|
Post by Guitar on Nov 16, 2017 19:09:36 GMT -6
It's no different to the software emulations of classic gear. . . they are all just still facsimiles of pre-existing gear. I feel like I'm just buying a taco or an IPA beer. Everybody has a taco and an IPA beer. The question comes down to price, performance, and do I really like it. Or does it actually suck. Lots of great posts but as a DIY guy, I am with bowie on this. It's any gear builder's dream to make a great piece of gear. Some people succeed and some do not. Just the same as any songwriter trying to write a brand new rock or country song. Clones in style there, as well.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 16, 2017 19:19:42 GMT -6
Notice the sheer amount of hops put in all this confusing american craft beer? And the heavy body? Because it's really easy to make an OK beer like that, it's really hard to make a proper crisp Pilsner with good taste and aftertaste, minimal ingredients. It's a bit similar to the conundrum at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 16, 2017 20:00:02 GMT -6
Notice the sheer amount of hops put in all this confusing american craft beer? And the heavy body? Because it's really easy to make an OK beer like that, it's really hard to make a proper crisp Pilsner with good taste and aftertaste, minimal ingredients. It's a bit similar to the conundrum at hand. Oh yeah, absoltutely, the fundamentals. My sister is currently at a high ranked culinary school, and that's the same thing they are telling her. Focus on the techniques, the basic requirements like salt, cooking time and all that. It's maybe a little to easy to get distracted and miss the point. If you wanna get fancy you better have your basics covered to a point.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2017 20:10:36 GMT -6
Notice the sheer amount of hops put in all this confusing american craft beer? And the heavy body? Because it's really easy to make an OK beer like that, it's really hard to make a proper crisp Pilsner with good taste and aftertaste, minimal ingredients. It's a bit similar to the conundrum at hand. As a hophead of 15 years or so, I’d say you might be right conceptually, but if you develop any kind of discerning palate, a mediocre beer is a mediocre beer, now matter how high the IBU is. There are so many bad IPAs out there. Also all the other kinds of beer.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 16, 2017 20:19:49 GMT -6
Notice the sheer amount of hops put in all this confusing american craft beer? And the heavy body? Because it's really easy to make an OK beer like that, it's really hard to make a proper crisp Pilsner with good taste and aftertaste, minimal ingredients. It's a bit similar to the conundrum at hand. As a hophead of 15 years or so, I’d say you might be right conceptually, but if you develop any kind of discerning palate, a mediocre beer is a mediocre beer, now matter how high the IBU is. There are so many bad IPAs out there. Also all the other kinds of beer. Hmm.. Beer clones - only 50% off topic. I've been a wannabe oenophile for the last 20 years so I'm a bit late to the IPA dating scene, so call it young love but damn, even the "mediocre" IPA's bring something worthy to the table for me. Granted, I'm not sampling much of the cheap stuff. Maybe I need to go there to get a base-line.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 16, 2017 20:34:41 GMT -6
For sure, I don't like most of them. Point is it's easy to tart them up and sell them to plenty of non-discerner's, same with gear.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Nov 16, 2017 21:11:13 GMT -6
For LDC microphones nothing beats a vintage Neumann. If you get a good one there is something about their engineering that no other mic captures. I've owned nearly every 47 clone short and long body Neumann U47s and at the end of the day the mic you will will have to pry out of my dead hands is a vintage 1976 U87 that just happens to be the best vintage U87 I have ever owned and I've been through 4 of them over the years. Nothing beats a good Neumann or a good Neve.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 16, 2017 22:40:25 GMT -6
Yup, a good 87 (I've got an outstanding one as well) is tough to beat. If one does feel the need to improve (unlikely) the best way to beat it is with a tube inner tube retrofit!!! Amazing.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Nov 17, 2017 0:18:34 GMT -6
Which Inner tube U87 mod do you have?T he Inner Tube mod has changed over the years. It started out as a cathode follower circuit. I heard the more recent incarnations are not as good.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 17, 2017 1:14:22 GMT -6
Not sure which I have. I didn't know there was more than one. I've had it about 5 years or so.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,942
|
Post by ericn on Nov 17, 2017 22:54:41 GMT -6
For sure, I don't like most of them. Point is it's easy to tart them up and sell them to plenty of non-discerner's, same with gear. Just take a trip north of the state line and grab some New Glarus!😁
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Nov 18, 2017 23:30:05 GMT -6
For sure, I don't like most of them. Point is it's easy to tart them up and sell them to plenty of non-discerner's, same with gear. Just take a trip north of the state line and grab some New Glarus!😁 The jaegerschnitzel at the NG Hotel Restaurant... Dude... And the roesti... Dude... I think a holiday season road trip is in the cards...
