a quick D-104 question

[AF9J]

As I mentioined in my other D-104 thread, I'm going to get a D-104 (as a starting point) for my Cheyenne.  I just have a quick question - does anybody know if the D-104 with the T-UG9 base, is still the high impedance type?  A guy on EBay is selling one with a Buy-it-Now price of $50.  He knows it was owned by a non-smoker, but he's clueless about mic impedance (I'm going to ask him if it was used with a CB or Ham rig, and if so, was it a tube, or a solid state rig, but if he's a pure e-bay seller, he still may not have a clue).

73,
Ellen - AF9J

[N5RLR]

The "T" in TUG8/TUG9/TUP9 denotes "transistor," i.e., the preamplified version, for low-Z inputs.  Same mike element as in the "straight" D104.

Wiring differences between the bases [from fuzzy memory]...

• UG8:  3-wire cord [two and shield]; audio lead connected at all times; shield switched to the remaining one of the two for transmit.
  
  
• TUG8:  4-wire cord [three and shield]; audio lead connected at all times; shield switched between the remaining two of the three for transmit and receive.  Or, two of the three switched together, as for a changeover relay.
  
  
• TUG9:  6-wire cord [five and shield]; audio lead grounded on receive; separate switch poles and leads for specialized switching.
  
  
• TUP9:  6-wire cord, as above; base has PTT bar in addition to the "choker" bar on the upright.
  

[W1GFH]

Specs on the stock D-104 crystal element:

-55DB SENSITIVITY
50-8 KHZ
9K OHM IMPEDENCE
10 GR. WEIGHT

The TUG9 stand is the amplified one.



And FYI, since you mention you like hand mics, Astatic made a hand held version of the D-104, should be the same element, same preamp, often much cheaper to acquire:

http://cgi.ebay.com/D-104-HAND-MIC_W0QQitemZ160113844515QQihZ006QQcategoryZ48695QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[AF9J]

Thanks everybody!   

Ellen - AF9J

[W1GFH]

I am told a D-104 crystal element replacement is available from Mouser P/N 25LM022

http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=25LM022virtualkey12800000virtualkey25LM022&Mpc=Kobitone+Microphone&Mpcn=02502

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/1136.pdf

[K9ACT]

I am told a D-104 crystal element replacement is available from Mouser P/N 25LM022

This brings up and interesting question:

When is a D104 not a D104?  I bought one from a guy on the net and it sounded like garbage so I bought a Mouser (Kobitone) replacement and it works just fine.

The problem is that it is no longer a D104; it is a Kobitone in a D104 package.

I wonder how much of the air time (A/B testing etc,) spent on comparing D104's with various other mics is just so much smoke.

The Rochelle cartridges have a finite life as a function of hygroscopic absorbtion and there are probably precious few real ones out there that work and eventually, there will be none.  Not to mention the fact the most of the real ones probably suffer from age and actually are inferior to the Kobitone versions.

I actually identify my mic when using that one as a Kobitone D104.

Silly?  Probably.

Jack

[AF9J]

Hmmmmm, interesting point Jack.  After all the mic element is the heart of the D-104.  BTW, I won an e-bay bid 2 nights ago on a D-104.  It's the non-amplified model, on the G stand, so the mic system should be high impedance.  The price was OK, $36 (with shipping, $44).  It looked good in the photos, and I don't think it'll be piece of junk, since the guy selling it is listed as an eBay power seller (you only get that listing, if you get decent buyer feedback).

73,
Ellen - AF9J

[W1GFH]

I suppose most people tend to feel the outside appearance of something defines what it is. A D-104 with a replacement cartridge is still a D-104 in that sense. One AMer out here put a D-104 cartridge in a Shure 55 "Elvis Mic" head. (Sounds great, BTW) He describes it on the air as "a Shure 55 with a D-104 cartridge". 

[WD8BIL]

Here's one for ya Ellen:

For blues harp I built a JT-30 with a Turner 22x crystal which is switchable internally for high Z (straight) and low Z using a D-104 pre-amp !!!

Like ....wild, Man !!! The pre-amp drives the pants off the Hendrix fuzzer !!!!

