SOS : what is this mic?

[gudfhr9918]

what is this mic beyonce have used .. ? help..
beyonce's photo .. please hurry

[Hugh Robjohns]

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!

[shufflebeat]

What took you so long?

[Hugh Robjohns]

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!

[Hugh Robjohns]

what is this mic beyonce have used .. ? help..
beyonce's photo .. please hurry

Not in such a hurry to voice appreciation then...

[ManFromGlass]

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!)

[Eddy Deegan]

what is this mic beyonce have used .. ? help..
beyonce's photo .. please hurry

Not in such a hurry to voice appreciation then...

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.

[ManFromGlass]

Well Beyoncé photos can be distracting
:

[zenguitar]

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.

Andy

[Hugh Robjohns]

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.

[Hugh Robjohns]

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.

[Hugh Robjohns]

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!

[ManFromGlass]

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?

[Luke W]

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.

[Hugh Robjohns]

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!

[orange]

totally random bump of a long dead thread

was watching North By Northwest the other day and was reminded of this thread:

https://youtu.be/N4HqPnm0yEc?t=120

not sure if that's a set/prop ?

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 ?

[Hugh Robjohns]

was watching North By Northwest the other day and was reminded of this thread:

https://youtu.be/N4HqPnm0yEc?t=120

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.

https://coutant.org/amerd22/

[sonics]

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?!

[Wonks]

Don‘t forget hover boots!

[orange]

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.