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on Nov 21, 2017 14:11:24 GMT -6
It's embellished hype, and Warm knows exactly what they're doing. It's the same as Slate saying his VMS sounds indistinguishable... It doesn't. The only affordable mic I've heard that is indistinguishable to the original it copies, is the Stam 87. Hi Ragan, The problem is indistinguishable to which original? Which microphone did Stam or Slate "clone". The original U87 had a double sided separated K67/87 capsule and the polarization voltage was lower at 47 volts plus the original transformer had a 5:1 or 10:1 turns ratio(50 ohms/200 ohms). The polarization was passive and they swapped the polarity on each half of th capsule to get the FIG 8. All U87ai microphones made after 1988 had a voltage tripler circuit that placed 60v on the double sided K67/87 capsule's back-plates which are tied together. Instead of swapping the polarity of the two halves, the U87ai had 120 volts on the rear diaphragm for FIG 8 and 60v on the back plate. This higher polarization voltage increases the output a few db decreasing the headroom and it increases the upper mid rise a couple of db. The U87ai is brighter than the original U87 plus the U87ai has a single 7:1 ratio wound transformer. We have service many original U87 microphones and they always sound mellower/smoother to our old ears than the U87AI. Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 21, 2017 19:07:25 GMT -6
Yeah, you have got to value that spooky obsession. There are too many 'me too's out there.
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on Nov 21, 2017 23:47:50 GMT -6
Yeah, you have got to value that spooky obsession. There are too many 'me too's out there. Hi Guys, that was what I was pointing to. A 1976 U87 is a different animal than a 1988 or later U87AI. We had two U87's at Ocean and 3 later version U87ai's. In critical listening tests the majority of folks preferred the original U87. When folks state, U87 which one are they referring to? In 90% of the time the U47's, C414eb, C37a microphones were preferred over the U87 on vocals. However, we often used the U87's on horns, strings and for room miking. Neumann used tantalum capacitors across the power supply and in the audio chain of the U87. Tantalums are twice as fast as electrolytic's but they are more partial to early failure. I have repaired several U87's with a failed (shorted) C12 and the odd C10. I have also found older U87's with a failing C7 or C8. I recently repaired one where C8 measured 800 ohms and there was absolutely no gain. Usually, tantalums get noisy before they fail but not always. If you use an electrolytic to couple the audio then you need to bypass it with a .1-.01ufd metal film. The circuit requires the use of a 20ufd at C8 but C7 in the U87 is a 1ufd. Metal film capacitors which are over twice as fast as tantalums can be found in a small enough size to fit the circuit board. However, the 20ufd C8 either has to be an electrolytic bypassed or a tantalum. Also, the power supply capacitors can be replaced with electrolytics to improve reliability. In our CM87 we did not copy the U87 circuit. We used a more reliable, more efficient capsule, that has a response we really like, without de-emphasis. Its has the same rise in the upper midrange as the original U87 but is on average 2db brighter at 12khz without the de-emphasis. It has the same polarization circuit as the U87Ai. However, it has a 2-stage emitter follower Class "A" transformer coupled circuit with 14db more headroom than the U87. There is 20db of loss in the U87 with a 10:1 ratio transformer, 17db of loss with a 7:1 ratio transformer, 14db of loss with a 5:1 transformer ratio. Simply by adding another transistor configured as a emitter follower, the output transformer can have a 2:1 ratio (6db loss). So, we drop the gain of the first stage by 14db compared to the U87 at 10:1. This increases the headroom of the circuit and reduces the circuit noise by approximately 14db. So, I never found any reason to copy or clone the U87 build. However, to get the "mystical" sound of the U47 one has to "dumb" down the circuit compared to our CCD circuit which can drive the transformer from 600 ohms. 1) The reactance of the drive circuit must be the same as a VF14m would be, driving an original BV8. The output capacitor should be .5ufd in order to "react" correctly with the Bv-08's inductance. 2) The VF14m had an input capacitance of <9pf. Newer tubes have an input capacitance <4pf and to match the VF14m a small capacitor must be fitted to "dumb" down the amplifier so it has the same HF turn-over point as the VF14m circuit. 