|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 9, 2018 16:36:02 GMT -6
From many, many conversations with Shannon, that “tension” is the main cause for the zing sound we hear in lots of modern mics. He kind of described it as the capsule being too taught to vibrate the way it wants and it just kind of freaks out. This analogy just TOTALLY came out of the blue to me, but I kind of think of it like when you were a kid and pedaled your bike as fast as you could, but then you couldn’t keep up with it anymore...feet fall off the pedals and all hell breaks loose. I.e. you hit the mic too hard dynamically and at a certain frequency, it just freaks out. That inconsistency HAS to be the capsule...the other stuff contributes to the tone, but I found his main point to be the issue with the capsule tension. Nothing that can’t be fixed. Just from a mechanical point of view the capsule will have a resonant natural frequency based on the tension, just like a drum head. Higher tension means higher resonant frequency. I would suspect that they are tensioned high enough that the resonant frequency is out of the audio range, but I genuinely don’t know. There’s also going to be mode shapes developed by the bolt pattern and termination, and those will vary slightly by inconsistnecy in tension from “lug to lug” however slight. There probably is a range of sweet spot for tension for every capsule design, and then a specific sweet spot for each individual capsule based on minute manufacturing tolerances and so on. I don’t know about the blanket statement of “too tight” though. Any more than you can say a snare head is “too tight”. Stuffs complicated, lots of different things are interacting. Well, there's more or less a consensus of what experienced engineers who have a lot of experience with U67s regard as a "great sounding" example or an example that has "the magic" that makes the model sought after. Admittedly, it's not very "scientific" sounding (did I mention that attempting to apply scientific analysis to matters of art is generally a fools errand?), but the fact that most of the old guys with many miles of tape under their belt agree means something. And most (or at least many) serious younger guys can hear it when they hear it, although they might not be as quick to identify a duff example, simply because they haven't heard so many good ones that they have an expectation of what they should be getting out of the mic.
And a guy who actually rediaphragms mics for a living and is undisputedly one of the best in the world says that the mic doesn't sound as it should because it's too tight has to mean something. Who better to know? You? Me? Some PR guy working for the company? I don't think so.
I don't think the comparison to a snare drum is right, because there is no accepted standard for what a snare should sound like. There is for a U67.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 16:44:32 GMT -6
This video from ~2009 shows a capsule being assembled and tensioned by hand. Skip to 2:20 or so. Er...I watched that part twice and there was no mention of "adjusting tension"...maybe I missed it
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 9, 2018 16:44:58 GMT -6
This video from ~2009 shows a capsule being assembled and tensioned by hand. Skip to 2:20 or so. Did anybody besides me find the sibilance in that video somewhat annoying?
It should be noted that the video did not actually show the diaphragm being tensioned. Assembled, yes. Tensioned, no.
That's a typical clip from the "How It's Made" TV show. It skips all the interesting and/or technical stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 16:46:19 GMT -6
My question is whether the mylar is stretched and tensioned and THEN the gold is sputtered. If that's the case, screws wouldn't have anything to do with the tension.
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Aug 9, 2018 16:49:24 GMT -6
Why would you assume that Neumann does not have meticulous logs of diaphragm tension over time? Not to mention design manuals, design notes, engineering bulletins, the original design specifications and tolerances, changes to those specifications with the reasons for the change (revision logs), the consequences of those changes, etc etc? These are all proprietary IP so unless these engineers Klaus spoke with did some unethical things with regard to IP and trade secrets - or unless Klaus worked for Neumann and took all that IP with him - he doesn’t have this stuff. He’s working on reverse engineered numbers which aren’t useless but are by no means the same as having the original spec and tolerances in hand...much less the documents which explain design intent. Hand work vs machine work is always and only a question of cost vs benefit. There is no magic in balancing engine parts, and a machine can be more consistent than a human ten times out of ten... if what you’re producing is objectively measurable after the work is done*. Ain’t no such thing as magic. *there are some processes which are extremely difficult to check after completion such as the peening of turbine blades and as a result these can sometimes be performed more reliably by humans who can feel and report an error. But even these types of things are rapidly dwindling in the world as machinery gets better. Here’s is what Klaus said in his review: So is it the spec or the tolerance or the QC or or or? Or is it just subjective? We don’t know because sexy and robust are not quantitative. That's the best answer so far...there are so much misinformation about the Sennheiser-Neumann merger in that tread that i would not no were to start, !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 16:50:44 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway... Happens all the time. Big companies are about the bottom line. Decisions are made by upper management that can't carry a tune in a bucket.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 16:52:14 GMT -6
Why would you assume that Neumann does not have meticulous logs of diaphragm tension over time? Not to mention design manuals, design notes, engineering bulletins, the original design specifications and tolerances, changes to those specifications with the reasons for the change (revision logs), the consequences of those changes, etc etc? These are all proprietary IP so unless these engineers Klaus spoke with did some unethical things with regard to IP and trade secrets - or unless Klaus worked for Neumann and took all that IP with him - he doesn’t have this stuff. He’s working on reverse engineered numbers which aren’t useless but are by no means the same as having the original spec and tolerances in hand...much less the documents which explain design intent. Hand work vs machine work is always and only a question of cost vs benefit. There is no magic in balancing engine parts, and a machine can be more consistent than a human ten times out of ten... if what you’re producing is objectively measurable after the work is done*. Ain’t no such thing as magic. *there are some processes which are extremely difficult to check after completion such as the peening of turbine blades and as a result these can sometimes be performed more reliably by humans who can feel and report an error. But even these types of things are rapidly dwindling in the world as machinery gets better. Here’s is what Klaus said in his review: So is it the spec or the tolerance or the QC or or or? Or is it just subjective? We don’t know because sexy and robust are not quantitative. That's the best answer so far...there are so much misinformation about the Sennheiser-Neumann merger in that tread that i would not no were to start, !!!!! Did you buy a reissue?
