|
Post by chessparov on Jan 20, 2020 13:03:34 GMT -6
Excellent points! (including editing that post accordingly). Chris
|
|
|
Post by cdkelly on Jan 21, 2020 21:23:04 GMT -6
I would expect a GAP vs. AA shootout, to have a ton of interest... Chris My guess is if this is truly a microphone worth 4K it will easily best the AA, but the AA will leave people thinking just how good it is at its price point. That was my reaction with the CM49 next to my FleA49, the CM48T next to the FleA47, and the CM67LE next to the MK67. AA has a comparison of their mic next to a real deal C800g on their main page. Just scroll down a little. advancedaudio.caIt’s funny, the C800G has never been on my list. I’ve only seen one artist in my genre use it, the baritone from Il Divo. Still it’s unmistakeable when you hear it. I have debated grabbing BLUE’s new B9 capsule though. That is their take on the C800G for their mic systems. I finally got to hear the GAP C800G. It sounded really lovely. Hard to tell much at NAMM, but it was very soft and sweet, and not harsh and bright at all.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 21, 2020 21:50:13 GMT -6
I suspect it's somewhat darker/fuller, than the original Sony. Chris
|
|
|
Post by cdkelly on Jan 22, 2020 10:24:07 GMT -6
I suspect it's somewhat darker/fuller, than the original Sony. Chris Reading between the lines, that's what I think as well. Obviously they can't veer too far from what the 800 'does', but if I recall the literature they did do some things to extend the bottom reach and soften the top ever slightly.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 22, 2020 11:02:51 GMT -6
Good! Then my 60 year old ears can still hear. Chris
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 25, 2020 10:20:38 GMT -6
Is someone actually doing a shoot out? I was talking to Josh about my order and mentioned this thread , he seems ready to get someone one of his 800 mikes for a shoot out ?
Thx.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 25, 2020 11:17:39 GMT -6
That'd definitely be RAD. BTW that bit 'o Crow I ate, regarding my initial expectaions.... Definitely tasted like chicken! Chris
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Jan 25, 2020 11:54:26 GMT -6
I suspect it's somewhat darker/fuller, than the original Sony. Chris Reading between the lines, that's what I think as well. Obviously they can't veer too far from what the 800 'does', but if I recall the literature they did do some things to extend the bottom reach and soften the top ever slightly. Why would anyone want to extend the bottom of this mic? It has one of the most rich, natural & round low ends you could experience in a condenser.
People who don't use or know this mic fail to understand that it's capture is honest but, again, in a full rich way throughout the spectrum. The highs are beautiful & bring a natural "air" to the sound. The only softening (mix, eq) that has to be done is when the source itself is shrill or unpleasing.
Very curious to hear this "clone", let alone with a capsule made from a 3rd party & no tubes in the PS.
Not sure but read somewhere about 6AU6 & not a 6AU6A?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 25, 2020 12:08:41 GMT -6
Aremos, I had no frame of comparison, other than records... Of what the C800G sounds like. Honestly, due to how they generally produce the vocals I've heard (Mariah etc.) I expected this Mic to sound much brighter!
Much the same with the SM7. With a premium Pre, it's somewhere between an "8.5" and a "9", on my vocals! (Despite that Hipster connotation;))
Chris
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Jan 25, 2020 14:07:11 GMT -6
Reading between the lines, that's what I think as well. Obviously they can't veer too far from what the 800 'does', but if I recall the literature they did do some things to extend the bottom reach and soften the top ever slightly. Not sure but read somewhere about 6AU6 & not a 6AU6A?
From the info/specs on the Sweetwater site: "NOS 6AU6 from France In order to ensure long life for the tube, Golden Age chose a new-old-stock (NOS) GIFTE 6AU6 tube from France with a maximum anode voltage rating of approximately 300 volts. The tube in this circuit has an anode voltage of 90V and will generate more heat than tubes in many other tube microphones that typically use voltages between 35 and 50V. The higher voltage used in the GA-800G increases the heat dissipation, so the active semiconductor cooling system is a critical element of the design."
