|
Post by drbill on Aug 8, 2017 19:40:18 GMT -6
You don't? I know of another forum where he and Klaus moderate the mic forum. Hmmmm....maybe we should take this discussion over there. I'm sure Klaus and David would have some opinions of their own.....
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Aug 8, 2017 22:04:47 GMT -6
So this has been an...interesting thread. However, I have some questions I'd love answered about the MParts kits in general, be it the KM84 or other models.
It seems to me that these kits really cater to people like me. I have good, better than basic, knowledge of electronics. I could rewire a house without electrocuting myself, I can bias my own tubes, replace worn out pots, or change filter caps on my amps...but thats about it. I've always wanted to get into DIY. I'd love to build some 1176 clones, Capi Kits etc. These mics seem like a good way to build a decent mic, and to learn something along the way. They're not expensive, and dont seem too intimidating to build. Perfect for people like me. Plus you get the satisfaction of having built something yourself, and having learned something along the way.
But its not worth it if I don't end up with a usable product. Now I'm not expecting to have a real u47, KM84, u87 etc, post build. Just something that sounds nice and would make a nice room mic etc. Are these still a good choice? I think probably yes, but I'd love to hear from people who have actually heard these mics.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 9, 2017 7:01:53 GMT -6
Sure SM58's kinda resemble U47's when put through top of the line outboard. This I've tried, many times. It's not even close. I dunno what outboard you're using, but other than translating sound pressure into current and being able to sound like the person to some degree, that's where the similarities stop. I had a singer come into the studio and swear to me that NOTHING but a 58 would work on his voice, that EVERY condenser mic he's sung into "sounded like shit" on his voice. We tracked with the 58 and it was *decent* sounding but lacked the range/balls/nuance we needed to fill out the songs. I begged, and ultimately threatened, to get him to try the 47 on a song and we'd compare.. He finally agreed. After we did the track, I A/B'd them for him, but blindly. He immediately latched onto the fullness and nuance of one of the tracks and proclaimed "See, I knew my voice would sound better on the 58!" But he had chosen the U47 track. After a few minutes of disbelief and denial, he agreed to retrack his parts on the U47. And I have multiple stories like this between some dynamic mic and either the C12 or the U47.
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Aug 9, 2017 7:52:54 GMT -6
so.....how about those KM84's. Anyone ever put a LDC capsule on one? Is there anything out there with the same thread pattern? Or perhaps an adapter to allow retrofit (although the "needle" might preclude that.....) I did. It sounds average to ok at first. Then I started tweaking it. I used a Redline M7 and from there I tweaked the circuit and components and now the mic sounds really really good. It will get used a lot I think. As far as a retro fit, that would be pretty tricky. The needle would be tricky and also in order to get the tone I had to tweak the circuit to much. I think this is on of the things that is best to build into a different body and let it be what it is. Side note: My mic locker is starting to get pretty darn good. My mics are no longer an excuse for me to suck! haha
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 9, 2017 8:11:19 GMT -6
I wouldn't argue your point Svart :-) I was basing what I said on some graphs I'd seen years ago and some of the Bono recordings he did with a 58.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 11:55:47 GMT -6
So this has been an...interesting thread. However, I have some questions I'd love answered about the MParts kits in general, be it the KM84 or other models. It seems to me that these kits really cater to people like me. I have good, better than basic, knowledge of electronics. I could rewire a house without electrocuting myself, I can bias my own tubes, replace worn out pots, or change filter caps on my amps...but thats about it. I've always wanted to get into DIY. I'd love to build some 1176 clones, Capi Kits etc. These mics seem like a good way to build a decent mic, and to learn something along the way. They're not expensive, and dont seem too intimidating to build. Perfect for people like me. Plus you get the satisfaction of having built something yourself, and having learned something along the way. But its not worth it if I don't end up with a usable product. Now I'm not expecting to have a real u47, KM84, u87 etc, post build. Just something that sounds nice and would make a nice room mic etc. Are these still a good choice? I think probably yes, but I'd love to hear from people who have actually heard these mics. Yo man! Yeah, I've built their T-84 kit and the MP-V57 and I think both mics came out quite nice. First of all, they were a lot of fun to build. I'm not nearly as handy as you seem to be, but I didn't have any problems with them and I love DIY for the same reasons you describe. Overall, I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the overall quality of these inexpensive kits and for me, the experience and enjoyment I got while hunched over my workstation with soldering iron in hand was worth every penny. Because of what I do, I really only ever use my 416 shotgun on everything, but if I ever was forced to do another audiobook narration I'd probably use that T-84 with an edge terminated capsule in a heartbeat. The V57 with an 87-style capsule is a mic I can EQ to sound pretty close to my 416, so it's really here as an emergency back up of sorts. I can tell you this though, it's a hell of a lot quieter than my 416 and quieter than other mics I've tried, plus it's pretty sensitive. I also like that they give you some spare capacitors to give you options on tonality depending upon which capsule you plan to use. Long before I did VO, I used to do music professionally for a couple of decades and I can tell you that if I had these mics then, I would have used the ever-lovin' shit out of them. Personally, I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what others who look down upon this stuff think. For me, it was money well spent. I feel like the MP stuff represents a good value because you get quality parts, matched FETs and, best for me, dummy-proof instructions. I love audio DIY because I can build tools I can use for my job. My Capi VP26 is part of my rig and makes me money every day. Lastly though, like you said, there's that incredible satisfaction of knowing you built it that goes far beyond just owning it... and that you can't put a pricetag on.
