|
|
Post by maq3396 on Jan 24, 2017 11:54:41 GMT -6
Hello all,
Next projects will be a C12 and 251 likely from Matador's build or Poctop (opinions also welcome).
At least one of them will use Tim's capsule (sitting in storage now).
Can't find much in the way of comparing transformers in these builds although it looks like Haufe, Cinemag and AMI are contenders.
I would welcome and be appreciative of any thoughts on this.
Mics will be used for vocals only and signal chain is predominantly CAPI.
Thanks
Mac
|
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 24, 2017 12:16:53 GMT -6
I tend to trust AMI when it comes to sound quality. They can be expensive, but I've not regretted purchasing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 25, 2017 6:58:08 GMT -6
I recently finished a Matador/Chunger C12 build with Tim Cambell's CK12 capsule, a NOS GE-6072 tube (thanks Bowie!) and a Cinemag CM-13114 transformer.
After comparing it with our Bock 251 and Flea 47 I'm feeling I would like a little more low end from it so I'm going to try another transformer and a larger output cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 25, 2017 7:42:52 GMT -6
I tend to trust AMI when it comes to sound quality. They can be expensive, but I've not regretted purchasing them. Christian, ever encounter any issue with smear from AMIs? |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 25, 2017 7:50:05 GMT -6
I've used the Cinemag and Peluso output transformers. Both perform well in my 3 mics. I sort of have the opinion that most of them are going to be fine. At least, once I put it in there, I'm probably not going to be doing a lot of A/B/C comparisons. I haven't needed to change out my Cinemag or Peluso transformers, anyway, the mics sound great.
According to Brian Fox you can hear some small differences with different iron. I emailed him about it for a while. Some of the transformers have slightly different frequency responses. The Peluso T14-1 for example is extremely linear. If I recall correctly, the AMI has slightly less low end extension than the Peluso.
Ultimately I think the capsule, and tuning the circuit, is going to give most of the sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 25, 2017 10:39:42 GMT -6
List of most important to least:
1. Capsule.
2. Tube.
3. Tube configuration, load and circuit.
4. transformer.
Transformer is last because it usually only handles low signal levels for the comparatively large core area, has a high ratio for low tube loading, and generally doesn't get stressed enough to add color in a mic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jan 25, 2017 11:31:17 GMT -6
I use the AMI, but I've heard a lot of people liking the Cine.... SVart nailed it. The capsule is the most important part, it's 90% of the sound. As long as you're not using a crappy chinese tranny, if you've got the capsule right, tube right and the circuit functioning right any decent transformer will be great.
|
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 25, 2017 12:05:09 GMT -6
I heard Chungs c12 clips, and I thought it was bright.... Althought all his clips are bright for some reason... I do not think it is the capsule but the c12 circuit. I have 2 Shannon Rhoades 251's and I use the Cinemag and like it very!!! much. I am only using a 1uf as my output cap and I have no issues with lack of bottom.
|
|
|
|
Post by maq3396 on Jan 25, 2017 14:39:43 GMT -6
Thanks for the feedback everyone!
Cheers
Mac
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 25, 2017 14:42:36 GMT -6
I heard Chungs c12 clips, and I thought it was bright.... Althought all his clips are bright for some reason... I do not think it is the capsule but the c12 circuit. I have 2 Shannon Rhoades 251's and I use the Cinemag and like it very!!! much. I am only using a 1uf as my output cap and I have no issues with lack of bottom. Maybe I shouldn't be comparing my C12 clone to a Bock 251? The Bock has some serious low end reach. |
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 25, 2017 16:14:38 GMT -6
I don't know if that is sarcastic LOL ... I don't know that mic at all! I have heard several 251's and they have tight fast bottom but are reedy in the mids, flat fast and open but not sibilant bright.. These are the ones I liked.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 25, 2017 16:34:04 GMT -6
I don't know if that is sarcastic LOL ... I don't know that mic at all! I have heard several 251's and they have tight fast bottom but are reedy in the mids, flat fast and open but not sibilant bright.. These are the ones I liked. No, not being sarcastic. I did a shootout the other day for a female Vox with the Matador C12, Flea 47 and Bock 251. At first the producer liked the C12 because he felt the Flea 47, and especially the Bock, was a bit heavy in the low's but after about 10 minutes I convinced him to use the Bock as the C12 had more sibilance than the Bock and the Bock EQ's really nicely with some low cut and a little high shelf boost and doesn't get knarly. Still need to spend some time tuning the C12 methinks. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 25, 2017 16:39:18 GMT -6
I heard Chungs c12 clips, and I thought it was bright.... Althought all his clips are bright for some reason... I do not think it is the capsule but the c12 circuit. I have 2 Shannon Rhoades 251's and I use the Cinemag and like it very!!! much. I am only using a 1uf as my output cap and I have no issues with lack of bottom. Maybe I shouldn't be comparing my C12 clone to a Bock 251? The Bock has some serious low end reach. One of David Bock's design criteria for that mic was to give the vintage sort of sound, but with all the highest highs and lowest lows, so that's not surprising. When I built a diy C12 I was also surprised by how bright it was, but the low end can be exposed in a very nice way with the right capsule and other parts. The 251 is an inherently slightly darker type of mic in general. The C12 is all about that big top end. I have to say I slightly prefer the 251 mics for my purposes. But I wouldn't kick a good C12 build out of bed either. |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 25, 2017 16:48:52 GMT -6
Also the Bock 251 is fitted with a f&ckin' serious output transformer for a microphone.
