It's the D33 (or possibly D22) model from a long defunct manufacturer called American Microphones It's an omnidirectional dynamic mic dating from the late 1940s, and was one of the first mics to use Canon's XL connectors -- with the latch but before they introduced the rubber inserts!
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Posts:9504Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:00 amLocation: Manchester, UK
“…I can tell you I don't have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career” - (folk musician, Manchester).
Sorry... busy day writing a review of an AVB interface! I'll try and speed things up next time Sir... sorry Sir... Won't happen again Sir...
The shape of that vintage mic is so distinctive! I remembered it was a D33 but couldn't remember the manufacturer so had to use Mr Google to confirm and find the pics....
If the gold was too flashy, they also made them in a supposedly 'non-reflective black' for TV use... although it looks more like brushed steel to me!
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Well I’ll say thanks because it’s a mic I haven’t seen before. I noticed the spec on the 22 goes up to 8k. I assume that is on purpose making it, what? A good mic for broadcasters? Or singers who only produce limited overtones? (Sorry bad joke!)
I approved the post reluctantly, had a nagging feeling that it was made to promote the link. But as the question has been answered, there's no need for the link and I see that it isn't there anymore.
ManFromGlass wrote:I noticed the spec on the 22 goes up to 8k. I assume that is on purpose making it, what? A good mic for broadcasters? Or singers who only produce limited overtones? (Sorry bad joke!)
ha ha! No... it was just a lower quality moving coil element.
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Eddy Deegan wrote:Nor, it would seem, particularly in a hurry to find out if anyone had answered. At the time of writing the OP hasn't visited since the post was made.
Yes, I saw that too. Presumably he/she found the answer themselves of from some other site. The Google tells me that similar questions have been asked elsewhere.
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
zenguitar wrote:I approved the post reluctantly, had a nagging feeling that it was made to promote the link. But as the question has been answered, there's no need for the link and I see that it isn't there anymore.
I had the same nagging feeling... so I replaced the link with the specific picture! T'was me!
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Slightly off topic - some of the early mics almost look like works of art. Would you think these days due to the available science, that mic design now is dictated mostly by the science?
ManFromGlass wrote:Would you think these days due to the available science, that mic design now is dictated mostly by the science?
I'd imagine that what the average user thinks a mic should look like and what shapes are easy/cheap to manufacture are probably fairly big influences. Something that is technically excellent but looks a bit odd and costs a lot to produce would probably lose out in a lot of cases to something average that looks like a U87.
But that's just my (uninformed) thought, I may well be very wrong.
From what I've seen and heard, I'm certain that some boutique mic manufacturers out there have never read a science book at all. And there are a few companies that are deliberately making some pretty wacky ..sorry, arty-looking... microphones.
But the 50s was a special period in history. The post-War jubilation combined with an explosion in science and materials, and especially the rocket and atomic developments... It's hardly surprising that everything ended up looking like some part of a rocket back then!
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Unfortunately I seem to spend far too much time looking out for audio equipment inconsistencies in movies such as:
"That scene is meant to be 1965 but that particular type of Ludwig drum lug didn't appear until 1968 !"
or
"Neutrik XX range didn't exist in 1986 - how come they have them in Stranger Things ?"
That last one is true and (partially) explains why I don't get invited to many film nights ?
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
I'm always fascinated by those old catalogue pages. They were not cheap mics! I always go on about how lucky we are now that we have China making most of our equipment at stupidly-low prices.
Great design; when white America was looking forward to space-age living and flying cars?!
orange wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:37 pm
not sure if that's a set/prop ?
Real mic, and consistent with the film era. It's an American D22. Very 50s, rocket-style mic.
yes the history was already discussed in the thread.
I meant I wasn't sure if that was a mic actually used for the pager in the UN building or if it was just a cool looking prop for the film ?
There are definitely shots from inside/outside the real UN Building in that scene but I suspect that shot is actually a set.....hence the mic is a prop.
Prop or not some props people are nicely detail oriented to the nth degree.
I can’t remember the film but I recall a singer walking around holding a Royer ribbon with no cable attached singing into the end of the mic. I’m sure I snorted with amusement.
orange wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:04 am
I meant I wasn't sure if that was a mic actually used for the pager in the UN building or if it was just a cool looking prop for the film ?
I didn't work in the UN in the 50s, so I've no idea what their PA system comprised of.... but it's a real mic, and entirely consistent with both the film era and that specific application.
...hence the mic is a prop.
Probably. A working prop, though, not a painted balsa wood creation.
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...