|
Post by EmRR on Apr 10, 2017 21:42:09 GMT -6
Of course you are right. My personal experience is I've dismissed many for failing to be as good, or as 'magical', or as 'vibey', or whatever. Many a Pultec clone makes the shapes of a Pultec, yet sounds nothing like one, and the curves frequently aren't what people are after. Etc etc. The main thing is using your ears with any piece, yard sale Bogen PA, Mackie 1604, RCA OP-6, and decide if you can make sounds you like with it. Chasing names and labels, especially clones, if you are taking it on hearsay, is a fool's errand.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Apr 10, 2017 21:44:13 GMT -6
Boy oh boy, some of you sure have selective reading and/or short term memory! I figured I laid out some pretty clear points that are based on commonly accepted facts, well, because they are facts. And the degree of passive-aggression is unbelievable. If you don't like what you're hearing, some of you just really want to tear down the contrary-minded individual at all cost. Sorry, timcampbell, if I left you on your own there for a bit... I meant to back you up more especially with your excellent work which is proof of what you have stated here. P.S. I cannot put Pro Replicas, Retro or others in the same category as the cheap knock-offs any sooner than I can put Tim Campbell, Shannon Rhoads, Dallas Upton, Brent Averill, David Bock or others in there. Because they are not creating knockoffs for the masses and cutting corners but instead are meticulously recreating and improving classics which we will never see again from original manufacturers that don't even exist anymore (in some cases)
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 10, 2017 21:56:45 GMT -6
EmRR likes this
Post by johneppstein on Apr 10, 2017 21:56:45 GMT -6
Those are all nice theories, and theories they mostly remain. If the clones "aren't", then they don't have one. Might as well free yourself to try other things. It also entirely possible for those clones to be superior to the original product, which is a point that I feel like some people miss, especially in a field where subjective experience appears to reign supreme. It would be just as foolish to dismiss something because it could fall into the realm of being considered a clone, as it would be to dismiss something from consideration just because it's innovative and falls into uncharted territory. "Superior" = "different". FWIW.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 10, 2017 22:28:55 GMT -6
Post by ragan on Apr 10, 2017 22:28:55 GMT -6
Boy oh boy, some of you sure have selective reading and/or short term memory! I figured I laid out some pretty clear points that are based on commonly accepted facts, well, because they are facts. And the degree of passive-aggression is unbelievable. If you don't like what you're hearing, some of you just really want to tear down the contrary-minded individual at all cost. Sorry, timcampbell , if I left you on your own there for a bit... I meant to back you up more especially with your excellent work which is proof of what you have stated here. P.S. I cannot put Pro Replicas, Retro or others in the same category as the cheap knock-offs any sooner than I can put Tim Campbell, Shannon Rhoads, Dallas Upton, Brent Averill, David Bock or others in there. Because they are not creating knockoffs for the masses and cutting corners but instead are meticulously recreating and improving classics which we will never see again from original manufacturers that don't even exist anymore (in some cases) LOL Ward I assume some or most of that is directed at me, which is fine. I like a good point. I don't care what 'side' it's on. Telefunken is still selling 251s, AKG is still selling C12s. AMS Neve is still selling 1073s. Etc, etc, etc. "High end" (meaning high retail price tag) clones simply don't get slagged the way the budget stuff does and it's nakedly hypocritical. I can't truly know if you're in this category or not, but much of the blowback I see on the forums against Warm or whoever is not that they don't like the actual product (often the loudest critics haven't even used the thing in question) but rather they don't like the idea of the product. It appears to me that it's the "for the masses" part that bugs some people more than the belief in 'corners cut'. Again, I can't say if that's you or not, but it's something I see all the time. There is gear out there for everyone. Some people truly value costlier metalwork, more expensive paint jobs, better jacks, Western labor, etc. Which is find and dandy. A piece from Chandler or whoever is truly a thing of beauty. I appreciate it too, for sure. But it is, in my opinion, a fact that you can, in some cases these days, get much or all (utterly subjective) of the desired sonics of some classic, iconic gear for a lot less money. While common sense would dictate that that would be a welcome revelation, it never fails to get some peoples' hackles up. Warm has been at the top of the heap for being able to ride that line between high volume, low margin yet quality gear and so they get the brunt of what to me is largely just Elitist Gear Snobbery Dogma.