It's probably four times the size of the Cinemag in the C12 and accordion to David Bock contributes to the low end going down to under 10hz.
That may make less difference recording a triangle but the sub low's on the Bock are in the long ribbon territory.
No doubt the capsule tuning also plays a part in the low end.
|
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jan 25, 2017 17:44:26 GMT -6
I know David. He does everything he can to get as much bottom out of his mics as possible. The capsule is a wonderful MBHO but it isn't radically different sounding than mine. There's a lot of tweaking you can do to improve the top and bottom of your C12 beyond the standard build. Chungers circuit is really just a starting point. Admittedly you did end up cutting some bottom and boosting some top on the Bock, bringing it closer to the sound of the C12. You could have boosted some bottom and cut some top on your C12.
You should ask for a bit of advice on some of the mod threads at GroupDIY.com. If you can't tweak it enough of course you can always return the capsule to me and I'll tame the top end and see if I can squeeze a bit more bottom out of it but there's a lot you can do before resorting to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 25, 2017 18:29:48 GMT -6
I know David. He does everything he can to get as much bottom out of his mics as possible. The capsule is a wonderful MBHO but it isn't radically different sounding than mine. There's a lot of tweaking you can do to improve the top and bottom of your C12 beyond the standard build. Chungers circuit is really just a starting point. Admittedly you did end up cutting some bottom and boosting some top on the Bock, bringing it closer to the sound of the C12. You could have boosted some bottom and cut some top on your C12. You should ask for a bit of advice on some of the mod threads at GroupDIY.com. If you can't tweak it enough of course you can always return the capsule to me and I'll tame the top end and see if I can squeeze a bit more bottom out of it but there's a lot you can do before resorting to that. Hi Tim, I'm not looking for as much low end as the Bock which, I confess, I was surprised how big it was when I first tried it. I think just a matter of fine tuning a few things. I'm still trying to work out the front to back balance which may well be something I did when wiring up the pattern switch. I have a Jensen DI transformer which I'm going to try wired in reverse as an output transformer in conjunction with a larger output capacitor on the C12. At the end of the day these things can become hair splittingly subtle. |
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 25, 2017 18:33:21 GMT -6
I tend to trust AMI when it comes to sound quality. They can be expensive, but I've not regretted purchasing them. Christian, ever encounter any issue with smear from AMIs? Not in any AMI-equipped mics I've used. Almost the opposite, I like them because they tend to sound tight. I've not done a lot of mic transformer shootouts (just rough comparisons) but some who have seem to share the same sentiment. People tend to give me a lot of brutally honest opinions in how they feel about various components and gear and I've never heard a negative word about AMI transformers. Not that everyone is going to love them, but they seem to be well-received. One thing to keep in mind is that their popular T-series can be used in a lot of applications and some might be better suited for that xformer than others. What's your experience been? |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 25, 2017 22:06:14 GMT -6
bowie, thanks man! That's what I expected and confirms all that I believe too. I appreciated your considered reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 25, 2017 23:02:11 GMT -6
I know David. He does everything he can to get as much bottom out of his mics as possible. The capsule is a wonderful MBHO but it isn't radically different sounding than mine. There's a lot of tweaking you can do to improve the top and bottom of your C12 beyond the standard build. Chungers circuit is really just a starting point. Admittedly you did end up cutting some bottom and boosting some top on the Bock, bringing it closer to the sound of the C12. You could have boosted some bottom and cut some top on your C12. You should ask for a bit of advice on some of the mod threads at GroupDIY.com. If you can't tweak it enough of course you can always return the capsule to me and I'll tame the top end and see if I can squeeze a bit more bottom out of it but there's a lot you can do before resorting to that. I agree... I can totally modify the texture and time arrival of frequencies of the mic by changing 1 cap type or material |
|
|
|
Post by maq3396 on Jan 26, 2017 6:06:23 GMT -6
To Bowie, and anyone else who is using AMI....
Have you noticed a difference between their T series and the classic Neumann series? The price points are appreciably different!
|
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 26, 2017 10:27:38 GMT -6
I recently finished a Matador/Chunger C12 build with Tim Cambell's CK12 capsule, a NOS GE-6072 tube (thanks Bowie!) and a Cinemag CM-13114 transformer. After comparing it with our Bock 251 and Flea 47 I'm feeling I would like a little more low end from it so I'm going to try another transformer and a larger output cap. Also, the Cinemag has more bottom then the AMI.... And correctly dips 1db in high end like the original. I wonder if you should not look for a 251 circuit, it is different: Some differences The 251 has two layers of mesh Course and Fine. They differ in how the patterns are achieved, and how the capsule is coupled to the amplifier. The 251 is self biased, meaning the cathode is connected to a resistor and capacitor (in parallel) to ground, and the C12 is fixed bias with a grounded cathode and negative voltage from the psu. The 251 pattern control is achieved by manipulating backplates in the capsule, with no voltages exceeding 60v, and the C12 varies the voltage from 0-120v on the rear membrane. The output capacitor values vary on the 251 from 1uF-3.2uF depending upon production. The C12 used a .5uf. Original C12's used polystyrene & PIO caps, while the 251 used wet tantalums, ceramics. Both systems operate off 120v dc generated by their psu's. |
|