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Aug 9, 2018 17:01:27 GMT -6
Nope but as a Sennheiser- Neumann endorsee who did visit and was part of a few meeting about marketing in that company. Neumann is doing his own thing, and Sennheiser there's. And Neumann Engineer got all the old Blueprint about the Neumann microphone, don't worry some might don't like the Neumann tone these days , but they know what there doing, like it or not . !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 17:06:41 GMT -6
Nope but as a Sennheiser- Neumann endorsee who did visit and was part of a few meeting about marketing in that company. Neumann is doing his own thing, and Sennheiser there's. And Neumann Engineer got all the old Blueprint about the Neumann microphone, don't worry some might don't like the Neumann tone these days , but they know what there doing, like it or not . !!!!!! Nobody's claiming they don't know what they're doing (I admit...I skip some posts...) but reissuing a classic microphone is going to draw attention. I think the fact that Klaus felt like you could get it identical with a little tweak here and there is astoundingly positive. In fact, I would be much more likely to buy one now that he's given what is essentially approval.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 9, 2018 17:30:52 GMT -6
^ and that is indeed one possible take-away, different from some other folks.
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Aug 9, 2018 17:36:40 GMT -6
My post was never about klaus who is more than qualify about microphone knowledge
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Aug 9, 2018 17:41:18 GMT -6
Anybody who knows Klaus knows his opinions are based on what he sees, the idea of more buisness has never entered his mind, and he doesn’t need the extra buisness. Sennhiser has always been very open about the fact Neumann still exists because they have automated the manufacturering as much as possible and that is why Neumann still exists. The tension tolerance spec may not have changed but I’ll bet the material has a very slightly different makeup and I know for a fact that anybody who knows old Neumann will tell you those old German ladies who assembled capsules had a magic touch that was not handed down to the latest generation, they were craftsmen not simply assembly people, their skill on the level of fine watchmakers. Now it’s about saving pennies. Note I never remember Klaus saying the quality had improved in the K87/670 I remember him saying he had a single sample that impressed him and he hoped this meant quality had improved. If I bought a new 67 it would end up in Shannon’s little work shop simply because it would come back sounding Devine, I don’t think it would sound like one Klaus modded, and I don’t think I would care.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 9, 2018 17:46:47 GMT -6
ericn how many fine watches these days do you think are made by hand?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 9, 2018 17:56:49 GMT -6
Your earlier post John E. (including regarding "tense diaphragms"), makes a lot of sense-even to me. "Tense Diaphragms", wasn't that an old 80's band? Maybe there's hope for my MXL V69 & V87 now.
Typically, I'm guessing the cheaper Chinese K67 capsules tend to "break up" more under higher frequencies and/or high SPL's.
Nothing definitive (of course), but the little time I spent trying out the 67 re-issue, I strongly preferred Bock's 67 spin on that microphone. That Soyuz "67-ish" microphone sounded really excellent too.
Didn't have the opportunity to try any though, in a mix context.
How reliably can you guys evaluate a microphone like the 67, "in solo" vs. a mix?