|
|
|
Post by Coil Audio on Aug 9, 2017 12:31:32 GMT -6
Sure SM58's kinda resemble U47's when put through top of the line outboard. This I've tried, many times. It's not even close. I dunno what outboard you're using, but other than translating sound pressure into current and being able to sound like the person to some degree, that's where the similarities stop. I had a singer come into the studio and swear to me that NOTHING but a 58 would work on his voice, that EVERY condenser mic he's sung into "sounded like shit" on his voice. We tracked with the 58 and it was *decent* sounding but lacked the range/balls/nuance we needed to fill out the songs. I begged, and ultimately threatened, to get him to try the 47 on a song and we'd compare.. He finally agreed. After we did the track, I A/B'd them for him, but blindly. He immediately latched onto the fullness and nuance of one of the tracks and proclaimed "See, I knew my voice would sound better on the 58!" But he had chosen the U47 track. After a few minutes of disbelief and denial, he agreed to retrack his parts on the U47. And I have multiple stories like this between some dynamic mic and either the C12 or the U47. Was this with an SS preamp then? My experience has been almost the opposite, but ive always employed something tube single ended or SE/PP to dial in the heavy harmonic lifting if you will. It all depends on how much of that content you're comfortable building into the track from jump i suppose. Its not for everyone. My pref has always been just to get it done at the source (especially on vocals or lead instruments) as opposed to building in those structure via mixdown. Ive been able to fool some pretty good ears though, but i'd never try it with a SS pre - even with a tube comp strapped behind it. Just doesnt work the same in my findings. I always love it when a singer/musician (especially someone i havent worked with) comes in and demands a certain mic or signal chain - always makes for a fun experiment.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 9, 2017 12:40:08 GMT -6
Yeah, it takes a preamp that does the euphonics of a U47 type mic, most studios don't have that option.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 9, 2017 13:49:28 GMT -6
This I've tried, many times. It's not even close. I dunno what outboard you're using, but other than translating sound pressure into current and being able to sound like the person to some degree, that's where the similarities stop. I had a singer come into the studio and swear to me that NOTHING but a 58 would work on his voice, that EVERY condenser mic he's sung into "sounded like shit" on his voice. We tracked with the 58 and it was *decent* sounding but lacked the range/balls/nuance we needed to fill out the songs. I begged, and ultimately threatened, to get him to try the 47 on a song and we'd compare.. He finally agreed. After we did the track, I A/B'd them for him, but blindly. He immediately latched onto the fullness and nuance of one of the tracks and proclaimed "See, I knew my voice would sound better on the 58!" But he had chosen the U47 track. After a few minutes of disbelief and denial, he agreed to retrack his parts on the U47. And I have multiple stories like this between some dynamic mic and either the C12 or the U47. Was this with an SS preamp then? My experience has been almost the opposite, but ive always employed something tube single ended or SE/PP to dial in the heavy harmonic lifting if you will. It all depends on how much of that content you're comfortable building into the track from jump i suppose. Its not for everyone. My pref has always been just to get it done at the source (especially on vocals or lead instruments) as opposed to building in those structure via mixdown. Ive been able to fool some pretty good ears though, but i'd never try it with a SS pre - even with a tube comp strapped behind it. Just doesnt work the same in my findings. I always love it when a singer/musician (especially someone i havent worked with) comes in and demands a certain mic or signal chain - always makes for a fun experiment. With a Neve 1290. I can't remember if I pushed that into an LA2A, but sometimes I do that.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 9, 2017 15:41:22 GMT -6
I wouldn't argue your point Svart :-) I was basing what I said on some graphs I'd seen years ago and some of the Bono recordings he did with a 58. Well, you can trust factory graphs from Shure about like you can trust the tweets of a certain former reality star. If you take maybe 20 mics and do a rough average of the response it might resemble the published response curve of a 58, but that's about as close as it gets. And response charts really only give a very rough idea of microphone performance. Also note that no company I know of, least of all Shure, gives any real information about off-axis response.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 9, 2017 15:44:02 GMT -6
Yeah, it takes a preamp that does the euphonics of a U47 type mic, most studios don't have that option. I don't believe that option exists.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 9, 2017 15:48:44 GMT -6
Yeah, it takes a preamp that does the euphonics of a U47 type mic, most studios don't have that option. I don't believe that option exists. Sure it does. Most people don't know/buy/restore/use 1940's preamps. An OP-6 still ain't it, either.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 9, 2017 20:22:12 GMT -6
I don't believe that option exists. Sure it does. Most people don't know/buy/restore/use 1940's preamps. An OP-6 still ain't it, either. What about the off-axis response?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
|
Post by ericn on Aug 9, 2017 21:34:18 GMT -6
I wouldn't argue your point Svart :-) I was basing what I said on some graphs I'd seen years ago and some of the Bono recordings he did with a 58. Well, you can trust factory graphs from Shure about like you can trust the tweets of a certain former reality star. If you take maybe 20 mics and do a rough average of the response it might resemble the published response curve of a 58, but that's about as close as it gets. And response charts really only give a very rough idea of microphone performance. Also note that no company I know of, least of all Shure, gives any real information about off-axis response. I wouldn't trust the 58/57 graphs but I have seen condensers pulled at random that matched as well as anybody in their big chamber! An SM81 is a very consistent mic till it's dropped from 7 feet for the 82 time!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 10, 2017 6:19:09 GMT -6
Sure it does. Most people don't know/buy/restore/use 1940's preamps. An OP-6 still ain't it, either. What about the off-axis response? We weren't talking about off-axis response.....