[AF9J]

Seriously cool Buddly!!  BTW, fuzzed harmonica with a bluesy sound - did you play in one of those psychedelic blues bands that were so common 35 years ago or so (like Canned Heat)?  My big thing was to NOT use a heavy metal approved guitar (such as the Strat derivates, or a Les Paul) for heavy rock music.  Iused Semi-hollows (ala Alex Lifeson of Rush, or the type of guitar you see Chuck Berry or B.B King playing).  They used to think - dorky chick in the making, until I fired up the amp, and started playing.  It was fun surprising people.  Yup, image is a big thing in our society.  I had to deal with that all of the time, when I was playing in bands.  Rock music is a boys club, so I had to deal with the offhanded "not bad playing for a girl" comments.  And, since I played in heavy rock bands (I love the sound of a guitar with full-on distortion [but paradoxically, I also dabble in be-bop jazz]), people expected me to look like some bleach blonde bimbo.  Arggh!

73,
Ellen - AF9J
Taking a break at work

[WD8BIL]

No.... I actually didn't start playing classic blues until about 20 years ago. Before that it was country and rock n' roll with a little folk stuff.

I always thought girls playing rock was an oxymoron....... then I grew up !

[AF9J]

Silly you! Haven't you ever heard of Riot Girls?   From your time, that would be groups like The Runaways, or (a bit earlier) Fanny.  From my time - L7, The Donnas, and Kittie.  Definitely NOT, girl vocal groups like the Supremes.  The Go-Gos, and the Bangles come close to being Riot Girls (the Bangles especially in their early days), but not quite - too poppy in their sound.  We can do more than just sing and look cute.  Riot girls aren't sweet little balls of fluff.  They aren't wimpy.  But, by the same token they aren't butch.  I read a description years ago (I think it was in the mid 90s), that described what a Riot Girl (or if you want to be nastier, Riot Grrrrl [with an emphasis on the grrrrr!]) is:

She's the girl next to you at the rock concert.  She isn't dumpy, and she doesn't look like a tart.  BUT, when the drunken loudmouth next to her acts annoying, she's the one who very matter of factly gives him an elbow in the chops to shut him up.  Then she goes back to watching the show.  In many cases she plays in a band, but she's not a prop, up on stage.  Yup that's me, a 1st or 2nd generation Riot Girl (I think we might be in the 3rd generation, with the 1st generation being in the 70s).

Rock on,
Ellen - AF9J   

[W4FCC]

Riot Girls... Ha!  I like that!  I had one of them come to my rescue (though I didn't know it) when a drunk was about to pour a beer down the bass drone of my bagpipes once while I was playing. 

 Good to have around.

 On-topic:  I bought a D-104 that was nothing but RF feedback, no matter how much bypassing and choking I did to it.  Ended up replacing the xtal element with one of the cheap Radio Shack condenser elements and building a simple single-transistor preamp for it to use on my IC-718.  Sounds great-- in fact, I broke down and bought a Heil ICM last weekend at a hamfest, and my hacked up D-104 sounds so much better that I'm going to go ahead and sell the Heil even though I've had it less than a week.  The Heil's not too bad on SSB with the little Icom, but I don't like it at all on AM.

 I know Heil users tend to be very enthusiastic about their mics, but for my purposes it's no better than the SM-57 I used for a while with a Behringer EQ.  Nah, I'll stick to the D-104/cheap condenser.

                       

          Rick

[Ian VK3KRI]

I suppose most people tend to feel the outside appearance of something defines what it is. A D-104 with a replacement cartridge is still a D-104 in that sense. One AMer out here put a D-104 cartridge in a Shure 55 "Elvis Mic" head. (Sounds great, BTW) He describes it on the air as "a Shure 55 with a D-104 cartridge". 

Doesn't the actual 'enclosure' color the sound somewhat? Some microphones start to be a significant  fration of a wavelength  in size at 5Khz or so.  Also loading of the rear of the elements must have some effect as well (accept of course on mics with closed elements)
                                                                 Ian VK3KRI

(No one can see MY mic so it only matters how it sounds, not how it looks.... Thats lucky!)

