Does anyone here use the microvox concertina microphone? Is it good? Is the velcro removable from the concertina or is it there for good? If it is removed is there a sticky patch left? Would like some advice before purchasing. Thanks!
Prone to feedback - I used to make copies of them at a fraction of the price. If care is taken, they are OK. Depending on the material your concertina is made out of (metal ends should be OK - veneer might be a problem) , it should be possible to remove any tackiness from the velcro - the stuff sticks pretty well. I seem to recall using two mikes on Alan Jones' concertina.
The Velcro sticks pretty hard and came close to lifting the varnish on my mandolin when I tried to remove it. The sound is good and natural but yes, feedback is a problem. Also no use if you need to switch instruments mid-set.
after micorvoxing for some decades, and fed up of feedback, I went for an akg c1000s - you can swap instruments then.
get a pair if you want.
power switch is fiddly, but performance is excellent, and only picks up from adjacent instrument - no feedback issues
Sticky stuff on instruments is a no-no. If you do go with the Microvox system you could probably cut a piece of thin plastic (from the side of a milkbottle or whatever), back it with felt and stick the mike to it, then secure it to the instrument under a couple of the case screws. Because they are microphones not pickups, they don't need to be acoustically coupled to the woodwork of the instrument.
The Microvox preamp looks useful, in that it mixes the two mikes onto a single mono feed - if you don't have anything to do that you'll have to put them onto two mono ins at the desk and rely on the soundman to keep things balanced and sounding as though the two ends of the concertina are in the same place - if you try to put the two mikes into the two sides of a stereo track you'll land up with full width separation. (although that probably wouldn't matter in a live sound mono mix).
I've got to admit, the only time I tried to close-mike a concertina I used a couple of DPAs on goosenecks, with home-made mounts to the thumb strap screws (English concertia) a lot of hassle, but it worked. Then I realized that concertina players don't move about a lot, so you might as well just use a stand mike.
"The Microvox preamp looks useful, in that it mixes the two mikes onto a single mono feed - if you don't have anything to do that you'll have to put them onto two mono ins at the desk and rely on the soundman to keep things balanced and sounding as though the two ends of the concertina are in the same place"
Ha! The 'preamp' (just under £60) consists of a metal box containing three resistors, two capacitors, a variable preset resistor, a potentiometor, a 1/4" inch jack socket, two phono sockets and a battery clip (an LED with resistor too, as far as I remember). You can't "put them on to two mono ins at the desk" because this box is used to power the FETs in the mike capsules (these are basic electret capsules, costing very little at places like Maplin). The preset is used to balance the two electret capsules. I seem to remember that the original boxes didn't even have this facility (microvox do a 'cheaper' version of their box - just under £40- without the preset).
Way overpriced.
You are right, there are about £10 worth of components in the preamp, but factor in the time to put it together and £60 isn't unreasonable (added to which the DIY approach is beyond most musicians)
>>"You can't "put them on to two mono ins at the desk" because this box is used to power the FETs in the mike capsules "
Sorry, I was talking about using two electret systems, not bare capsules. You are right, the capsules do need a power source. They also need to either go through a DI box or have a transformer built into the electronics, because the electret output is unbalanced.
"You are right, there are about £10 worth of components in the preamp, but factor in the time to put it together and £60 isn't unreasonable (added to which the DIY approach is beyond most musicians)"
The cost of those components, when I was making them was about £3.50. I built them for £12 and still made a decent profit (I could make one in less than half an hour). £60 is unreasonable for what it is.
"Sorry, I was talking about using two electret systems, not bare capsules"
The Microvox mike is just an electret capsule. The 'swan neck' version is one of those capsules attached to a bit of rubber and a short length of tubing covered with a plastic sleeve. Add a bit of sticky back velcro, a bit of screened cable and a phono plug, and they charge £30 for it.
Sure, there needs to be a profit when you manufacture something, but once you have the tools set up, these things don't take long to build and the cost of components (especially in bulk) is minimal.
