A Microphone For Stringed Instruments: DeArmond 1200

[capnjuan]

I guess it's a price that occasionally gets paid for hanging around LTG. Last fall, Littlesong's happy chatter about the combination of his F212, 'stereo-esque' Sano amp, and DeArmond 1200 soundhole p/u gave me a case of PAS ... Pickup Acquisition Syndrome.

While he was exulting, a DeArmond 1200, designed for use on a 12-string, showed up on eBay w/ original packing which ... as everyone knows, always makes it sound better :wink: But I sold the guitar it was intended to go into ... and then sold the p/u to our Guildzilla who, after I bought the G312, kindly offered to sell it back to me ... and here it is mounted on the G312:

It uses thin magnetic film instead of pole pieces ... very quiet, literature doesn't say but expect with the two rows, it's wired humbucker:

Case candy including the drilled out end-pin through which the cable would pass:

Despite my rusty 12 string technique and using an old Gibson amp, the guitar, pickup, and amp produce a roomful of golden, rich, thick tone. No sensitivity statistics ... probably not quite as accurate as the new generation of passive and active p/u's and feeding a 6EU7 instead of transistors and ICs is going to cost some in the air-around-the-note department .... okay ... all that having been said, it's a very fine piece of electronics and very well-suited to the woody, jangly 12-string sound.

Thanks Littlesongs and thanks Guildzilla

 

[charliea]

Man, that setup drips Mojo. I can't come close. What works very well for my foray into heavy metal, however, is a Baggs M1active through an Art 12ax7a preamp into my old Carlsbro 120w solid state 1x15. Makes a big sound that covers a lot of my mistakes (more reverb, por favor!).

 

[yettoblaster]

I used to use those DeArmond "hole chewers" back in the sixties. In fact my first J-45 I used a couple different Rowe-DeArmonds on, through a terrible sounding transistor Heathkit amp I built in High School Shop class.

In the early eighties for my studio debut I used a Lawrence FT-145 on a Martin D-18.

Nowadays I'm gigging a Lawrence 345 magnetic soundhole pickup on my Guild D4-NT through a volume pedal, then straight into a Tech 21 amp.

I guess I should get some pics up to prove it. :roll:

That 1200 looks like a Cadillac!

 

[Brad Little]

Interesting. I still have one of those DeArmond 1200 pups around someplace, maybe in a chest of drawers out in the garage. I bought it around 1969, used it for a while, but never really bonded with it. In the 70s, I used the first generation of Barcus Berry, one that stuck to the bridge with some sticky putty type fastener. Still have it somewhere, too. Now I have the Baggs M1 active on my F-212 and like it better than the other two, I will admit, though, that it's been 40 years since I tried the DeArmond, have to dig it out and give it a listen.
Brad

 

[guildzilla]

Nice to know you're digging the rigging, CJ. Keep playing, man.

 

[capnjuan]

... an Art 12ax7a preamp into my old Carlsbro 120w solid state 1x15.

Very fine rig. I have a Weber/Fender reverb unit built by another member; when the 'verb is bypassed, it acts like a tube preamp. Not much info out there on the Carlsbro ... a very boutiquey amp? You should thread it here, I'm sure some of the acoustic brethern would be interested in knowing more about it. Not sure what else anybody'd want in an acoustic amp :shock: :shock: :shock:

120W RMS
15 Speaker + HF Tweeter
2 Channels
Phase Invert Switch
Variable Gain Input Control On Each Channel
3 Band EQ Including Semi-Parametric Mid On Channel 1
3 Band Independent Active EQ On Channel 2
Channel 2 ~ Hi-Z Jack Instrument Input ~ Lo Z XLR Mic Input
Independent Reverb Controls For Each Channel
Master Volume Control
FX Loop
Balanced XLR Line Output
HF Tweeter Disable Switch
Dimensions (HxWxD)mm : 550 x 520 x 305
Weight : 21kg

 

[capnjuan]

I used to use those DeArmond "hole chewers" back in the sixties ... That 1200 looks like a Cadillac!