[AF9J]

Yep Ian,

If the mic head is large enough, acoustical resonance will come into play, and have an effect on the sound.  Also, the materials the element enclosure are made from probably will also have some effect on the element enclosure acoustics, in spite of there not being much of an acoustical chamber inside the enclosure.  Many electric guitar makers who thought only the pickups determined the sound, found this out the hard way about 15-20 years ago. Before that time period, it was often hyped that by changing pickups, from single coils to humbuckers (pickups which use two coils wired with reverse polarity [between the coils] to cancel hum - they are bassier sounding and higher in output than single coils), you could make a Fender Stratocaster, sound like a Gibson Les Paul.  Of course this wasn't the case at all.  Even though neither guitar has any appreciable acoustic chambers in them (just small cavities routed in the bodies, to house the pickups,volume; and tone controls), they are made from different woods (mahogany with a glued on maple cap for the Les Paul, and ash for the Strat).  So, while replacing the single coiled pickups in a strat, with humbuckers, got rid of it's twangy surf guitar sound (or nasally Hendrix sound), it didn't (and still doesn't) sound like a Les Paul, ala Led Zeppelin or Godsmack.  The acoustical overtones that vibrate through each guitar are different, due to their materials, and the different ways they are assembled (unlike Gibsons, Fender guitars are basically bolted/screwed together).

How much this effect exists in a mic's element housing (which is physically small), is debatable.  But it certainly must have some affect.  I doubt very much, that using the same element in a Sure SM-58, a D-104, or the type of mic Elvis used in the 50s will ensure that that all three sound the same.  They are all assembled differently (the Elvis mic uses a cast housing, the D-104, and [even moreso] SM-58 are bolted together).  Even the metals used to make their element housings are different alloys.  Not to mention that their different physical shapes will have an effect on what little sound chamber resonance each mic has.

73,
Ellen - AF9J 

[W4FCC]

And don't forget Jimmy Page sold a lot of Les Pauls and SGs from recordings that were actually made with a Tele and a Princeton, of all things.

[AF9J]

Very true.  Paige used a Telecaster, running through a Solasound fuzz, into a 20 watt Supro Thunderbolt that had a 15 inch speaker in it, to record the entire first Zep album.  He just basically ran everything full blast, and let the compression that was occurring, thicken up the sound.  Recording mic placement also played a very important role in the sound.  But unlike when he was in the Yardbirds, Paige seldom played concerts with a Telecaster, so when people saw him performing with Zep, they naturally assumed he used a Les Paul to record all of the songs for the albums.  The same is also true for the SG-style Gibson double-neck he used live to play "Stairway to Heaven" (sidebar - ugh!  I can't stand that song).  He didn't use that to record the song on the 4th untitled album.  He used a Telecaster for the guitar solo, and for the electric 12-string parts, used a Fender XII (an electric 12 string Fender made for a couple of years in the late 60s - it sort of looked like a 12-string Mustang, and wasn't very popular).  Paige only used the Gibson double-neck, for convenince live.  The funny thing is, it really doesn't sound that much like the album when he performed it live (watch/listen the "Live-The Song Remains the Same" concert video, and you'll see what I mean).

Ellen - AF9J

And don't forget Jimmy Page sold a lot of Les Pauls and SGs from recordings that were actually made with a Tele and a Princeton, of all things.

[W4FCC]

My last foray into all that was a Ric 330-12 and a new Vox AD-50T.  That Ric was a neat instrument, but a BEAR to keep in tune.  Still have the Vox.  Couldn't see shelling out the bucks for an AC-30 when it was hard to tell the difference in the two side-by-side.  And I misspelled "Paige", ugh.

 I've noticed quite a few musicians are also AM folks-- I suppose those of us with refined ears just appreciate the nicer things (or something like that).

