|
Post by chessparov on Jan 29, 2019 0:28:46 GMT -6
Wow! Chris
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Jan 29, 2019 10:39:39 GMT -6
Yeah. I’m more impressed with Peluso’s recent offering. I just scored a pair of EBs in excellent condition for a grand. Not brass, but original. Shit, man !
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Feb 5, 2019 10:16:55 GMT -6
Bumping this thread a bit... any news? Rumours? Sightings? Muffin recipes?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 5, 2019 10:24:31 GMT -6
I have two on order.
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Feb 5, 2019 10:25:30 GMT -6
Something that's been rattling around in my head is "how should clone mics be judged?"
Should we only consider how close it sounds to it's parent-mic or should we only be concerned with how good it sounds, regardless of what number comes at the end of it's name?
Say this mic doesn't sound much like an 84 at all but still sounds great in its own right, should we consider it a success?
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Feb 5, 2019 10:26:48 GMT -6
Cool! Please file a report after you've had some time with them. Thanks! -09
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Feb 5, 2019 10:28:02 GMT -6
Something that's been rattling around in my head is "how should clone mics be judged?" Should we only consider how close it sounds to it's parent-mic or should we only be concerned with how good it sounds, regardless of what number comes at the end of it's name? Say this mic doesn't sound much like an 84 at all but still sounds great in its own right, should we consider it a success? Interesting point. -09
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Feb 5, 2019 10:39:56 GMT -6
Something that's been rattling around in my head is "how should clone mics be judged?" Should we only consider how close it sounds to it's parent-mic or should we only be concerned with how good it sounds, regardless of what number comes at the end of it's name? Say this mic doesn't sound much like an 84 at all but still sounds great in its own right, should we consider it a success? Depends how it is advertised, I guess. If they use the name/numbers and are far from the sound, then shame on them. To use the numbers must be deseved, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 5, 2019 10:56:46 GMT -6
Something that's been rattling around in my head is "how should clone mics be judged?" Should we only consider how close it sounds to it's parent-mic or should we only be concerned with how good it sounds, regardless of what number comes at the end of it's name? Say this mic doesn't sound much like an 84 at all but still sounds great in its own right, should we consider it a success? Depends how it is advertised, I guess. If they use the name/numbers and are far from the sound, then shame on them. To use the numbers must be deseved, in my opinion. Agreed. If a clone company is to use a specific number, the mic/pre/etc. should be a "clone" and judged on those merits. My personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 5, 2019 11:14:30 GMT -6
Just to be contrarian, since often all the actual original parts and materials are just not available, how can any clone ever truly be exact like the original: never going to happen ?!
So, you will at best get a clone that is like to varying degrees the original. If the original build and schematic are largely and or mostly being followed, why would you make up some new name for the mike or piece of gear ?
So, for example calling something an 84 or 251, serves the purpose of orienting us all automatically, to what the mike (piece of gear) should sound and perform like, how well it does that is another question ?
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Feb 5, 2019 11:36:03 GMT -6
So, for example calling something an 84 or 251, serves the purpose of orienting us all automatically, to what the mike (piece of gear) should sound and perform like, how well it does that is another question ? No offense, but I find that a little bit naïve. They call it 84 or 251 to make us believe it is the same and sell as many as possible.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Feb 5, 2019 11:40:05 GMT -6
Depends how it is advertised, I guess. If they use the name/numbers and are far from the sound, then shame on them. To use the numbers must be deseved, in my opinion. Agreed. If a clone company is to use a specific number, the mic/pre/etc. should be a "clone" and judged on those merits. My personal opinion. When you do this, you set the bar high ..at your own peril. No doubt, there are a number of manufactures out there that could care less as long as the name moves the mics out the door, but Warm has a reputation to uphold. So the bar is where they have set it based on their previous products. My expectations are moderately high.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Feb 5, 2019 11:45:02 GMT -6
So, for example calling something an 84 or 251, serves the purpose of orienting us all automatically, to what the mike (piece of gear) should sound and perform like, how well it does that is another question ? No offense, but I find that a little bit naïve. They call it 84 or 251 to make us believe it is the same and sell as many as possible. +1 Gets even worse when they're cloning existing commercial products, like the U87, 414, or Sony C800: "You can buy mine for $x cheaper. Don't need to buy the original, and spend all that money on a name brand." Wish cloners would just stick to extinct products.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 5, 2019 12:19:22 GMT -6
So, for example calling something an 84 or 251, serves the purpose of orienting us all automatically, to what the mike (piece of gear) should sound and perform like, how well it does that is another question ? No offense, but I find that a little bit naïve. They call it 84 or 251 to make us believe it is the same and sell as many as possible. That's it exactly. Call it "inspired by", or give it a new number, but don't call it by the same number if you do not expect it to be JUDGED by the original mic / pre / etc. which bears that number. The only reason manufacturers use classic numbers is to play off the popularity of those products. Otherwise, create an AWESOME product that's inspired by and call it something unique.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 5, 2019 12:42:08 GMT -6
So, for example calling something an 84 or 251, serves the purpose of orienting us all automatically, to what the mike (piece of gear) should sound and perform like, how well it does that is another question ? No offense, but I find that a little bit naïve. They call it 84 or 251 to make us believe it is the same and sell as many as possible. None taken, but I think you are missing my point, if the clone is largely a modern recreation of the actual device and if it is practically impossible to recreate the original (Whose go neumann mylar from 60 years ago tucked away ) and how many people actually heard the original anyway, so what is the point of making of making strict comparisons, when no one has an unused original in new condition to compare to a new clone anyway. I think try the clone and see if it serves your purposes, if so, great buy, if not don't ?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 5, 2019 13:07:48 GMT -6
I'm squarely in the Panties Unbunched About Clone Naming camp.
