Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit

[Paul Dorman]

What do you folks think about this?

https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/

It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.

I'd certainly love to save thousands!

:)

[geoff]

On 14/12/2020 6:15 pm, Paul Dorman wrote:
> What do you folks think about this?
>
> https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/
>
> It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.
>
> I'd certainly love to save thousands!
>
> :)

I wonder what the actual origins of the capsules are.

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/13/2020 11:06 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 14/12/2020 6:15 pm, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> What do you folks think about this?
>>
>> https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/
>>
>> It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.
>>
>> I'd certainly love to save thousands!
>>
>> :)
>
> I wonder what the actual origins of the capsules are.
>

Dunno, but I'd like to see some blind tests with
a real U87, and see if people can tell the difference!

:)

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Paul Dorman > wrote:
>What do you folks think about this?
>
>https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/
>
>It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.
>
>I'd certainly love to save thousands!

Everyone and his brother makes a U87 clone. Some are better than others.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising]

On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 6:37:25 AM UTC-8, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
> >What do you folks think about this?
> >
> >https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/
> >
> >It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.
> >
> >I'd certainly love to save thousands!
> Everyone and his brother makes a U87 clone. Some are better than others.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

If everything else in the kit is true to the original, get a Neumann K87 capsule for less than $1K and put the Dachman capsule in inventory. Then do the blindfold test.

~ Roy W. Rising "If you notice the *sound*, it's wrong!"

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/14/2020 3:13 AM, Paul Dorman wrote:

> Â*Â* \I'd like to see some blind tests with
> a real U87, and see if people can tell the difference!

That's what they all ask - does it sound like the real thing? Does your
U87 sound like my U87? Probably not exactly.

The important thing is whether it sounds good to you on your projects.
There was a time when there were a few standard studio mics that clients
expected you to have. I bought two, and still have them and use them.
But I have a couple of other mics that "sound like" U87s that don't
sound like either of my U87s, but they're useful in most places where
I'd use a U87 and they're nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm not familiar with this maker and I have no idea where his parts come
from. I know a little more about Mic Parts they're very open about
their designs and sources. If you're looking to save some money buy
building a mic from a kit, check them out

https://microphone-parts.com/


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/14/2020 7:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> What do you folks think about this?
>>
>> https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/
>>
>> It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.
>>
>> I'd certainly love to save thousands!
>
> Everyone and his brother makes a U87 clone. Some are better than others.

Can you recommend a U87 clone?

Either in kit form, or fully assembled?

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 6:37:25 AM UTC-8, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> >What do you folks think about this?
>> >
>> >https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/
>> >
>> >It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.
>> >
>> >I'd certainly love to save thousands!
>> Everyone and his brother makes a U87 clone. Some are better than others.
>
>If everything else in the kit is true to the original, get a Neumann K87 capsule for less than $1K and put the Dachman capsule in inventory. Then do the blindfold test.

Unfortunately there are two critical things that cannot be true to the
original.

First is the shape of the grille, which actually makes quite a difference in
the sound. You can copy the material, but you can't copy the shape because it
is trademarked and Neumann is very aggressive about legal action. So all the
clones have slightly different grille shapes. The degree to which this changes
the sound is something that nobody has systematically tested.

The second is the diaphragm tensioning... the method Neumann uses today is
a secret. The method all the people copying Neumann capsules use is one
that Neumann abandoned some time in the sixties... and it can work well
only if very skilled people are doing the work very carefully. The KM53
was finally discontinued when the woman who could hand-tension those
capsules retired and they couldn't do it properly anymore. Today, Neumann
uses automated tensioning methods which among other things means a
consistently good null in figure-8 mode. Nobody outside Neumann has seen
it in operation and it has not yet been copied. (Most of the other big
companies also use automated systems but the Neumann method, whatever it is,
is clearly different than the ones Shure, A-T, and AKG are using.)

It's easy to make U87-style microphones, but it's hard to make them well
and I am not sure it's possible to make them exactly like Neumann.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

Per Mike's and Scott's comments, I get really tired of seeing knock offs.

"Whoo Hooo! Get a Neumann clone for a fraction of the price!!!!!!"

Stick with your SM58 until you can afford a real one. Then hope you actually know how to use it.

I recall a conversation with a radio production guy many years ago who had a U 87 i. "Horrible on acoustic guitar", he said.