Youwere probably making them a long time ago. Today, just the plastic box with a battery compartment is £6.80. Even if you etch it yourself, the PCB will cost a couple of quid to produce, Three jack sockets at £1.50 each...
>>"The Microvox mike is just an electret capsule"
Well no, as you've pointed out, it's a capsule mic plus a separate power box. All I was pointing out in my original post was that their dual channel power box would be handy compared with running two individual mike systems as you would have to with most other makes.
Personally I think Microvox are reasonably priced for what they are. But I agree with you that they are probably not very good. The reason they suffer so much from feed back will be the fact that they use those cheap capsules, which are all omnidirectional. To minimise feedback close-miking instruments you really have to use a cardioid or hyper- capsule, and they are all much more expensive ( and you can't encapsulate them as Microvox do, they need a rear vent).
"Youwere probably making them a long time ago. Today, just the plastic box with a battery compartment is £6.80. Even if you etch it yourself, the PCB will cost a couple of quid to produce, Three jack sockets at £1.50 each..."
Erm...I was making them a while ago, but the box has one jack socket and two phono sockets. You can still get all the components for under a fiver, including the box (which doesn't have or need a battery compartment) If you know where to buy them. The circuit is so simple and sparse of components that a piece of veroboard is adequate. Bear in mind that these would be bought at trade price and in bulk.
"Well no, as you've pointed out, it's a capsule mic plus a separate power box."
That is 'the Microvox system'. The mike (which is the electret omni mike - it is bought as a mike as it is an electret and FET in a capsule) is listed separately from the power unit. I was referring to the mike, not the system.
"Personally I think Microvox are reasonably priced for what they are"
Well, I don't. I started making them because I was originally supplying them and the mikes were coming back with the soldered joints broken and the phono plug worn loose. I then realised how cheaply these things were produced and built the replacements myself - I could offer an improvement by using a locking phono plug and socket for starters.
Oh, and the power box is not dual channel. The mikes are wired in parallel and there is a single output.
BTW, calling the box a 'preamp' is misleading because it functions as a power supply for the FET and an attenuator, rather than an amplifier. Microvox sell it as a power supply.
>>"Oh, and the power box is not dual channel. The mikes are wired in parallel and there is a single output."
It has two inputs, ergo it is dual channel. The mics aren't just wired in parallel, there are buffering resistors and a balancing pot, and the single output is what I'm saying is potentially useful about it.
"It has two inputs, ergo it is dual channel. The mics aren't just wired in parallel, there are buffering resistors and a balancing pot, and the single output is what I'm saying is potentially useful about it."
It is single channel. There's really no way of arguing otherwise. The resistors are used to attenuate the signal from the FET = the same whether one, two, or even more mikes are employed. The 'balancing pot' jutst attenuates one mike which is then connected in parallel with the other (so even 'mixer' would be inappropriate, as only one mike is controlled). The parallel connection (which it is, once the mikes are powered and attenuated) makes it single channel. The volume control attenuated the single channel signal further. Even Microvox call their product 'two input' rather than 'dual channel', and a 'power supply' rather than a 'preamp'. I can see that calling it a 'dual channel preamp' might justify spending over the odds for a few components in a box. However, I would have a good case for trade description contravention if I were to buy a box described as such. I'm sure Microvox are aware of that too.
>>"It is single channel. There's really no way of arguing otherwise."
FFS. If a mixer has 32 independent inputs you call it a 32 channel mixer, you don't call it a two channel mixer because all the signals eventually land up on a stereo pair.
This thing is a two channel device, because it has two independent inputs. It doesn't matter how crude the circuitry is, the fact that you can adjust the relative gain of the two channels makes them independent, and the device is classed as two channel.