Hi YB; this one has cork pads between the p/u and the deck ... and the cork is still in good condition ... as is the unit ... just surface scratches on the chrome. My impression is that the 1200 was about as good as was commercially available when it was made ... which is okay with me. Most of my songbook is pretty old stuff anyway. :wink:

 

[capnjuan]

... Glad you are diggin' the sound Captain! You are very welcome for the tip. As you noted, it does not make an acoustic sound like an acoustic at all. Instead, the pickup makes an acoustic sound a lot more like a hollowbody electric 12-string. In situations that call for shimmery electric jangle, it is a fine alternative to dropping around $2K on a Ricky.

Hi Dave and thanks again ... I know about the Ricky thingy ... this one ... used to be mine ...

If it weren't for the Rick's stingy nut, it'd still be around ... In addition to the Weber/Fender reverb, I have a Marshall Bluesbreaker II for gain and distortion and an old MXR dyna comp for compression ... popular with Rick owners who don't have old tubers that already compress like crazy. Only a Rick sounds like a Rick ... but that's not the tone I'm after anyway.

Thanks also for the artists' pics; I know I feel better joining their (gear) company ... I wonder how they'd feel about it ........ :wink: John

 

[yettoblaster]

...I guess I should get some pics up to prove it. ...

OK, here's my two dreads, one with the Lawrence FT-345 ('93 D4-NT)

 

[Nigel Wickwire]

I used to use those DeArmond "hole chewers" back in the sixties ... That 1200 looks like a Cadillac!

Hi YB; this one has cork pads between the p/u and the deck ... and the cork is still in good condition ... as is the unit ... just surface scratches on the chrome. My impression is that the 1200 was about as good as was commercially available when it was made ... which is okay with me. Most of my songbook is pretty old stuff anyway. :wink:

Cap'n, could you provide a bit more precision in your carbon-dating of this P'up? I gather from the thread that it pre-dates your G312. Is that correct?

~nw

 

[capnjuan]

Cap'n, could you provide a bit more precision in your carbon-dating of this P'up? I gather from the thread that it pre-dates your G312. Is that correct?

Well ... I had it over at Guesstimate Laboratories and Dry Cleaners ... who offered 'late 60s' but LS' comment suggests that if I actually looked hard at it, I might get a little closer but I'm pretty sure it pre-dates the G312 by the better part of 10 years. Maybe YB was right about it being a 'hole-chewer'.

When I first put in in, I had the pot end on the bass strings; sounded fine. Then peeked at the instructions ... (as a last resort mind you) ... and it indicated pot end on the treble strings ... so I switched it and now it's pretty bassy ... and maybe getting some unnecessary help from the amps which have a decidedly bass tilt anyway. Will be changing it again today and will check for date info. J

 

[yettoblaster]

I loved the fat (almost P-90) sound from my sixties Rowe-DeArmonds. I can't remember which way the pot went now, but there was no polepiece for the B string on a couple of the ones I had back then. One had a volume pot, the other didn't.

Later on I took one apart and just jammed the white plastic coil part in there with a piece of big insulated wire to add friction/tension wrapped around it to hold it in place. That was the best sound because it shifted the location to the neck end of the soundhole.

The Lawrences I use now don't have that big fat sound of the old DeArmonds, but sometimes can improved by stuffing them into a rubber Feedback Buster soundhole plug to get it closer to the strings.

There was an old Rowe-DeArmond used at a local store lately, but I stupidly passed on it. "D-oH!"

:evil:

 

[charliea]

In this clip Kottke appears to have used an early form of duct tape, or something, to avoid the hole chewing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gh-U9T7 ... re=related .

 

[yettoblaster]

Far out. Yeah the volume control at the bottom! I can't remember how I oriented mine when I had the volume control. Mine had flat and flush pole pieces too (except no "B"). Later on they had adjustable polepieces too.