I asked where he put the mic. "Right in front of the sound hole, OF COURSE! It was waay boomy. I don't know why people think they're so great."

::sigh::

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 05:51:01 -0800 (PST), Ty Ford
> wrote:

>Per Mike's and Scott's comments, I get really tired of seeing knock offs.
>
>"Whoo Hooo! Get a Neumann clone for a fraction of the price!!!!!!"
>
>Stick with your SM58 until you can afford a real one. Then hope you actually know how to use it.
>
>I recall a conversation with a radio production guy many years ago who had a U 87 i. "Horrible on acoustic guitar", he said.
>
>I asked where he put the mic. "Right in front of the sound hole, OF COURSE! It was waay boomy. I don't know why people think they're so great."
>
>::sigh::
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

When I record acoustic guitar, I like to record the whole guitar, not
the sound hole, not the 12th fret, not the upper bout. About six feet
in front is my favoured location in my nicely treated room. Not only
is the guitar properly balanced, but only a smidge of EQ is needed to
kill the slight residue of proximity bass lift.

d

[John Williamson]

On 21/12/2020 14:08, Don Pearce wrote:

> When I record acoustic guitar, I like to record the whole guitar, not
> the sound hole, not the 12th fret, not the upper bout. About six feet
> in front is my favoured location in my nicely treated room. Not only
> is the guitar properly balanced, but only a smidge of EQ is needed to
> kill the slight residue of proximity bass lift.
>
> d
>
<Irony> Damn, you've been watching me... ;-)

Unless it was me watching you...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 22/12/2020 4:50 am, John Williamson wrote:
> On 21/12/2020 14:08, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> When I record acoustic guitar, I like to record the whole guitar, not
>> the sound hole, not the 12th fret, not the upper bout. About six feet
>> in front is my favoured location in my nicely treated room. Not only
>> is the guitar properly balanced, but only a smidge of EQ is needed to
>> kill the slight residue of proximity bass lift.
>>
>> d
>>
> <Irony> Damn, you've been watching me... ;-)
>
> Unless it was me watching you...
>

An NTC in the mic lead ( or two for a balanced signal) will remove that
hint of artificial bass-boost.

Sorry folks, couldn't resist(or).

Now Mr Phalluson, please take your biplar meds before you post again.

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/14/2020 11:18 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/14/2020 3:13 AM, Paul Dorman wrote:
>
>> Â*Â*Â* \I'd like to see some blind tests with
>> a real U87, and see if people can tell the difference!
>
> That's what they all ask - does it sound like the real thing? Does your
> U87 sound like my U87? Probably not exactly.
>
> The important thing is whether it sounds good to you on your projects.
> There was a time when there were a few standard studio mics that clients
> expected you to have. I bought two, and still have them and use them.
> But I have a couple of other mics that "sound like" U87s that don't
> sound like either of my U87s, but they're useful in most places where
> I'd use a U87 and they're nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> I'm not familiar with this maker and I have no idea where his parts come
> from. I know a little more about Mic PartsÂ* they're very open about
> their designs and sources. If you're looking to save some money buy
> building a mic from a kit, check them out
>
> https://microphone-parts.com/
>

I'd like to see two blind tests:

1) 5 mics. 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
2) 5 mics. 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.

I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests. Especially
since there are variations even between the real U87s!

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote:
-----------------
** FOAD you vile lunatic

[[email protected]]

geoff = know nothing moron wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------

> >>
> An NTC in the mic lead ( or two for a balanced signal) will remove that
> hint of artificial bass-boost.

** Not the tiniest bit funny.

Just plain dumb.

Like the retarded idiot who posted it.


... .Phil

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

> I'd like to see two blind tests:
>
> 1) 5 mics. 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
> 2) 5 mics. 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.
>
> I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests. Especially
> since there are variations even between the real U87s!

I once EQed an RE20 to sound like a U 87 for my voice. For that one incident, the difference was very difficult to tell.
That, by no means, indicates the any similarities.

We (Louis Mills, Mark Patey and I) could tell the difference between a U87 i and a U 87ai.

I guess, what I'm thinking here is that, depending on your tests, you might be convinced of anything. You'd have to run exhaustive tests on music, room (pattern response), preamp loading, and probably a few things I've forgotten to mention here to get any solid data. Would I trust your findings? Probably not.