The two resistors are called 'buffer resistors' and they aren't there to attenuate the signal (because this is a voltage driving circuit, and the currents are very small, the attenuation due to those resistors is minimal). They are there to restrict the cross-phase current. Because the FETs have very low impedence, if the two mikes are cross-phased, so that one is outputting +ve while the other is -ve, without those resistors the only impedance in the circuit would be the balancing pot, and a very large current will flow. If you simply connect two electret capsules in parallel, without those buffer resistors, then if they get cross-phased their outputs are effectively short circuited, and there is a good chance one of the FETs will blow.
I agree it is a very crude circuit - when you have an active source like an electret capsule you really need to use a summing amp. But like it or not, that that little network of resistors is a mixer, albeit a passive one. So what you have is a box that takes two independent input channels, and mixes them onto a single output channel. It is a two channel mixer.
I've used one for years. I have metal ended instruments, so the velcro is no problem. I find they work well - IF you have a sound person who knows how to deal with them. They can take some serious EQing to produce a natural sound, but when done right, they sound just fine, and to my mind are preferable to a single fixed mic.
One caveat: they seem cheaply put together. I've had to tighten connections, in one case resolder. But on balance, decent tools for the money.
"FFS. If a mixer has 32 independent inputs you call it a 32 channel mixer, you don't call it a two channel mixer because all the signals eventually land up on a stereo pair."
They are not actually independent inputs though, are they?
An example: This desk has two inputs for each channel -
A high impedance and a low impedance (actually, the FX return is also an input). The two inputs have impedance matching componentry, and the low Z input has phantom powering. However, the desk is an 8 channel desk, not a 16 channel desk. I've come across desks like this where neither of the two inputs disconnect the other when a plug is inserted. Not really a good idea, but two sources could be fed into the one channel.
"The two resistors are called 'buffer resistors' and they aren't there to attenuate the signal (because this is a voltage driving circuit, and the currents are very small, the attenuation due to those resistors is minimal). They are there to restrict the cross-phase current. Because the FETs have very low impedence, if the two mikes are cross-phased, so that one is outputting +ve while the other is -ve, without those resistors the only impedance in the circuit would be the balancing pot, and a very large current will flow. If you simply connect two electret capsules in parallel, without those buffer resistors, then if they get cross-phased their outputs are effectively short circuited, and there is a good chance one of the FETs will blow."
I suggest that you actually examine the circuitry of one of these boxes. Those resistors attenuate the mikes, and the preset attenuates one of them further.
"But like it or not, that that little network of resistors is a mixer, albeit a passive one. So what you have is a box that takes two independent input channels, and mixes them onto a single output channel. It is a two channel mixer"
It balances one input against another - but only one input is controlled. You have to decide which mike you want attenuated and use that mike in the controlled socket. You have no independent control over the other input. It couldn't be regarded as a two channel mixer, as it only adjusts one input and the signal from each mike is essentially fed through one channel by parallel connection. As I said, examine the circuitry.
It appears that you haven't, as you called the box a preamp.
Even a parallel connection 'mixes' the two input sources. Try selling that as a 'mixer' and you could land yourself in trouble.
To call that box a dual channel box is pushing it to say the least.
"They can take some serious EQing to produce a natural sound, but when done right, they sound just fine, and to my mind are preferable to a single fixed mic."
The advantage is that the mikes move with the respective end of the concertina. Two decent condenser mikes take some beating. Yes, with a bit of care, they can produce a good sound but if you are playing behind a foldback, be prepared for some fun.
if you are using microvox - and I do - you may prefer the power supply available from orchid electronics. It is in a metal box, has a balanced output on XLR, and is phantom powered.
Microvox concertina microphone
Microvox concertina microphone
Hi all,
Does anyone here use the microvox concertina microphone? Is it good? Is the velcro removable from the concertina or is it there for good? If it is removed is there a sticky patch left? Would like some advice before purchasing. Thanks!
# Posted on July 30th 2011 by fineflautist
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
Prone to feedback - I used to make copies of them at a fraction of the price. If care is taken, they are OK. Depending on the material your concertina is made out of (metal ends should be OK - veneer might be a problem) , it should be possible to remove any tackiness from the velcro - the stuff sticks pretty well. I seem to recall using two mikes on Alan Jones' concertina.