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Jan 25, 2020 15:14:01 GMT -6
Todd, One of the rumors (false of course) is the life of the tubes. I've only used the ones sold by Sony, since the mic came out, which were hand selected Russian 6AU6A's & lasted MANY YEARS, both inside the mic & the ones inside the PS. But now, due to Sony's poor customer service, we're not even sure if they're selling them anymore!
Chessparov, I don't think I was addressing (quoting) you.
|
|
|
Post by raddistribution on Jan 25, 2020 17:08:27 GMT -6
slight typo, its actually cifte not gifte Not sure but read somewhere about 6AU6 & not a 6AU6A?
From the info/specs on the Sweetwater site: "NOS 6AU6 from France In order to ensure long life for the tube, Golden Age chose a new-old-stock (NOS) GIFTE 6AU6 tube from France with a maximum anode voltage rating of approximately 300 volts. The tube in this circuit has an anode voltage of 90V and will generate more heat than tubes in many other tube microphones that typically use voltages between 35 and 50V. The higher voltage used in the GA-800G increases the heat dissipation, so the active semiconductor cooling system is a critical element of the design."
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 25, 2020 18:46:49 GMT -6
I was wondering about thate! Chris
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Jan 25, 2020 22:29:19 GMT -6
Just to clarify, I’ve got no skin in the game here. I’m only trying to provide the info I’m aware of per the discussion. The verbiage regarding the tube type is a direct cut/paste from the Sweetwater website.
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Jan 25, 2020 23:11:44 GMT -6
"Although it’s based on the original, the circuit board has been upgraded to a Rogers ceramic board used in high-end aerospace communication products, with more stringent insulation parameters for more stable performance. The coupling and bypass capacitors have also been upgraded, resulting in deeper and more exacting low-frequency performance and more delicate and transparent high-frequency reproduction"
So it's not the same thing as what it's attempting to be. We live in a golden age of recording possibilities. Why bother with a discussion on this at all?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 25, 2020 23:37:33 GMT -6
(Best 007/Sean Connery voice) "My name is Rogers"..."Mr Rogers". Chris
|
|
|
Post by cdkelly on Jan 28, 2020 23:27:49 GMT -6
"Although it’s based on the original, the circuit board has been upgraded to a Rogers ceramic board used in high-end aerospace communication products, with more stringent insulation parameters for more stable performance. The coupling and bypass capacitors have also been upgraded, resulting in deeper and more exacting low-frequency performance and more delicate and transparent high-frequency reproduction" So it's not the same thing as what it's attempting to be. We live in a golden age of recording possibilities. Why bother with a discussion on this at all? There's nothing wrong with improving something if obvious improvements make themselves evident, honestly, I will almost always try to do the same thing. In my experience the essence of something intended will shine through even if you remove some of the warts rather than try to reproduce all of the warts. Look at the reissue of Electrodyne preamps, they corrected some things that were factually wrong with that original design, made it more reliable, still captures the Essence, no one is complaining. Chad
|
|
|
Post by cdkelly on Jan 29, 2020 17:21:26 GMT -6
"Although it’s based on the original, the circuit board has been upgraded to a Rogers ceramic board used in high-end aerospace communication products, with more stringent insulation parameters for more stable performance. The coupling and bypass capacitors have also been upgraded, resulting in deeper and more exacting low-frequency performance and more delicate and transparent high-frequency reproduction" So it's not the same thing as what it's attempting to be. We live in a golden age of recording possibilities. Why bother with a discussion on this at all? There's nothing wrong with improving something if obvious improvements make themselves evident, honestly, I will almost always try to do the same thing. In my experience the essence of something intended will shine through even if you remove some of the warts rather than try to reproduce all of the warts. Look at the reissue of Electrodyne preamps, they corrected some things that were factually wrong with that original design, made it more reliable, still captures the Essence, no one is complaining. Just to pontificate a little further on that point if I may indulge... lol I think its great to have a reverence for the past, but not to be absolutely subservient to it. If anyone thinks that mistakes weren't made back then, I hate to break it... but mistakes were made back then and still today. LOL I'll give a couple examples just as they relate to something I have worked on, the '47' family of products... there are 2 specific things I consider 'wrong' about original U47's and their most stringent modern replicas. One is the height of the capsule mount, which raises it past the intersection with a crossbeam of chrome plated metal used to join the top part of the headbasket to the rest of the headbasket. This sort of creates a tuning baffle, reinforcing frequencies normally associated with the sibilance range. I've measured it. Lowering it out of the way of that piece of reflective metal reduces that sibilance bump. Some have argued that this was done intentionally and I think that's quite unlikely. I'll always lower the capsule to where there is nothing in the way of it causing an interference pattern. 