  Rick

[AF9J]

Yuppers Rick,

I've noticed the AM/musician connection myself.  I had a Rick 360 for about 3 years, for a different sound from the usual Gibson humbucker equipped sound I prefer.  I bought it as a factory second (it had a slight finish imperfection) in the mid 90s.  It was nice guitar, and was great for that Smithereens-type stuff.  But, it was almost a little too one-trick pony for my tastes soundwise.  And frankly I prefer to get guitars that sound good to me, without having to mod them with pickup changes.  I got tired of having to change out pickups all of the time in guitars, not only on my own, but on the guitars that other guitarists in bands I've been in have owned, since I ended up both guitar teching (courtesy of Uncle Joe [the 2nd generation guitarist in my family] teaching me what grampa [the first generation guitarist, who was also a guitarmaker], taught him), & electronics teching in my bands (Joe Walsh was right about what he said years ago in a QST interview - most musicians are clueless when it comes to electronics).  I got tired of constantly changing pickups, to look for the "perfect guitar sound'.  So I didn't feel like changing pickups in the Rick 360 (besides, it was too nice of a guitar to mod).  I also had a Vox AC-15 Top Boost for a few months.  A nice sounding amp, but just not my cup of tea (not enough gain, and a little under powered).

73,
Ellen - AF9J

[W1GFH]

Then there's Brian May's "red special" guitar....



Seems like there should be an oscillator, PA and mod tranny shoehorned in there somehow.

[AF9J]

Hi Joe,

Do you know that the Red Special was homemade by Brian May and his dad, when Brian was a Teenager?  They used the wood from a fireplace hearth to make the guitar!  Originally they made the pickups for it too, using individual magnets as polepieces for each string (like Fender does; Gibsons use bar magnets under the coil windings). But they goofed. For a decent magnetic field, you're supposed to alternate magnet poles between strings (in other words, NSNSNS or SNSNSN).  Instead they paired up the poles for each string (NNSSNN or SSNNSS). Most of the time this pole arrangement was no problem.  But whenever Brian would bend strings, the Red Special would make a "skooshing" sound through his amp.  Rather than starting over again with the pickups, they just opted to put in a set of pickups from a Burns guitar (Burns guitars were to England, what Fender & Gibson are to the US).  A lot of the unique sounds you hear out of the Red Special, are courtesy of its switching.  The Red Special has multiple switches on it to not only choose the the pickups you wish to use (It's a 3 pickup guitar), but to also switch the phasing of the pickups.  Switching the phasing of a single pickup doesn't change it's sound much.  But, when you use two pickups at the same time, switching the phasing on one of the pickups can create a very different sound from two pickups that are in phase.  Oftetimes it sounds kind of blurred and indistinct if they are wired in parallel.  Wire them in series, when they are out of phase with each other, and in effect you create a humbucking/Gibson-style pickup (a humbucking [also know as a hum cancelling ] pickup basically consists of two out of phase coils, wired in series).

As for the Vox AC-30, Brian uses, it is the Top Boost version.  The Top Boost is hotted up compared to a standard AC-30.  It has an additional pre-amp stage in it, that's  voiced to boost the treble frequencies compared to a standard AC-30.  Also, in general, AC-30 Top Boosts, have a bit more front end gain, so they produce more distortion.  Another part of their unique sound is the power amp section.  It uses 4, EL84s (US designation - 6BQ5), in Class A.  Most tube guitar amps run Class AB for the finals, because it's more efficient.  The tubes run cooler, and as a result, can run more power.  Class A amps run hot, and need sturdier transformers.  In the case of the AC-30, they were notorious for blowing up if you pushed them too hard (the present versions are much sturdier, due to better rated components, and better ventilation of the finals).  Since vintage guitar amps get most of their distortion from the power amp section (pre-amps in vintage guitar amps are pretty low gain, compared to today's amps), the Class A biasing of the AC-30 sounds quite different at full bore than an AB biased amp like a Marshall Lead 100.  The overtones are quite different. Whereas the Marshall sounds kind of percussive and grindy, the AC-30 sort of has a singing sound to its distortion.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

P.S. - Brian May is no dummy either.  Before Queen's success caused him to abandon his  studies, he was going to school for PhDs in Astronomy and Math.