# Posted on July 30th 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
Thanks, I have an ebony ended concertina. Any more feedback would be appreciated!
# Posted on July 31st 2011 by fineflautist
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
The Velcro sticks pretty hard and came close to lifting the varnish on my mandolin when I tried to remove it. The sound is good and natural but yes, feedback is a problem. Also no use if you need to switch instruments mid-set.
# Posted on July 31st 2011 by ian stock
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
after micorvoxing for some decades, and fed up of feedback, I went for an akg c1000s - you can swap instruments then.
get a pair if you want.
power switch is fiddly, but performance is excellent, and only picks up from adjacent instrument - no feedback issues
# Posted on July 31st 2011 by geoffwright
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
Sticky stuff on instruments is a no-no. If you do go with the Microvox system you could probably cut a piece of thin plastic (from the side of a milkbottle or whatever), back it with felt and stick the mike to it, then secure it to the instrument under a couple of the case screws. Because they are microphones not pickups, they don't need to be acoustically coupled to the woodwork of the instrument.
The Microvox preamp looks useful, in that it mixes the two mikes onto a single mono feed - if you don't have anything to do that you'll have to put them onto two mono ins at the desk and rely on the soundman to keep things balanced and sounding as though the two ends of the concertina are in the same place - if you try to put the two mikes into the two sides of a stereo track you'll land up with full width separation. (although that probably wouldn't matter in a live sound mono mix).
I've got to admit, the only time I tried to close-mike a concertina I used a couple of DPAs on goosenecks, with home-made mounts to the thumb strap screws (English concertia) a lot of hassle, but it worked. Then I realized that concertina players don't move about a lot, so you might as well just use a stand mike.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by skreech
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
"The Microvox preamp looks useful, in that it mixes the two mikes onto a single mono feed - if you don't have anything to do that you'll have to put them onto two mono ins at the desk and rely on the soundman to keep things balanced and sounding as though the two ends of the concertina are in the same place"
Ha! The 'preamp' (just under £60) consists of a metal box containing three resistors, two capacitors, a variable preset resistor, a potentiometor, a 1/4" inch jack socket, two phono sockets and a battery clip (an LED with resistor too, as far as I remember). You can't "put them on to two mono ins at the desk" because this box is used to power the FETs in the mike capsules (these are basic electret capsules, costing very little at places like Maplin). The preset is used to balance the two electret capsules. I seem to remember that the original boxes didn't even have this facility (microvox do a 'cheaper' version of their box - just under £40- without the preset).
Way overpriced.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
You are right, there are about £10 worth of components in the preamp, but factor in the time to put it together and £60 isn't unreasonable (added to which the DIY approach is beyond most musicians)
>>"You can't "put them on to two mono ins at the desk" because this box is used to power the FETs in the mike capsules "
Sorry, I was talking about using two electret systems, not bare capsules. You are right, the capsules do need a power source. They also need to either go through a DI box or have a transformer built into the electronics, because the electret output is unbalanced.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by skreech
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
"You are right, there are about £10 worth of components in the preamp, but factor in the time to put it together and £60 isn't unreasonable (added to which the DIY approach is beyond most musicians)"
The cost of those components, when I was making them was about £3.50. I built them for £12 and still made a decent profit (I could make one in less than half an hour). £60 is unreasonable for what it is.
"Sorry, I was talking about using two electret systems, not bare capsules"
The Microvox mike is just an electret capsule. The 'swan neck' version is one of those capsules attached to a bit of rubber and a short length of tubing covered with a plastic sleeve. Add a bit of sticky back velcro, a bit of screened cable and a phono plug, and they charge £30 for it.