'Stringent' replicas of the 47 reproduce this boo-boo; but I will not. sorry/not sorry. LOL Another is the material for the body tube. I like to use thick brass, but the original was aluminum. The aluminum tubes have a very long tail in terms of resonance and this can be measured with an accelerometer. Brass isn't perfect either; but if the mic is well constructed and the body tube made with thicker brass, it will have a much lower resonance with a much shorter tail. There's certainly no audio reason I can imagine that someone would have done aluminum; it's far more likely due to just the costs and scarcity of refined metals in postwar Europe. Believe it or not, I would say more than half of the 'stringent' 47-type reproductions are using aluminum for historic reasons. But, I can tell you who won't ever be... this guy... lol It makes the whole mic sound different than what I want it to sound like. too 'echoey' and hollow for my taste, and the difference is not at all subtle IMO. And nothing against those who like it the old way. Just worth pointing out that some people feel that when a way presents itself to do something better, its almost impossible to resist the feeling that this is the right thing to do. At least, for me. I'm guessing GAP feel that way too, at least on that product. Chad
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 29, 2020 17:44:30 GMT -6
Just to pontificate a little further on that point if I may indulge... there are 2 specific things I consider 'wrong' about original U47's and their most stringent modern replicas. One is the height of the capsule mount, which raises it past the intersection with a crossbeam of chrome plated metal used to join the top part of the headbasket to the rest of the headbasket. This sort of creates a tuning baffle, reinforcing frequencies normally associated with the sibilance range. I've measured it. Lowering it out of the way of that piece of reflective metal reduces that sibilance bump. Some have argued that this was done intentionally and I think that's quite unlikely. Chad The only slight possibility I might consider it purposeful would be German language speech, with that accentuation maybe seen as helping intelligibility. For speech. Wrong for all other uses. Somewhere there's an interesting interview with the Grateful Dead that mentions their preference for American ribbon mics for vocals, on the basis that German mics are tuned for German speech.....interesting idea.....can't say they're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cdkelly on Jan 29, 2020 22:56:13 GMT -6
Just to pontificate a little further on that point if I may indulge... there are 2 specific things I consider 'wrong' about original U47's and their most stringent modern replicas. One is the height of the capsule mount, which raises it past the intersection with a crossbeam of chrome plated metal used to join the top part of the headbasket to the rest of the headbasket. This sort of creates a tuning baffle, reinforcing frequencies normally associated with the sibilance range. I've measured it. Lowering it out of the way of that piece of reflective metal reduces that sibilance bump. Some have argued that this was done intentionally and I think that's quite unlikely. Chad The only slight possibility I might consider it purposeful would be German language speech, with that accentuation maybe seen as helping intelligibility. For speech. Wrong for all other uses. Somewhere there's an interesting interview with the Grateful Dead that mentions their preference for American ribbon mics for vocals, on the basis that German mics are tuned for German speech.....interesting idea.....can't say they're wrong. well, ribbon mics for sure don't suffer the peaks and valleys that both condenser and dynamic microphones often suffer from... they're not linear, but they are far smoother. But I've never found them ideal for vocals... its certainly worth saying there's plenty of disagreement on that, as my old buddy Bob Crowley (from Crowley and Tripp ribbon mics, later sold to Shure) would have surely disagreed. I find that, because ribbons work so much off of the signal average than drawing out the transient peaks of a voice well, it tends to over-soften. It does the same thing with electric guitar cabinets, except in that case the over-softening is what you actually want, and you blend in the 'SM57' or Sennheiser 421 channel 'to taste' to add back in a controlled level of that 'bite'. I also don't like using figure of eight pattern mics on a solo vocalist (although for 2 vocalists tracking at once, it would be great). A good vocal room or vocal shield solves the reflection issue though, and of course there are some great cardioid ribbons out there. Maybe I should give it another try one day.