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on Apr 10, 2017 23:09:51 GMT -6
Hi Guys, the K67/87 is nothing like the CK12 capsule or the CT12 capsule that Tim makes. It is much easier to duplicate a K67 type capsule. It was designed for mass production.
The K67/87 type back-plate has a uniform drill pattern and uniform hole width and a double back-plate. This is so each side can be skinned separately then the capacitance measured and the matched halves glued together.
The K67/87 capsules start to rise up past 3khz and are up 8-9db at 12khz in cardiod. That's why the U87 and a U67 have a de-emphasis network to reduces this rise electronically.
The CK12 & CT12 as Tim can better explain are identical in construction. The double chambered delay or "resonator" network is very intricate and labour intensive to align correctly. The capsule is much more complex to assemble than the CEK12/AK12 capsules.
That's why they are 4-times the price of our AK12. We use the AK12 in our CM414, CM12se and CM251 microphones. We couldn't buy enough CT12 capsules to fit the amount of microphones that we build up each week.
We suggest if you have an original ELA M251 or C12 or an original C414eb then use the CT12. We will also fit CT12 capsules into our microphones for folks on a custom basis but the client must supply us the CT12.
Over a ten year period there were about 3400 ELA M251 and about 2500 C12 microphones manufactured if you do the math that mean they made about 2-CK12 capsules every working day.
The CEK12 design is much easier to mass produce as each half of the back-plate is cast; the AK12 has 37 more holes than the CK12 and half of them are slightly conical and go through to a single common chamber but the end result is the final response curve is very similar.
So, the hole count and conical through holes are also different than the simpler K67 design.
John Peluso and Verner Ruvald's who was a physicist for Neumann came up with the CEK12/AK12 option.
With John's expertise in computer modelling and Verner's knowledge of capsule math they were able to produce a capsule with a similar response curve that could be more easily mass produced.
Now, you have to skin the capsule with 6 micron mylar and individually test each capsule but you end up on average with a capsule that has a slow and smooth rise through the upper midrange and has a response within 2db of the average CT12 or CK12.
The purpose of these resonator disks and holes in the back-plate are to tame the rise of the upper midrange in Cardiod.
The rest is just quality control. The CEK12/AK12 design is also 2-3db more efficient than the CT12 design. So, the AA CCDA tube circuit we use has nearly 10db more headroom than the original C12 or ELA M251 circuit.
We went after the same approach in our CM87 and CM67se microphones. Our AK67 capsule is actually wider at 35mm compared to the K67 capsule. It has a uniform drill pattern with 105 holes and the individual hole width is smaller than the AK12 which has 117 hole.
The AK67 has the smoothest midrange of all our capsules. it is up less than 1db at 4khz and not up 2db until 7khz but its up 5db at 12khz which is 3-4db less than a Neumann K67. So, we use it without an de-emphasis leaving the engineer to tame it a db or two if required.
Again, in our CM87 we use a circuit that has at least 10db more headroom than the single fet U87 circuit.
My sense is that John Peluso and Verner Ruvalds actually contributed to somewhat improving capsule technology as George Neumann's M7 capsule improved on the EC Wente 394 condenser capsule.
The 394 capsule was used in the WE 47a condener transmitter microphone sold by Western electric in 1921. 10 years before George Neumann started making microphones. George's capsule design was actually a way to improve on the 394 and not infringe on the WE patent.
Unfortunately, what has happened with some importers is they take "off the shelf" back-plates and have them skinned them with 2-3 micron mylar which will cause more rise in the upper midrange than was intended.
Also, because they can make a single sided K67 capsule so cheaply with 2-3 micron mylar; they get thrown then into a transformerless circuit without any de-emphasis. This is just too brittle and bright especially when you stack up tracks or push the SPL getting to the mic.
I had a couple of microphones come in for repair that were previously upgraded by somebody else. They had a couple of really nice looking K47 clone AFTER MARKET capsules with the nylon hold down ring and flat head screws.
The microphones did not sound good or useable to my old ears. I confirmed that the circuit upgrade was correct and then when I measured the capacitance of the capsules I found the were less than 1/2 ours.
There were also slight wrinkles in the diaphragms when I looked closely. Once I replaced these capsules the output came up at least 10db and the microphones now had low end and were smoother in the midrange.
The particular after market capsules were not even close to the parking lot of the ballpark.
Yet, I recently upgraded another Chinese made microphone which had a lovely sounding capsule but with a tube circuit that reduced the overall headroom by 20db from what was possible?