3) Also, the U47 had much smaller value, input resistors compared to newer circuits. The original few U47's had 60 megohm but later they were 100meg today we use 1G but to get the same LF roll-off curve as the original they should be lowered to 100m. Between, the lower value input impedance, the correct reactance in the output stage, matching the gain and current draw of a VF1m, the circuit should react like the average U47 did. I have a working VF14m arriving in the New Year and I will be able to calculate the plate resistance and gain when it is wired as a triode configured like the U47 circuit. IPA is a bit like the U47 circuit which was a magical "work around" to buid a "HiFi" circuit in 1947. Indian Pale Ale was shipped by sailing ship from Britain to the colonies and by the time it reached India it was going bad. So, they increased the HOPS content in later shipments which is a natural preservative and it made the trip but increased the alcohol content and that made it popular. Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by markfouxman on Nov 22, 2017 1:19:28 GMT -6
I am not in a habit of discussing the gear from other companies, however, since it looks like it is OK for other manufacturers to chime in, just wanted to give my perspective.
Whether we want it or not, the whole game of the 'clones' goes around a few topologies: 1) K67 Chinese clone capsule, 2) K47 Chinese clone capsule, 3) CK12 Chinese clone capsule (which BTW, has nothing to do with CK12).
Any of those paired to 3 generic Chinese circuits: 1) Schoeps type of circuit, 2) Generic JFET+BJT transformer coupled circuit with 1:1 transformer, 3) Generic tube+cathode follower circuit+transformer with 10:1 transformer. Some (most) of them implemented incorrectly. In any case, 99% of modern 'clone' microphones (no matter SDC, or LDC) built as a some kind of combination of those.
Really, not much space for fantasy, innovation, implementation of newest technologies, newest materials, etc. Just a dumb cut and paste combination of different cheap Chinese boards, capsules, lousy transformers over and over again... If SDC then it is a generic $2 capsule with Schoeps circuit to cover anything from CK1 to 84 sounds... Some of the capsules, or transformers have even nothing to do with originals, but people believe anything whatever they are told... Really sad!
There are so many ways and room for improving old technologies and if anything, creating new sounds and sonics, but it seems all people want to make or buy are clones... boring...
Best, M
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 22, 2017 6:37:01 GMT -6
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,942
|
Post by ericn on Nov 22, 2017 8:46:54 GMT -6
At this point cloning is the easy way out and do we really need another 1073 clone? Dave is right about what exact piece was cloned, I have heard a number of stories of a clone being based on piece that somebody had done a quick repair with out of spec parts or other substitutions to get through a session and never was properly repaired! Let's not forget though these do exist to fill a niche. I would much rather see designers take the time & build a unique product, but the Brain pool on both the design, and end user pools as been pulled down to where if a designer wants to do something different he needs to spend more time! selling than designing l, unless he real likes eating Raman Noodles
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 22, 2017 12:32:36 GMT -6
If it's an AML 1073 DIY kit for the 500 series under $300 then yes, absolutely. :-D
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 23, 2017 17:14:56 GMT -6
Until Music group/ Behringer joined the club the Big boys avoided Reissues of their classics ( exceptions AKG, Tube, C12VR D12vr & c451b all received mixed reviews or poor. AKG never even TRIED to do real clones of any of their classics - even the 451, which was closest, was seriously "dumbed down" and compromised. The "C12VR" and "D12VR" have nothing whatsoever to do with the original designs. The "D12" doesn't even look like a real D12. Before AES decided that San Francisco doesn't rate a convention anymore I always made a point of asking the AKG reps about reissuing sopme of their classics (Sennheiser, too). They always gave me mealymouthed excuses except the last time when I asked why their then new "D12VR" didn't resemble a D12 in any way, and one of their guys told me that it would cost too much in labor to duiplicate the original cartridge assembly with its hand-tensioned diaphragm.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,942
|
Post by ericn on Nov 23, 2017 17:39:41 GMT -6