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 10, 2017 14:04:30 GMT -6
What about the off-axis response? We weren't talking about off-axis response..... And you don't see that as a problem? I has become my belief, as I've obtained mics if higher quality, that off-axis response is something really key that is widely overlooked. For example, in many cases sound problems attributed to bad or lack of room treatment are often actually the result of poor off-axis response, that presents what might otherwise be a pleasantly live room tone as something, er, ugly. So they pile on the absorption and end up needing to jump through hoops with the reverb to overcome the resulting deadness, while spendingt the same money on a better quialoty microphone would likely have yeilded a better result with less work. Or to put it a different way, when you're discussing microphone quality you're ALWAYS talking about off-axis response (among other things, of course) whether you realize it or not. That may not mean that the off-axis response has to be perfect in all cases, but it should be euphonic. EDIT: Checking back in the discussion I see that we were discussing using preamp characteristics to altert the character of one mic (say, an SM57) to evoke the character of a better mic (like, perhaps a U-47). The same thing applies. This is also, in my opinion, one of the major stumbling blocks of mic modelng systems. Off-axis response.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 10, 2017 14:38:08 GMT -6
We weren't talking about off-axis response..... And you don't see that as a problem? I has become my belief, as I've obtained mics if higher quality, that off-axis response is something really key that is widely overlooked. For example, in many cases sound problems attributed to bad or lack of room treatment are often actually the result of poor off-axis response, that presents what might otherwise be a pleasantly live room tone as something, er, ugly. So they pile on the absorption and end up needing to jump through hoops with the reverb to overcome the resulting deadness, while spendingt the same money on a better quialoty microphone would likely have yeilded a better result with less work. Or to put it a different way, when you're discussing microphone quality you're ALWAYS talking about off-axis response (among other things, of course) whether you realize it or not. That may not mean that the off-axis response has to be perfect in all cases, but it should be euphonic. EDIT: Checking back in the discussion I see that we were discussing using preamp characteristics to altert the character of one mic (say, an SM57) to evoke the character of a better mic (like, perhaps a U-47). The same thing applies. This is also, in my opinion, one of the major stumbling blocks of mic modelng systems. Off-axis response. It wasn't part of the topic. 'Kinda resembles' and 'euphonics of' were the specific points. I believe we've had the discussion you are addressing plenty of times, and yes, it's important.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 10, 2017 14:41:24 GMT -6
And you don't see that as a problem? I has become my belief, as I've obtained mics if higher quality, that off-axis response is something really key that is widely overlooked. For example, in many cases sound problems attributed to bad or lack of room treatment are often actually the result of poor off-axis response, that presents what might otherwise be a pleasantly live room tone as something, er, ugly. So they pile on the absorption and end up needing to jump through hoops with the reverb to overcome the resulting deadness, while spendingt the same money on a better quialoty microphone would likely have yeilded a better result with less work. Or to put it a different way, when you're discussing microphone quality you're ALWAYS talking about off-axis response (among other things, of course) whether you realize it or not. That may not mean that the off-axis response has to be perfect in all cases, but it should be euphonic. EDIT: Checking back in the discussion I see that we were discussing using preamp characteristics to altert the character of one mic (say, an SM57) to evoke the character of a better mic (like, perhaps a U-47). The same thing applies. This is also, in my opinion, one of the major stumbling blocks of mic modelng systems. Off-axis response. It wasn't part of the topic. 'Kinda resembles' and 'euphonics of' were the specific points. I believe we've had the discussion you are addressing plenty of times, and yes, it's important. Maybe I'm being a bit of a nut about it (who, ME???), but I don't really see it as an issue that can be separated from any discussion of mic characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 15, 2017 16:52:49 GMT -6
In a few days, I'm getting two of the T-47's to try for a week, along with the Delphos.
|
|