Filter
Top Products
User Guide - 7
English
One advantage is that the extremely high input
impedance of a tube doesn’t load down the
microphone capsule output in any significant way.
Also, there are some major differences in the inherent
physical properties of the devices and with the circuit
topologies and components used with each type of
device. Linear vacuum tubes have lower overall
distortion than bipolar transistors or FETs, and the
distortion products are primarily lower-order—and
therefore, more “musical” sounding. While the
clipping characteristic of tubes is actually not much
softer than that of transistors, the negative feedback
networks necessary to achieve proper solid-state
operation tend to “square-up” the clipping, resulting
in higher- and odd-order harmonics. So the heavy
feedback in most solid-state designs actually gives
them worse overload performance and can cause
transient intermodulation (TIM) distortion due to
clipping or slew-rate limiting within the feedback
loop. (When transistors overload—in a discrete
circuit or in an op amp—the dominant distortion
products are the third and fifth harmonics. These
harmonics produce a sound many musicians refer to
as “stopped” or “covered”; basically, not pleasant. On
the other hand, with tubes the dominant distortion
product is the second harmonic, with the fourth and
sixth appearing with smaller amplitudes. Musically, the
second harmonic is an octave above the fundamental
and you can hardly hear it—but it adds body to the
sound, making it appear “fuller.” The other higher
even-order harmonics result in a “singing” or “choral”
sound.) Since vacuum tubes tend to be highly linear,
with little or no negative feedback, you can drive
them harder without hearing distortion. In other
words, the tube’s soft clipping also can increase the
apparent dynamic range of the microphone—which
is particularly useful when you’re recording a singer
whose voice can get really loud or really soft.
Coming back to the issue of microphone accuracy:
our cascode tube circuit (described in the Features
section) utilizes all of these desirable tube properties
in order to allow you to record sounds more faithfully
and realistically than with an “equivalent” transistor
design. The tube circuit’s higher dynamic range (due
to higher operating voltages); greater tolerance for
voltage spikes and graceful overload characteristics;
and wider frequency response (due to a larger gain-
bandwidth product) make it ideal for use in a world-
class studio microphone. It’s the sound you’ve heard
on so many classic and clean-sounding recordings—
and it’s the sound you’ll hear with the Sputnik mic.
What’s in a Name?
“Sputnik” is a funny thing to call a microphone, but we
thought it was oddly appropriate. As you may know,
in the 1950s the former Soviet Union launched its
Sputnik Program for unmanned space missions—and
Sputnik 1, launched 4 October 1957, was the world’s
first artificial satellite. The success of the first Sputnik
satellite did yield some positive long-term effects;
among them, it motivated U.S. government officials
to increase public spending on scientific research
and education. Not coincidentally, the late 1950s
also marked the time vacuum tubes started giving
way to new transistor-based technology in consumer
products (thanks in part to the pioneering efforts
of engineers at Bell Labs). So the Sputnik satellite
launch effectively coincided with the pinnacle of
vacuum tube popularity before its decline. In other
words, our microphone name is an oblique allusion
to the era in which its core technology saw its peak.
It’s important to note, however, that the Sputnik
Program arguably sparked a turning point in the
Cold War—one in which all the major world powers
engaged in dubious maneuvering, economic terrorism,
intimidation, propaganda, assassinations, and proxy
wars. In short, the Sputnik Program ushered in an era
of world-wide geostrategic shifts in public policy—
and needless to say, they weren’t pleasant. In essence,
although we’ve named the mic “Sputnik,” it should be
clear that we are in no way endorsing the Cold-War
manipulations escalated by any of the major world
powers in the wake of the Sputnik Program. Put
simply:
we just like the name.
[Cold-War imagery aside, it’s interesting to note
that most high-quality vacuum tubes today are made
in Russia; by contrast, the 6205M tube used in the
Sputnik head amp is actually American-made. The
tubes we use were made by Raytheon and Philips
originally for use in RF (radio) applications for the
US military. So our selection of the name “Sputnik”
is further punctuated by this irony.]