Until Music group/ Behringer joined the club the Big boys avoided Reissues of their classics ( exceptions AKG, Tube, C12VR D12vr & c451b all received mixed reviews or poor. AKG never even TRIED to do real clones of any of their classics - even the 451, which was closest, was seriously "dumbed down" and compromised. The "C12VR" and "D12VR" have nothing whatsoever to do with the original designs. The "D12" dopesn't even look like a real D12. Before AES decided that San Francisco doesn't rate a convention anymore I always made a point of asking the AKG reps about reissuing sopme of their classics (Sennheiser, too). They always gave me mealymouthed excuses except the last time when I asked why their then new "D12VR" didn't resemble a D12 in any way, and one of their guys told me that it would cost too much in labor to duiplicate the original cartridge assembly with its hand-tensioned diaphragm. Yeah had the same conversations over the years and lots of hope, it was disgusting how many guys ordered the new 451 and were disappointed, I bought a pair and well it did look like the old one with a fixed Capsule! I haven't had the D12vr but have heard mixed reviews some say it's got it others hate it. I have a better relationship with the people from Senn. / Neumann. What people don't get is they are all about quantity and efficiency, they make more mics in a day than companies like Flea makes in a year!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 23, 2017 20:16:24 GMT -6
But your claim (sans rhetorical framing) is: "My belief is that unless you match XYZ schematic realities, it cannot be sonically indistinguishable". A perfectly valid belief, but it's one that resides squarely in the subjective realm. And it's not a belief that gives you the answer to whether or not some person's claim about a given scenario that you didn't take part in is correct. It gives you an assumption. Might turn out to be a correct assumption but it's still an assumption. I've failed blind tests between a cheap mic and a costly mic on one source and then had the difference be blatantly obvious on another source. I've had mics that have no business sounding like one another sound almost exactly alike in some specific scenario. I'm just pointing out that you don't know what they heard so you can't know whether they're stretching the truth or not. And unless you can grab a quick time-machine-Uber and go back and be present during the comparison, that won't change. Thi8s is an excellent explanation of many of the reasons I routinely ignore "shootouts".
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 23, 2017 20:20:00 GMT -6
It's embellished hype, and Warm knows exactly what they're doing. It's the same as Slate saying his VMS sounds indistinguishable... It doesn't. The only affordable mic I've heard that is indistinguishable to the original it copies, is the Stam 87. Actually, I have no doubt that Steven's stuff sounds "indistinguishable" to people who have little experiential frame of reference and spend all their time listening to plugins. But it ain't me, babe.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 23, 2017 20:30:00 GMT -6
Notice the sheer amount of hops put in all this confusing american craft beer? And the heavy body? Because it's really easy to make an OK beer like that, it's really hard to make a proper crisp Pilsner with good taste and aftertaste, minimal ingredients. It's a bit similar to the conundrum at hand. It's because American "brewmasters" <cough, cough> raised on Bud and Curz think that all you need to do to make a flavorful beer is to throw in 3x as much hops as it should have. And with IPAs the situation is even worse because the idiots don't understand that the original India Pale Ales were not formulated to taste good especially, they were formulated not to spoil unrefrigerated in the intense heat of India and hops are a preservative.
|
|
|
Post by markfouxman on Nov 24, 2017 0:44:58 GMT -6
Before AES decided that San Francisco doesn't rate a convention anymore I always made a point of asking the AKG reps about reissuing sopme of their classics (Sennheiser, too). They always gave me mealymouthed excuses except the last time when I asked why their then new "D12VR" didn't resemble a D12 in any way, and one of their guys told me that it would cost too much in labor to duiplicate the original cartridge assembly with its hand-tensioned diaphragm. IOW, they just did not want to tell you the whole story: the market is so small that they would not want to get into complications of original capsule design while they already had all the molds for plastic bodies and stash of perhaps thousands of backplates for inferior white teflon capsule design. Why to bother if the company has name and market? Best, M
|
|