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Jan 30, 2020 0:28:02 GMT -6
There's nothing wrong with improving something if obvious improvements make themselves evident, honestly, I will almost always try to do the same thing. In my experience the essence of something intended will shine through even if you remove some of the warts rather than try to reproduce all of the warts. Look at the reissue of Electrodyne preamps, they corrected some things that were factually wrong with that original design, made it more reliable, still captures the Essence, no one is complaining. Just to pontificate a little further on that point if I may indulge... lol I think its great to have a reverence for the past, but not to be absolutely subservient to it. If anyone thinks that mistakes weren't made back then, I hate to break it... but mistakes were made back then and still today. LOL I'll give a couple examples just as they relate to something I have worked on, the '47' family of products... there are 2 specific things I consider 'wrong' about original U47's and their most stringent modern replicas. One is the height of the capsule mount, which raises it past the intersection with a crossbeam of chrome plated metal used to join the top part of the headbasket to the rest of the headbasket. This sort of creates a tuning baffle, reinforcing frequencies normally associated with the sibilance range. I've measured it. Lowering it out of the way of that piece of reflective metal reduces that sibilance bump. Some have argued that this was done intentionally and I think that's quite unlikely. I'll always lower the capsule to where there is nothing in the way of it causing an interference pattern. 'Stringent' replicas of the 47 reproduce this boo-boo; but I will not. sorry/not sorry. LOL Another is the material for the body tube. I like to use thick brass, but the original was aluminum. The aluminum tubes have a very long tail in terms or resonance and this can be measured with an accelerometer. Brass isn't perfect either; but if the mic is well constructed and the body tube made with thicker brass, it will have a much lower resonance with a much shorter tail. There's certainly no audio reason I can imagine that someone would have done aluminum; it's far more likely due to just the costs and scarcity of refined metals in postwar Europe. Believe it or not, I would say more than half of the 'stringent' 47-type reproductions are using aluminum for historic reasons. But, I can tell you who won't ever be... this guy... lol It makes the whole mic sound different than what I want it to sound like. too 'echoey' for my taste. And nothing against those who like it the old way. Just worth pointing out that some people feel that when a way presents itself to do something better, its almost impossible to resist the feeling that this is the right thing to do. At least, for me. I'm guessing GAP feel that way too, at least on that product. Chad Sure man, I have no issue with your take on the subject. I'll just continue on my own route.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,937
|
Post by ericn on Jan 30, 2020 22:37:15 GMT -6
"Although it’s based on the original, the circuit board has been upgraded to a Rogers ceramic board used in high-end aerospace communication products, with more stringent insulation parameters for more stable performance. The coupling and bypass capacitors have also been upgraded, resulting in deeper and more exacting low-frequency performance and more delicate and transparent high-frequency reproduction" So it's not the same thing as what it's attempting to be. We live in a golden age of recording possibilities. Why bother with a discussion on this at all? There's nothing wrong with improving something if obvious improvements make themselves evident, honestly, I will almost always try to do the same thing. In my experience the essence of something intended will shine through even if you remove some of the warts rather than try to reproduce all of the warts. Look at the reissue of Electrodyne preamps, they corrected some things that were factually wrong with that original design, made it more reliable, still captures the Essence, no one is complaining. Chad No skin in the game either, but Chad you forgot reason number 2. You learn from talking to guys at who designed or built the original and find out there was some issue they wished they could have addressed that you have a simple solution for years later. We never have seen that one my friend now have we.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 31, 2020 9:38:06 GMT -6
Is it fair to say that the GAP800 owes a nod to the U67 and U47/M7 microphones also?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 31, 2020 10:20:47 GMT -6
Like the Sony C800G, it may have a Yen for them... Chris
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 31, 2020 10:40:34 GMT -6
Is it fair to say that the GAP800 owes a nod to the U67 and U47/M7 microphones also? I have never heard one (GAP), but the SONY 800G is nothing like any 67 or 47 I've ever heard.
|
|