Greetings. This should initiate a bevy of responses :=). Since I
have used Viking IIs in the past only for CW, and am in the process of
getting back on AM with one of these when it gets here, what are the
preferences out there for a mic for one of these. I can firstly
assume a Hi Z non amplified type like an D-104, but I imagine there is
a wide range of experienced users out there. Thanks kindly for your
time.

Wayne (VE6NE)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

"SventheViking" wrote in message
...
Greetings. This should initiate a bevy of responses :=).
Since I
have used Viking IIs in the past only for CW, and am in
the process of
getting back on AM with one of these when it gets here,
what are the
preferences out there for a mic for one of these. I can
firstly
assume a Hi Z non amplified type like an D-104, but I
imagine there is
a wide range of experienced users out there. Thanks
kindly for your
time.

Wayne (VE6NE)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

There was a very large variety of microphones which
would work with this transmitter, any high-impedance mic
will do. There are still some made but I am not current on
what is available. Solid state stuff can used low or medium
impedance mics directly but old vacuum tube TX need a
matching transformer for them.
The main manufacturers of high impedance mics for public
address or ham radio use were Electro-Voice, Shure Brothers,
Astatic, and Turner. In addition American Microphone made a
line but were a smaller company.
Crystal mics are vulnerable to heat, humidity, and
mechanical shock so old ones are often not working. Moving
coil, so-called dyamic mics, are very rugged and generally
will work as well as when new if they have not been damaged
in some way. Crystal mics were popular because they had very
high output and were cheap. The D-104 was one of the first,
if not actually the first, crystal mic on the market and has
remained popular ever since. The early ones came with a
choce of flat or rising frequency response but the rising
response version was so much more popular that the flat
version was discontinued. At least part of the sound is the
result of the fairly large baffle area of the case. This
causes a diffraction effect which increases the
high-frequency output and makes the mic slightly directional
at speech frequencies, both desireable for communication
purposes.
I think its possible to get new elements for old D-104s
but I would check first, they may be expensive since the
D-104 has become a collector's item.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

There was a very large variety of microphones which would work with
this transmitter, any high-impedance mic will do. There are still some
made but I am not current on what is available. Solid state stuff can used
low or medium impedance mics directly but old vacuum tube TX need a
matching transformer for them.
The main manufacturers of high impedance mics for public address or ham
radio use were Electro-Voice, Shure Brothers, Astatic, and Turner. In
addition American Microphone made a line but were a smaller company.
Crystal mics are vulnerable to heat, humidity, and mechanical shock so
old ones are often not working. Moving coil, so-called dyamic mics, are
very rugged and generally will work as well as when new if they have not
been damaged in some way. Crystal mics were popular because they had very
high output and were cheap. The D-104 was one of the first, if not
actually the first, crystal mic on the market and has remained popular
ever since. The early ones came with a choce of flat or rising frequency
response but the rising response version was so much more popular that the
flat version was discontinued. At least part of the sound is the result of
the fairly large baffle area of the case. This causes a diffraction effect
which increases the high-frequency output and makes the mic slightly
directional at speech frequencies, both desireable for communication
purposes.
I think its possible to get new elements for old D-104s but I would
check first, they may be expensive since the D-104 has become a
collector's item.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL



D-104C had a "ceramic" crystal element which was far more tolerant of
moisture, shock, etc.
I can't remember just now what the frequency response was (compared to the
original) but when
I used one, I was looked down upon as a traitor to tradition.
What was good about the D-104 types, was that you didn't have to speak
directly into it. One
could just walk around the shack, and in some instances, around the house
with little loss of
readability.

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ

"coffelt2" wrote in message
...
There was a very large variety of microphones which
would work with this transmitter, any high-impedance mic
will do. There are still some made but I am not current
on what is available. Solid state stuff can used low or
medium impedance mics directly but old vacuum tube TX
need a matching transformer for them.
The main manufacturers of high impedance mics for
public address or ham radio use were Electro-Voice, Shure
Brothers, Astatic, and Turner. In addition American
Microphone made a line but were a smaller company.
Crystal mics are vulnerable to heat, humidity, and
mechanical shock so old ones are often not working.
Moving coil, so-called dyamic mics, are very rugged and
generally will work as well as when new if they have not
been damaged in some way. Crystal mics were popular
because they had very high output and were cheap. The
D-104 was one of the first, if not actually the first,
crystal mic on the market and has remained popular ever
since. The early ones came with a choce of flat or rising
frequency response but the rising response version was so
much more popular that the flat version was discontinued.
At least part of the sound is the result of the fairly
large baffle area of the case. This causes a diffraction
effect which increases the high-frequency output and
makes the mic slightly directional at speech frequencies,
both desireable for communication purposes.
I think its possible to get new elements for old
D-104s but I would check first, they may be expensive
since the D-104 has become a collector's item.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL



D-104C had a "ceramic" crystal element which was far
more tolerant of moisture, shock, etc.
I can't remember just now what the frequency response was
(compared to the original) but when
I used one, I was looked down upon as a traitor to
tradition.
What was good about the D-104 types, was that you
didn't have to speak directly into it. One
could just walk around the shack, and in some instances,
around the house with little loss of
readability.