Interesting way he routed the cable too. Kind of a hassle unless you go inside through a jack somewhere. I've tried all kinds of routes, and tape! :evil:

I'm still kicking myself for passing on that DeArmond I saw a few weeks ago.

An early one I had came with little swing out arms with what looked like glazer's points mounted on the ends to help secure one end. The other end had a spring clip (inside) facing a rubber pad. The idea was to secure the pickup by sinking those points into the soft wood under the soundhole's lip. Hence, "hole chewer" DeArmonds.

 

[capnjuan]

@ Nigel and Dave: no dates engraved or marked on the back; no nothing. The packaging (and warranty card ... I should send it in :wink: ) all have Zip codes but the Wikis sayeth 1963 for start of zippers ... and the artwork in the literature suggestive of an earlier date too. It could easily be older than late-'60s ... which was a complete guess on my part anyway ... otherwise nothing really helpful on the date .. :?

@YB: yes, the cable / jack is a pain. The kit contains a hollow plastic end pin and a piece of thin steel designed to poke the cable through the end pin. This one has a shortish cable terminated on a jack; if it had been installed as is, only long enough to be fitted in the lower rim somewhere.

This one also has the arms w/ points but the useful tension is provided by the clamp at the other end and the arms dig just enough to provide some resistance to inadvertent bumps; I don't think they'd survive Pete's windmills or Danko-thrashing. They also bend enough to be pushed down and away to allow in/out without tearing things up but I don't think this is something anybody'd want to mess with during a set ... I mean it's either in or it's out.

Re-oriented now; pot up at bass end; sounds fine ... no imbalance between bass and treble. No explanation for how come the directions show otherwise except that maybe they were using some out-of-work Gibson engineers ... they're stuff never matches anything. :lol:

 

[yettoblaster]

Beautiful. Yeah I've had at least four of the various models pictured for flat-top and archtop guitars I guess, including the flat-top models with the volume control on top AND on the bottom of the hole. Confusing to my memory containment vessel.

 

[Nigel Wickwire]

Thanks CJ, LS and YB for the history lesson with visual aids.

Very cool and interesting tech..........

~nw

 

[capnjuan]

Thanks Dave; the #210 looks like the same p/u but with pole pieces. Here's an eBay search string for DeArmond pickups. Of them, this 210 most closely matches the catalog 210 and is most like mine except for the 'microphone' v. pole pieces construction. Of course my self-esteem is crushed to find out that according to the catalog, the 'microphone' style were considered 'inexpensive' ... :wink: 'Inexpensive' isn't what I'd call what I paid for it but it was a lot less than what a new top-of-the-line would cost installed ... one that would be technically obsolete in 5 years anyway.

 

[yettoblaster]

...Lightning, Elmore and Leo all look to be playing different versions of the 210 in those pictures.

Elmore's is in upside down. Leo's got the later version with screw adlust polepieces.
Yeah I don't think back in those days that anybody would suspect in the future -our "information age" - we'd be so anal about accuracy of ad copy. Does Guild, now? :lol:
I mean the 2010 Winter catalog ain't bad, but does FMIC ever update the website?

 

[Brad Little]

The kit contains a hollow plastic end pin and a piece of thin steel designed to poke the cable through the end pin. This one has a shortish cable terminated on a jack; if it had been installed as is, only long enough to be fitted in the lower rim somewhere.

This one also has the arms w/ points but the useful tension is provided by the clamp at the other end and the arms dig just enough to provide some resistance to inadvertent bumps;

Mine has/had no hollow plastic end pin or thin steel "hole poker." The cable is several feet long and terminates in a 1/4" plug, so it was designed to poke out of the sound hole and connect directly to an amp. It was bought new, sometime between 1967 and 1969, probably closer to '69, so I'm guessing if they only had one model, yours is more recent. I don't think I have the inserts or info that came with it any more, but I'll have to dig it out and see. It's also possible I tossed it, lost it in a move or gave it away at some point.
It did have the arms and points for mounting, no poles, though, strictly microphonic I would guess.
Brad