Sure, there needs to be a profit when you manufacture something, but once you have the tools set up, these things don't take long to build and the cost of components (especially in bulk) is minimal.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
Youwere probably making them a long time ago. Today, just the plastic box with a battery compartment is £6.80. Even if you etch it yourself, the PCB will cost a couple of quid to produce, Three jack sockets at £1.50 each...
>>"The Microvox mike is just an electret capsule"
Well no, as you've pointed out, it's a capsule mic plus a separate power box. All I was pointing out in my original post was that their dual channel power box would be handy compared with running two individual mike systems as you would have to with most other makes.
Personally I think Microvox are reasonably priced for what they are. But I agree with you that they are probably not very good. The reason they suffer so much from feed back will be the fact that they use those cheap capsules, which are all omnidirectional. To minimise feedback close-miking instruments you really have to use a cardioid or hyper- capsule, and they are all much more expensive ( and you can't encapsulate them as Microvox do, they need a rear vent).
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by skreech
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
"Youwere probably making them a long time ago. Today, just the plastic box with a battery compartment is £6.80. Even if you etch it yourself, the PCB will cost a couple of quid to produce, Three jack sockets at £1.50 each..."
Erm...I was making them a while ago, but the box has one jack socket and two phono sockets. You can still get all the components for under a fiver, including the box (which doesn't have or need a battery compartment) If you know where to buy them. The circuit is so simple and sparse of components that a piece of veroboard is adequate. Bear in mind that these would be bought at trade price and in bulk.
"Well no, as you've pointed out, it's a capsule mic plus a separate power box."
That is 'the Microvox system'. The mike (which is the electret omni mike - it is bought as a mike as it is an electret and FET in a capsule) is listed separately from the power unit. I was referring to the mike, not the system.
"Personally I think Microvox are reasonably priced for what they are"
Well, I don't. I started making them because I was originally supplying them and the mikes were coming back with the soldered joints broken and the phono plug worn loose. I then realised how cheaply these things were produced and built the replacements myself - I could offer an improvement by using a locking phono plug and socket for starters.
Oh, and the power box is not dual channel. The mikes are wired in parallel and there is a single output.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
BTW, calling the box a 'preamp' is misleading because it functions as a power supply for the FET and an attenuator, rather than an amplifier. Microvox sell it as a power supply.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
>>"Oh, and the power box is not dual channel. The mikes are wired in parallel and there is a single output."
It has two inputs, ergo it is dual channel. The mics aren't just wired in parallel, there are buffering resistors and a balancing pot, and the single output is what I'm saying is potentially useful about it.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by skreech
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
"It has two inputs, ergo it is dual channel. The mics aren't just wired in parallel, there are buffering resistors and a balancing pot, and the single output is what I'm saying is potentially useful about it."
It is single channel. There's really no way of arguing otherwise. The resistors are used to attenuate the signal from the FET = the same whether one, two, or even more mikes are employed. The 'balancing pot' jutst attenuates one mike which is then connected in parallel with the other (so even 'mixer' would be inappropriate, as only one mike is controlled). The parallel connection (which it is, once the mikes are powered and attenuated) makes it single channel. The volume control attenuated the single channel signal further. Even Microvox call their product 'two input' rather than 'dual channel', and a 'power supply' rather than a 'preamp'. I can see that calling it a 'dual channel preamp' might justify spending over the odds for a few components in a box. However, I would have a good case for trade description contravention if I were to buy a box described as such. I'm sure Microvox are aware of that too.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
Attenuated = attenuates
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
>>"It is single channel. There's really no way of arguing otherwise."
FFS. If a mixer has 32 independent inputs you call it a 32 channel mixer, you don't call it a two channel mixer because all the signals eventually land up on a stereo pair.
This thing is a two channel device, because it has two independent inputs. It doesn't matter how crude the circuitry is, the fact that you can adjust the relative gain of the two channels makes them independent, and the device is classed as two channel.