You can get a very long way towards the sonics of legendary gear for less money today, thankfully. Exactly the same? Nope. But it's up to a given consumer whether he/she thinks the performance gap between the clone and the original is worth 2 to 20 times the price.
We talk a lot about the clones being judged on merit - which is how it should be - but I'm also interested in judging the vintage, auction-house icons on merit.
There's simply no denying that some of that $15-20k someone will throw at a 251 is due purely to status, which, for a studio owner may translate into booked hours and thus may make perfect sense. But for someone who just wants the sonics, it's a separate equation.
If a company wants to stick the iconic number in their product name, who cares? Psychological suggestion and hype have short shelf lives. If the products aren't good, you're not going to be around very long.
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Feb 5, 2019 13:27:45 GMT -6
None taken, but I think you are missing my point, if the clone is largely a modern recreation of the actual device and if it is practically impossible to recreate the original (Whose go neumann mylar from 60 years ago tucked away ) and how many people actually heard the original anyway, so what is the point of making of making strict comparisons, when no one has an unused original in new condition to compare to a new clone anyway. I think try the clone and see if it serves your purposes, if so, great buy, if not don't ? A clone that isn't a clone isn't a clone. If a clone is not possible due to parts, materials, etc. it should not be attempted - make something NEW and great instead (even if it's original inspiration is a KM84 - think of something like a Great River - it's not a neve clone but it started off based on a vintage neve. Great River called it the ME-1NV with the "NV" being a nod to it's heritage... Great River did NOT name it the ME-73NV for a reason) I don't want the WA-84 because I need more inexpensive but good sounding mics - I already have a bunch of those - I want some KM84i's. I want them to sound exactly like KM84s, I want them to have the exact same off-axis response, I want them to have the exact same reach and depth, etc. If the WA-84 doesn't sound enough like a great condition KM84 that I could use one of each as a stereo pair then Warm (and countless others) have done nothing but make yet another good, inexpensive mic not worthy of using the 84 name and all that invokes in an attempt to boost sales by promising something they aren't. Don't get me wrong, I will test them and I hope/think/pray warm isn't doing that and that they have finally done what nobody else has been able to do (I really am pulling for them) If they "are" KM84s I'll buy them... probably 3-4 of them. If they are not KM84's but are good sounding, inexpensive mics I won't because they are called an "84" and that's lame If they are not KM84's but are good sounding, inexpensive mics and Warm decides to instead sell them as the Wondermic 2000 then I'd consider them if they were better than what I have Right on. Or a WA-84 for 100$ and a Neumann capsule for 600$. Then it could be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Feb 5, 2019 13:36:02 GMT -6
How close does a clone have to be? 100% 95? 90? Does it matter that even vintage mics fall out of spec from the 100% bar?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 5, 2019 15:08:40 GMT -6
Of course all original gear is perfect and they are all absolutely consistent, and all have the magic quality It just comes down to personal preference, which is fine. If peeps want to pay more money and only want the original , of course, go and get the original. For me, I just want a good sounding sdc and if it is in the 84 camp all the better. I am actually like Martin, I think I prefer the soyuz, but not in my budget right now. I note to those I know who wanted the 84 so badly but eventually sell them ?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 5, 2019 15:46:55 GMT -6
No offense, but I find that a little bit naïve. They call it 84 or 251 to make us believe it is the same and sell as many as possible. +1 Gets even worse when they're cloning existing commercial products, like the U87, 414, or Sony C800: "You can buy mine for $x cheaper. Don't need to buy the original, and spend all that money on a name brand." Wish cloners would just stick to extinct products. Except that AKG doesn't make the original 414s anymore.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 5, 2019 15:49:33 GMT -6
If the products aren't good, you're not going to be around very long. MXL?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 5, 2019 15:52:29 GMT -6
Of course all original gear is perfect and they are all absolutely consistent, and all have the magic quality It just comes down to personal preference, which is fine. If peeps want to pay more money and only want the original , of course, go and get the original. For me, I just want a good sounding sdc and if it is in the 84 camp all the better. I am actually like Martin, I think I prefer the soyuz, but not in my budget right now. I note to those I know who wanted the 84 so badly but eventually sell them ? But Soyuz doesn't call theirs an "84".
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 5, 2019 15:57:07 GMT -6
Are you under the impression that typed text somehow changes meaning when it’s tyoed on GS? When it's on GS i just make sure I've got my salt shaker handy, is all.
|
|
|
Post by 000 on Feb 5, 2019 16:47:12 GMT -6
I always thought that these “clones” were numbered based on the design of the circuit. So perhaps the capsule is of a different make, or the transformer isn’t the same brand as the original - but the overall circuit design is essentially the same from an electronic value standpoint. If that’s the case then branding the specific “number” seems the appropriate thing to do. However if the circuit is of a completely different design and it’s just say small diaphragm mic which doesn’t follow the same circuit topology - then assigning the 84 number would be very disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 5, 2019 16:51:19 GMT -6
Agreed, if it is essentially an 84 circuit, or whatever, a recreation with some savings of the original capsule, and a modern version of the original transformers,, why make up some new name that doesn’t convey that lineage?
But, to each their own, of course, we all have our preferences.
|
|