up! [queue music Styx: Too Much Time on My Hands]

Fear not, though - Eric will be appropriately pummeled for this transgression, at the 'PJP BBQ before NEAR-Fest next month. We'll make him drink Budweiser. Oh, wait - he already does! ;D

Perhaps I should clear up a misconception.  I did not search the AM Fone archives for D-104 posts before adding to the 2005 thread. 

To start off, I purchased the AE 95-328 on eBay a few months ago.  I thought it would be a nice collector's piece to own.  I was also interested whether the cloning was beyond appearances and if it held up in performance copying as well.  I'm highly impressed with the copying job that the Japanese manufacturer did.  I got curious about whether there was any more detailed information online about the court case Astatic brought against AE.  I don't even know what year it took place.  I was hungry for information.

So, I did a Bing search for D-104 clone.  This is the result: http://www.bing.com/search?q=D-104+clone&pc=MOZI&form=MOZSBR

Right now, you will note that the second from the top is this very thread.  Coincidentally, I happen to frequent this site, because my AM friends hang out here.  So, I clicked on the link, read the old thread (that I don't recall reading in the past), and added my two cents (and some photos) on the topic. 

AM Fone is not the only forum I read.  I belong to other forums on various other topics, mostly non-ham radio related.  The majority of the other forums encourage searching the archives for topics rather than starting another thread on the same topic.  Moderators often will merge the new into the old thread then scold the starter for not doing a diligent search.  AM Fone seems to be different in that regard.  It seems that there is always the risk of running afoul of what the administrators or moderators have in mind wherever you (or I) go.  Some places you can smoke, some places you can't!

It's really much ado about nothing.

Eric

Well said but absolutely no inferred apology necessary.
Too many of us, self included, tend to fill in the details of how the other guy is thinking.
This is turning out to be the "Great Psychological D104 Thread of 2013," destined to go down in the AM Fone annals psychiatric section forever. ;D