The two resistors are called 'buffer resistors' and they aren't there to attenuate the signal (because this is a voltage driving circuit, and the currents are very small, the attenuation due to those resistors is minimal). They are there to restrict the cross-phase current. Because the FETs have very low impedence, if the two mikes are cross-phased, so that one is outputting +ve while the other is -ve, without those resistors the only impedance in the circuit would be the balancing pot, and a very large current will flow. If you simply connect two electret capsules in parallel, without those buffer resistors, then if they get cross-phased their outputs are effectively short circuited, and there is a good chance one of the FETs will blow.
I agree it is a very crude circuit - when you have an active source like an electret capsule you really need to use a summing amp. But like it or not, that that little network of resistors is a mixer, albeit a passive one. So what you have is a box that takes two independent input channels, and mixes them onto a single output channel. It is a two channel mixer.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by skreech
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
I've used one for years. I have metal ended instruments, so the velcro is no problem. I find they work well - IF you have a sound person who knows how to deal with them. They can take some serious EQing to produce a natural sound, but when done right, they sound just fine, and to my mind are preferable to a single fixed mic.
One caveat: they seem cheaply put together. I've had to tighten connections, in one case resolder. But on balance, decent tools for the money.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Jeffries_Anglo
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
"FFS. If a mixer has 32 independent inputs you call it a 32 channel mixer, you don't call it a two channel mixer because all the signals eventually land up on a stereo pair."
They are not actually independent inputs though, are they?
An example: This desk has two inputs for each channel -
http://www.nhwoods.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1155
A high impedance and a low impedance (actually, the FX return is also an input). The two inputs have impedance matching componentry, and the low Z input has phantom powering. However, the desk is an 8 channel desk, not a 16 channel desk. I've come across desks like this where neither of the two inputs disconnect the other when a plug is inserted. Not really a good idea, but two sources could be fed into the one channel.
"The two resistors are called 'buffer resistors' and they aren't there to attenuate the signal (because this is a voltage driving circuit, and the currents are very small, the attenuation due to those resistors is minimal). They are there to restrict the cross-phase current. Because the FETs have very low impedence, if the two mikes are cross-phased, so that one is outputting +ve while the other is -ve, without those resistors the only impedance in the circuit would be the balancing pot, and a very large current will flow. If you simply connect two electret capsules in parallel, without those buffer resistors, then if they get cross-phased their outputs are effectively short circuited, and there is a good chance one of the FETs will blow."
I suggest that you actually examine the circuitry of one of these boxes. Those resistors attenuate the mikes, and the preset attenuates one of them further.
"But like it or not, that that little network of resistors is a mixer, albeit a passive one. So what you have is a box that takes two independent input channels, and mixes them onto a single output channel. It is a two channel mixer"
It balances one input against another - but only one input is controlled. You have to decide which mike you want attenuated and use that mike in the controlled socket. You have no independent control over the other input. It couldn't be regarded as a two channel mixer, as it only adjusts one input and the signal from each mike is essentially fed through one channel by parallel connection. As I said, examine the circuitry.
It appears that you haven't, as you called the box a preamp.
Even a parallel connection 'mixes' the two input sources. Try selling that as a 'mixer' and you could land yourself in trouble.
To call that box a dual channel box is pushing it to say the least.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
"They can take some serious EQing to produce a natural sound, but when done right, they sound just fine, and to my mind are preferable to a single fixed mic."
The advantage is that the mikes move with the respective end of the concertina. Two decent condenser mikes take some beating. Yes, with a bit of care, they can produce a good sound but if you are playing behind a foldback, be prepared for some fun.
"One caveat: they seem cheaply put together."
That is putting it mildly.
# Posted on August 1st 2011 by Weejie
Re: Microvox concertina microphone
if you are using microvox - and I do - you may prefer the power supply available from orchid electronics. It is in a metal box, has a balanced output on XLR, and is phantom powered.
http://www.orchid-electronics.co.uk/contact_mic.htm
I have no connection with Orchid other than being a satisfied customer.
Bruce.
# Posted on August 4th 2011 by bruce1