We kept the capsule in this microphone and re-worked the tube circuit and replaced the output transformer.
Cheers, Dave aamicrophones.com
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 11, 2017 1:04:35 GMT -6
Boy oh boy, some of you sure have selective reading and/or short term memory! I figured I laid out some pretty clear points that are based on commonly accepted facts, well, because they are facts. And the degree of passive-aggression is unbelievable. If you don't like what you're hearing, some of you just really want to tear down the contrary-minded individual at all cost. Sorry, timcampbell, if I left you on your own there for a bit... I meant to back you up more especially with your excellent work which is proof of what you have stated here. P.S. I cannot put Pro Replicas, Retro or others in the same category as the cheap knock-offs any sooner than I can put Tim Campbell, Shannon Rhoads, Dallas Upton, Brent Averill, David Bock or others in there. Because they are not creating knockoffs for the masses and cutting corners but instead are meticulously recreating and improving classics which we will never see again from original manufacturers that don't even exist anymore (in some cases) The Vintech Neve clones are pretty universally regarded as not sounding like original Neve preamps. Being anti Warm, but pro Vintech seems contrary to your point. ...I like busting balls tough. Sorry bud. Haha
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 1:17:17 GMT -6
Post by javamad on Apr 11, 2017 1:17:17 GMT -6
Is it my earbuds/ears or is the track in that video totally hyped with EQ on the top end?
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Apr 11, 2017 6:04:02 GMT -6
Is it my earbuds/ears or is the track in that video totally hyped with EQ on the top end? It's not your earbuds.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 11, 2017 6:13:37 GMT -6
I read that thread at Gearslutz and it reminded me why I spend little time there. To see it trickle over here is disappointing.
I will say this: I think all microphones should have uniques names. That would spare us all this nonsense and people would judge the microphones for what they are, not what they're supposed to be imitating or what marketing people want you to believe.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 6:40:20 GMT -6
Post by swurveman on Apr 11, 2017 6:40:20 GMT -6
The capsule variant we are using might most accurately be identified as a CEK12, which is to say a CK12 that has been re-engineered for more cost effective mass production. Chad/Warm Audio Hi Chad. How has the capsule been reengineered and what remnants of the CK 12 design remain? I read the description from David Bock below about the CK 12. What about your CEK12 is similar and what is different? CK12 [dual membrane/dual backplate] "In 1951 AKG developed this completely new type of complex backplate, which on the surface more closely resembles measurement mic capsules than previous KK47 or M7 capsules due to its lack of center electrode on the membrane. It is a 1” membrane that is fully metalized. This freely vibrating membrane will have a lower LF cutoff than any center fixed membrane like the KK47 or KK67, but the tradeoff is that it is more “pop” and rumble sensitive. The CK12 also has a unique system of dual asymmetrical, separated resonant backplates (each backplate is itself a resonant chamber), which is what gives it a very flat midrange and 10-12 kHz peak."
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 11, 2017 6:41:14 GMT -6
Speaking of real world: have peeps listened to the demo videos which are up about this mike ? I have heard one kick ass rock performance which sounded great. I don't know how much it sounded like the original 414.
I think we are touching on two other real world issues here though, manufacturing time and market consumption.
Based on the above, real c-12's caps would take much longer to create and be more expensive, probably neither things the market for this new Warm mike want.
We can debate the authenticity of this recreation till the cows come home but lets not lose track of the fact that this mike is made with quality, value, price and delivery considerations for a market/consumer that will weigh all these things.
I think of these products under the nice to have options category. If you want top of the line boutique manufacture, people like Tim supply that product at their price and production cycle time points and of course you also need to build the rest of the mike and psu .