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ
Astatic and others made ceramic versions of their
crystal mics. The ceramic was, as you say, much more rugged,
but... It was less sensitive, according to a 1952 Astatic
catalogue sheet the difference was 10db! The D-104 was rated
at -45db, the D-104C at -55db. The reference is not given
but I think its db below 1 volt per dyne. The D-104 crystal
had one of the highest outputs of any crystal mic of the
time.
There was the same difference in phonograph pickups,
ceramic was more rugged and had good frequency response but
significantly lower output. In the days when amplification
was expensive the difference was important.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

coffelt2 wrote:

D-104C had a "ceramic" crystal element which was far more tolerant of
moisture, shock, etc.
I can't remember just now what the frequency response was (compared to the
original) but when
I used one, I was looked down upon as a traitor to tradition.

You can no longer get either the original crystal element or the ceramic
element, but Astatic will sell you a dynamic replacement.

The dynamic is a whole lot smoother and less brittle sounding, but maybe
that's a bad thing in a pileup.

What was good about the D-104 types, was that you didn't have to speak
directly into it. One
could just walk around the shack, and in some instances, around the house
with little loss of
readability.

They were very, very omnidirectional compared other communications mikes
back then. The good part of this was the effect you note. The bad part
is that noise sources like fans and people yelling in the background were
also very readable on the air.

I am currently using an old Turner microphone and like the way it sounds.
Also I am a fan of some of the older EV desk microphones, which still turn
up cheaply at hamfests. If you find a low-Z mike that you like, there is
no reason you can't just stick a step-up transformer in the base to drive
the Viking.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
You can no longer get either the original crystal element or the ceramic
element, but Astatic will sell you a dynamic replacement.

How do these sound compared to the dynamic equivalent of the D-104, the
10-DA (also known as the bullet head because of the space for the internal
transformer)?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
You can no longer get either the original crystal element or the ceramic
element, but Astatic will sell you a dynamic replacement.

How do these sound compared to the dynamic equivalent of the D-104, the
10-DA (also known as the bullet head because of the space for the internal
transformer)?

I don't know. I have heard them on the air but never heard a careful A-B
comparison.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
coffelt2 wrote:

I am currently using an old Turner microphone and like the
way it sounds.
Also I am a fan of some of the older EV desk microphones,
which still turn
up cheaply at hamfests. If you find a low-Z mike that
you like, there is
no reason you can't just stick a step-up transformer in
the base to drive
the Viking.
--scott



Which model Turner?



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
coffelt2 wrote:

D-104C had a "ceramic" crystal element which was far
more tolerant of
moisture, shock, etc.
I can't remember just now what the frequency response was
(compared to the
original) but when
I used one, I was looked down upon as a traitor to
tradition.

You can no longer get either the original crystal element
or the ceramic
element, but Astatic will sell you a dynamic replacement.

The dynamic is a whole lot smoother and less brittle
sounding, but maybe
that's a bad thing in a pileup.

What was good about the D-104 types, was that you
didn't have to speak
directly into it. One
could just walk around the shack, and in some instances,
around the house
with little loss of
readability.

They were very, very omnidirectional compared other
communications mikes
back then. The good part of this was the effect you note.
The bad part
is that noise sources like fans and people yelling in the
background were
also very readable on the air.

I am currently using an old Turner microphone and like the
way it sounds.
Also I am a fan of some of the older EV desk microphones,
which still turn
up cheaply at hamfests. If you find a low-Z mike that
you like, there is
no reason you can't just stick a step-up transformer in
the base to drive
the Viking.
--scott

There aren't many polar patterns published for cheaper
mics but the directional properties of mics like the D-104
are mostly due to the diffraction around the body. At low
frequencies they are almost perfectly omnidirectional but at
some frequency begin to have some directionality which
increases with frequency. The same diffraction effect causes
a rise in the frequency response unless its compensated in
some way. At a frequency where the path around the body
approximates a half wave length the microphone can approach
a super-carioide pattern, i.e., unidirectional with one or
more lobes toward the back. The shape is important, a flat
pancake shape like the D-104 will have a somewhat different
pattern than a bullet-shaped mic. The ultimate was the
Western Electric 630A "Eight-Ball". The spherical shape made
it quite omnidirectional to rather high frequencies but the
pattern was made even more uniform by the partial baffle
mounted in front of the diaphragm. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer made
some microphones using probably standard Western Electric
condenser elements mounted in a spherical case to reduce the
diffraction rise typical of the older mics. I don't remember
whether these had baffles on them but the elements were
mounted in a way that also tended to reduce the cavity
resonance typical of both this and other large condenser
type elements. In some respects the rise was useful in
dialogue recording although it could also make some voices
sound harsh. All sorts of mechanical filters and baffles
were tried to aleviate this effect, mostly with limited
success. Electrical filters, which would have been a better
solution, while known in the telephone industry, were not
very well known outside of it. Much of the early theory of
electrical wave filters was developed by George A. Campbell,
of Bell Labs, in the mid 'teens. This was cosidered very
advanced stuff at the time.
I am not surprized that no one makes crystal or ceramic
elements any more. For the most part microphones to fill
similar applications now are electrets.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

Richard Knoppow wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
coffelt2 wrote:

I am currently using an old Turner microphone and like the
way it sounds.
Also I am a fan of some of the older EV desk microphones,
which still turn
up cheaply at hamfests. If you find a low-Z mike that
you like, there is
no reason you can't just stick a step-up transformer in
the base to drive
the Viking.

Which model Turner?

Model 252. Low-Z version of the 250 with the lift switch (which I strongly
discourage the use of). If you were using a Viking II you would probably want
the 250 or to use a step-up transformer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."