Thanks, Chris
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Aug 9, 2018 18:50:19 GMT -6
ericn how many fine watches these days do you think are made by hand? A few and I don’t want to know the cost but I know the 1969 Rolex I inherited from my father was.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 9, 2018 19:11:29 GMT -6
How reliably can you guys evaluate a microphone like the 67, "in solo" vs. a mix? Thanks, Chris Well . . . I've recorded (and sang but that's a difference topic) a hell of a lot of vocals. And I feel pretty confident I know what a vocal is supposed to sound like for good placement in the mix. And I'm fairly certain a whole bunch f other folks here know that too!!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 19:37:43 GMT -6
It’s crazy though, just when you think one mic is absolutely fantastic, you will inevitably record someone that sounds like Ass on it.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 9, 2018 19:41:35 GMT -6
It’s crazy though, just when you think one mic is absolutely fantastic, you will inevitably record someone that sounds like Ass on it. Yes! As I said earlier this year, I put a bunch of mics up for a female singer I'd already done one record with, and the winner was an AKG 414B-ULS that I've owned 20 years, and never once has it been used on a lead vocal for anyone else. It always lost! I found the SM7, while it was guaranteed to be ok for 97% of rock band sessions, sounded incredibly broken on the 3%, more broken than anything I've ever heard, like there was a cable or patchbay failure.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 20:46:28 GMT -6
Maybe Shannon will chime in - I know he’s slammed but he did text me to say that the Mylar is pre-stretched then sputtered.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 9, 2018 21:32:10 GMT -6
Thanks Ward. I do realize the (extremely!) high signal to noise "knowledge ratio" here. Sets an excellent benchmark of comparison, with other sites.
One area of mine that can improve, is exactly that skill of extrapolation on what will "be right for the mix".
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 9, 2018 21:38:54 GMT -6
Thanks Ward. I do realize the (extremely!) high signal to noise "knowledge ratio" here. Sets an excellent benchmark of comparison, with other sites. One area of mine that can improve, is exactly that skill of extrapolation on what will "be right for the mix". Chris You know, all I see is helpful dudes around here who want each other's recordings to improve in the most genuine altruistic way possible! So feel free to pick the brains about how to achieve an in the mix vocal recording
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 9, 2018 21:41:34 GMT -6
Thanks again Ward-very cool! Chris
Reading Klaus' article, just made me further impressed with his high standards. Actually it may well explain why the TLM 67 I sang through, sounded quite a bit better, vs. the reissue 67. (Capsule, capsule, capsule!) The methodology appeals to my inner "chess geek"
If I was shopping for a Neumann, I'd feel a lot better shooting at least a few of the same model out, versus one another. Also might just influence me to get a 47 FET, over a tube model! Seems simpler for us amateurs.
Might be my imagination (running away from me), but I swore my buddy's pre-2000 U87, sounded better than the (a few) post 2000 U87's tried.
I'm glad there are world class Neumann experts like Klaus/Brown/Shannon/et al still around...
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Aug 9, 2018 22:21:29 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway... It's purely an industrial action designed to make a product come off an assembly line meeting a spec a certain amount of the time. They aren't actually in the business of magic, and they sell aplenty, some on reputation alone, some on sound, most in between. But....sure, what would it cost to reject more of them? We will probably never know. They are getting it right by their spec, more of the time. It's like the Chicago red hotdog factory story: built an new plant, and the color was wrong no matter what they did. Tracked it down to the former location procedure had a guy pushing them from one location to another over 20 minutes time, and that un-spec'd action WAS the color. Had to recreate it with a particular holding pattern in the process. Now, our eyes notice that immediately. The ear doesn't work that way. So maybe it's as cheap to buy 10 capsules and audition them all your self, sell off 9, as it is to send it to Klaus? I don't know. Or buy 10 TLM67's and see which head sounds the best, swap it onto your reissue, sell off the others. Etc etc etc. I also find his methodology somewhat unquestionable, he's done the time to develop an innate sense with these mics. I'm not in an educated position to second guess his expertise, and blind testing can lead to preferences based on mood, or targets outside the scope. We may pick a 67 that doesn't really sound like the average 67 which actually falls outside of spec, and it may sound like some other companies mic that might also win a blind shootout. We are chasing fairies here, and he's seen few in his time. The rest are just decent functional microphones, which anyone can make a satisfactory record with. The first part is exactly right. I doubt anyone on their line is worried about magic. They are trying to do a good job with their assembling and manufacturing. Everything is done within a tolerance, and I'm sure the ones set forth are reasonable. Even Neumann has to crank some things out. Perhaps in the olden days there was more care taken with some of the capsule tensioning. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Aug 9, 2018 22:22:40 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway... Happens all the time. Big companies are about the bottom line. Decisions are made by upper management that can't carry a tune in a bucket. ... and many times the big wigs and marketing dept force a product release that the engineers aren't happy with yet, to meet a deadline with competition. Not always the case, but this stuff happens with the bigger companies.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Aug 10, 2018 1:09:24 GMT -6
This is a more in depth video on capsule manufacturing from Soyuz
|
|