We live in a time of gear bounty: personally I am grateful for all these products, as I have choice.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 6:56:46 GMT -6
Post by Vincent R. on Apr 11, 2017 6:56:46 GMT -6
Here is another performance clip utilizing the WA14 from Warm Audio's YouTube page. I think it sounds good. Whether it sounds like a 414 is probably a more relevant question.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 11, 2017 7:05:38 GMT -6
The Vintech Neve clones are pretty universally regarded as not sounding like original Neve preamps. Have you ever heard one of the first gen which used original Neve transformers? They didn't either.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 7:10:16 GMT -6
Post by pope on Apr 11, 2017 7:10:16 GMT -6
I will say this: I think all microphones should have uniques names. That would spare us all this nonsense and people would judge the microphones for what they are, not what they're supposed to be imitating or what marketing people want you to believe. I totally agree. Problem is that people are ignorant enough to believe that if the buy a unit with the same name as a classic, they'll get the same sound out of it. On a different note, all these cheap clone companies remind me of that kid on the block who will mix your album for 10$. In fact, I find it quite interesting that many sound engineers are having a go to the 10$-per-album-kids for ruining the market but at the same time they buy all that cheap clone stuff that eventually drive the whole audio industry down. People tent to forget that music-studios-gear are linked and once you 'break' this chain everything is affected. Capitalism I say! LOL
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 11, 2017 7:19:21 GMT -6
Here is another performance clip utilizing the WA14 from Warm Audio's YouTube page. I think it sounds good. Whether it sounds like a 414 is probably a more relevant question. I think these kind of videos would be much more persuasive if they actually showed the tracking. There's no way the sound we're hearing from the voice and the acoustic guitar in that video are from the sound of one microphone. For example, in the video she's in a pretty big room away from the mic and you can't hear any of the room in her vocal. Hell, you can really hear the sound of her breath before she sings each phrase, which is the result of a compressor. That compressor would also be boosting the room sound, if it was actually recorded in a room that size with the singer that far away from the mic.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 7:20:18 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 11, 2017 7:20:18 GMT -6
The Vintech Neve clones are pretty universally regarded as not sounding like original Neve preamps. Have you ever heard one of the first gen which used original Neve transformers? They didn't either. Maybe your buddie popped in the original iron. I'm not finding much to corroborate.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 7:35:28 GMT -6
Post by EmRR on Apr 11, 2017 7:35:28 GMT -6
The very first versions used original Neve transformers, late '90's. Didn't last more than the blink of an eye.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 7:49:01 GMT -6
Post by javamad on Apr 11, 2017 7:49:01 GMT -6
I will say this: I think all microphones should have uniques names. That would spare us all this nonsense and people would judge the microphones for what they are, not what they're supposed to be imitating or what marketing people want you to believe. I totally agree. Problem is that people are ignorant enough to believe that if the buy a unit with the same name as a classic, they'll get the same sound out of it. On a different note, all these cheap clone companies remind me of that kid on the block who will mix your album for 10$. In fact, I find it quite interesting that many sound engineers are having a go to the 10$-per-album-kids for ruining the market but at the same time they buy all that cheap clone stuff that eventually drive the whole audio industry down. People tent to forget that music-studios-gear are linked and once you 'break' this chain everything is affected. Capitalism I say! LOL +1 to your point, but I would add that it is not the only thing going on. I think right now the whole music industry is in turmoil - just my luck to get back into music now! - and there are market forces pushing up on costs of making a record (property prices, minimum wages, insurance, manual labor, components) and market forces pushing down on budgets to actually make records (indie artists, 360 deals, streaming vs physical). There is a technology revolution happening as well that is democratizing who can participate in making records. Then there is the cultural ebb and flow where the main music market consumers - young people - have so many more attention grabbing things (social media, apps, Netflix) that pull them away from consuming any music at all. None of these forces are going to be affected in any way by my post (or this thread) so I guess it's up to each of us to take stock and consider what type of music we want to make (or help to make), how to go about fitting that into either a way of life or an expensive hobby and act accordingly. I think if we applied any common sense - or economic sense - to this at all, we would all run a mile from the whole thing... but we love music and it just so happens that only a few of us get to make a living at it but definitely a different set of people as the industry transforms.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Apr 11, 2017 8:49:23 GMT -6
Any real discussion of clones, repordutions or inspired by needs to include a bit of history of how we got here. The first wave of what we think of as clones started with a constant demand for gear that was no longer being made. Brent Averill started Racking Genuine Neve and API modules as well other obscure modules. As supply dwindled people asked if they could recreate these modules, their API 312 started as reconfigured 325's and later Avedis made his version of the older opamp. Anthony Demaria built his version of the LA2 because Harmon, who owned UREI hadn't built on in years. Purple built the MC76 because there were no new 1176's. AKG after a number of years of not building tube mics, built The Tube It wasn't a c12, it was ehh at best so it went away, after years of seeing others like Bock and others doing well with their c12 based designs the folks at AKG decided to bring back a "classic ", unfortunately the classic they brought back was The Tube labeled C12VR.