[W4FCC]

Yep, that Vox "chime" along with the Ric jangle is a distinctive sound-- but Teles can ping and chime too if you happen to hit the right combination.  Though many purists would look down their noses at modeling amps, the Vox I bought "does" the AC-30 and AC-30TB very well (it should though...).  The tube preamp has a lot to do with that, I'd guess.  I have friends in Georgia who knew the REM guys in the early days and swear to me that Buck used his Ric on "Driver 8," but that recording is a dead ringer for a '73 Tele Custom I owned for several years (was my first electric, and a tough guitar to cut yout teeth on-- funny that in the 70s, nobody wanted those things).  Don't know why "Driver 8" never caught on with the NASCAR crowd in recent years, you'd think that would be a natural.  Guess Stipe is too whiny and of dubious orientation, and that doesn't sit well with Junior fans.

 Funny to hear ampheads refer to 6L6s in hushed, revered tones, though.

 Bunch of D-104s on Ebay right now...


                  Rick

[AF9J]

Good Morning Rick,

Pete Buck used a Rick 330 on the early albums, but I remember reading a Guitar Player, interview from around the time "Fables of the Reconstruction" (the album "Driver 8" was on) was released.  I''m pretty sure that Pete stated he used a Tele Custom from the 70s (you know, the ones that only came in black or butterscotch finishes, had 3-bolt necks, and had a Fender humbucker in the neck postion), for that entire album, through an AC-30, or a Fender Twin.  Later on, Pete used a Les Paul Custom.  I'm not a big fan of REM, but I do like "Driver 8", "Fall on Me", and "Drive" (the studio version, not the live version).  Hmmmm, 3 different guitar tones: Rick 330 (Fall On Me), Tele Custom (Driver , Les Paul Custom (on the lead break for "Drive", and through a Marshall, no less).

So you're using a modeling amp with a tube pre-amp -  Hmmmmm, a Vox Valvetronix?; a Fender Cybertwin?; a Johnson Millenium (I don't know if those are made anymore)?

Ellen - AF9J   

[WBear2GCR]

Rick,

I gotta ask, what "modeling amp" do you use that sounds anything at all like one of the amps they say they are "modeling"?

I've tried a few, and some "boxes" that have nice amp names on the front, and they sound nothing at all like the real thing to me. Interesting at times, but nothing resembling the originals. In general they sound distortion boxes dialed in with different tone and "sustain" settings - not like different amps.

Besides, I see amps as a complete "system" - from the tubes, the bias, out to the particular speakers. Imho, you want a Fender Twin to sound good, best rid urself of the stock speakers and put in 'a famous manufacturer's expensive and no longer made in 2007'  drivers... 

Can't tell you how many ratty sounding amps I've made to sound wonderful by properly setting the bias point... the idea here being that amp "sound" is somewhat nebulous by its very nature.

But if you have a "winner" box, I'll drive up to Guitar Center and try it out!   

             _-_-WBear2GCR

[nq5t]

I just have a quick question - does anybody know if the D-104 with the T-UG9 base, is still the high impedance type? 

I don't think anyone actually answered you question directly before branching off into harp mics

A D-104 (of any kind) will drive a Hi-Z load.  The element itself needs to see a very Hi-Z load to get good bass response.  On a tube rig, make sure the grid resistor of the input stage is 10M or higher.  It's probably lower than that in the Cheyenne, and should be replaced.   A D-104 element by itself will NOT drive a Lo-Z mic input (it will sound very very bad).

A D-104 with a preamp will drive either a Hi-Z or Lo-Z mic input.  The preamp isolates the mic's dependence on the radio's input impedance for frequency response and the provides enough gain to overcome Z mismatch.  Even with a preamp, the mic element needs to see Hi-Z into the preamp (higher Z than the stock preamp) for good low frequency response.   Most guys around here think the Astatic preamp basically sucks, and I don't disagree, but either a good preamp or matching transformer is needed to use a D-104 element on a modern Lo-Z mic input radio.  On a typical SSB radio -- Ham, CB, pirate, or otherwise -- any distortion attributed to the Astatic preamp will usually be overwhelmed by the grunge in the radio itself, and the usual operator cockpit mentality of running the preamp gain all the way up "since it will turn that far, and if they didn't want you to do that they wouldn't have put it there" :-)

Rochelle crystals do go bad, but if properly cared for they last a long time.  They go bad a lot faster if the mic sits for two days on the hood of a pickup truck cooking off at an outdoor fleamarket, and get the usual 'toss it into the truck bed' treatment until the next one  :-)