Telefunken and Neve are not still makeing classic products, Theses Current organizations are the classic companies in name only, and are Cloners who bought the name. Universal Audio is once again the Putman family, but Harmon was the last owner of all the classic Urei intellectual property.
Companies like Chandler and Retro have reserected forgotten classics Daking has given us a Modernized version of the A range.
Imagine the price of the classics if we didn't have the clones to fill the needs of many.
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Apr 11, 2017 8:51:03 GMT -6
I will say this: I think all microphones should have uniques names. That would spare us all this nonsense and people would judge the microphones for what they are, not what they're supposed to be imitating or what marketing people want you to believe. I totally agree. Problem is that people are ignorant enough to believe that if the buy a unit with the same name as a classic, they'll get the same sound out of it. Please post a link to literally any example of someone actually saying that they believe this.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 11, 2017 9:06:51 GMT -6
Clearly, the mic in question is "in the style of", and not a high end clone. So, there's really no reason to think there's some kind of misrepresentation. If you want to get closer to the originals, you need people like Tim Campbell, Shannon, David Bock or Peluso to get you there. But that doesn't mean the WA414 shouldn't be judged on it's own merits. That vocal on the video sounded good, no extra sibilance, yet crisp, in the way a 414 can be crisp.
The good news here is that the $500-$600 mics of today are outperforming many mics that cost twice as much or more a couple of years ago. I'd be glad to use a Warm WA87 or the Stam SA87 any day, they sound excellent. That said, there's nothing preventing any of us from getting every single nuance we desire in a mic, other than cash and effort. So the problem really is expense, not lack of availability. Of course they're expensive because they're not available en masse today, but anyone here with 12G's to shop with can likely find a U67 or U47 or C12 that gets them their piece of the holy grail.
The $9,000 Telefunken USA U47 sounds flawless. Me, I'd want a very close look at the new Chandler REDD mic before I spent that kind of coin. It's possibly a giant killer. The Soyuz $3,300 0-17 is up there too. So you can indeed get world class for less than 15G's. Ragan's Max Mod U67 sounds so good I wouldn't even be thinking about an original 67 unless I owned a working recording studio and thought it would help drive business.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Apr 11, 2017 9:35:27 GMT -6
Yeah, when I see "251" or "87" or "14" or whatever in a mic name it immediately (likely) tells me a few basic parameters i.e. what style capsule, what (likely) ratio transformer, general voicing.
Then the real questions begin as to who's making it, where'd they get the capsule, what does the procepoint imply about general components, etc.
It's not like we're helpless babes in the woods at the mercy of these dastardly marketing villains.
It's funny, when someone does come out with a mic that doesn't reference something else, the instant discussion is "ahh ok so it's edge terminated, kind of 414 style" or whatever. It's natural to use the iconic mics as touchstones.
I don't know, I just don't have the whole Fear Of God Sacrosanct Branding Thing. I find I make better recordings for my budget by not caring about that stuff. Whatever gets me the sonics I want at a price I can pay.
The MaxMod U67 is a good example where I found I couldn't get that sound in a 'budget' mic, so I paid more. Simple as that.
|
|
|
wa-414
Apr 11, 2017 9:48:28 GMT -6
Post by EmRR on Apr 11, 2017 9:48:28 GMT -6
I totally agree. Problem is that people are ignorant enough to believe that if the buy a unit with the same name as a classic, they'll get the same sound out of it. Please post a link to literally any example of someone actually saying that they believe this. Regardless, if that's well and truly believed, then why do manufacturers do it? It's all carpetbagging. After all, many of the items commercially cloned and drooled over today were never terribly popular in recording. Stalevel for one. Many other cool pieces that sound great and similarly unknown have not been cloned for no other reason than gaining market visibility is deemed too difficult.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Apr 11, 2017 10:23:50 GMT -6
Please post a link to literally any example of someone actually saying that they believe this. Regardless, if that's well and truly believed, then why do manufacturers do it? It's all carpetbagging. Because it sells! In my days at fullcompas we had a AT private label the "C87" we made a lot of money on those and many had to have an 87 even though it looked more like an EV DS35 than a U87 ! Manufacturers will stop fooling suckers 2 days after suckers stop being fools!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 11, 2017 10:45:37 GMT -6
rhetorical #12:
It sells to who? Who believes what?
|
|