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/23/2020 8:49 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
>> I'd like to see two blind tests:
>>
>> 1) 5 mics. 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
>> 2) 5 mics. 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.
>>
>> I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
>> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests. Especially
>> since there are variations even between the real U87s!
>
> I once EQed an RE20 to sound like a U 87 for my voice. For that one incident, the difference was very difficult to tell.
> That, by no means, indicates the any similarities.
>
> We (Louis Mills, Mark Patey and I) could tell the difference between a U87 i and a U 87ai.
>
> I guess, what I'm thinking here is that, depending on your tests, you might be convinced of anything. You'd have to run exhaustive tests on music, room (pattern response), preamp loading, and probably a few things I've forgotten to mention here to get any solid data. Would I trust your findings? Probably not.
>

You'd want to have a controlled test, where everything else is the
same: pre-amp, room, etc.

Would I trust anyone who claims they picked out the 1 clone,
and the 1 real? Definitely Not!

[geoff]

On 24/12/2020 4:49 am, Ty Ford wrote:
>> I'd like to see two blind tests:
>>
>> 1) 5 mics. 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
>> 2) 5 mics. 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.
>>
>> I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
>> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests. Especially
>> since there are variations even between the real U87s!
>
> I once EQed an RE20 to sound like a U 87 for my voice. For that one incident, the difference was very difficult to tell.
> That, by no means, indicates the any similarities.
>
> We (Louis Mills, Mark Patey and I) could tell the difference between a U87 i and a U 87ai.
>
> I guess, what I'm thinking here is that, depending on your tests, you might be convinced of anything. You'd have to run exhaustive tests on music, room (pattern response), preamp loading, and probably a few things I've forgotten to mention here to get any solid data. Would I trust your findings? Probably not.
>

Then move a few inches and it all changes again !

geoff

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

> You'd want to have a controlled test, where everything else is the
> same: pre-amp, room, etc.
>
> Would I trust anyone who claims they picked out the 1 clone,
> and the 1 real? Definitely Not!

But with mics, you also need to consider the preamps. We were using Flite Three's API preamps. I use GML and Millennia Media and a Pre-production model of a pre designed by Jim Mikles. Expect the mics to sound different in other preamps.

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

> Then move a few inches and it all changes again !
>
> geoff

It certainly can, but may not.

Listen to this experiment in moving around a mic. My space is tight but not dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIMfgQ6-7yU&ab_channel=TyFord

Ty

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/24/2020 8:13 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
>> You'd want to have a controlled test, where everything else is the
>> same: pre-amp, room, etc.
>>
>> Would I trust anyone who claims they picked out the 1 clone,
>> and the 1 real? Definitely Not!
>
> But with mics, you also need to consider the preamps. We were using Flite Three's API preamps. I use GML and Millennia Media and a Pre-production model of a pre designed by Jim Mikles. Expect the mics to sound different in other preamps.
>

See if you can guess which one is the
Real U87, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE
ANSWER IN THE DESCRIPTION!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbjYaBV0Fc

Again, I'd bet very, very few could pick out 1 real
out of 4 clones!

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>
> I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
>out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests. Especially
>since there are variations even between the real U87s!

U87s are pretty consistent. There have been production changes over the
years, but even comparing the old style with the battery to the new style,
I don't hear big differences.

Very much unlike the U47, where no two of them sound anything like one
another.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/25/2020 8:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>
>> I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
>> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests. Especially
>> since there are variations even between the real U87s!
>
> U87s are pretty consistent. There have been production changes over the
> years, but even comparing the old style with the battery to the new style,
> I don't hear big differences.
>
> Very much unlike the U47, where no two of them sound anything like one
> another.
> --scott
>

Again, I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests.

Close your eyes, and see if you can tell when the real U87 is
used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouB66R4QrXQ

[John Williamson]

On 26/12/2020 22:53, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 12/25/2020 8:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Again, I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests.
>
> Close your eyes, and see if you can tell when the real U87 is
> used:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouB66R4QrXQ

Between my currently poor monitoring setup and Youtube's mangling of the
audio, I couldn't tell any difference.

Mainly, I suspect the problem may have been with Youtube's audio
compression or the choice of subject matter. I will happily use Youtbe
to assess a performance, but having done the experiment, no way will I
use it to check audio or video quality on a recording.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/27/2020 2:27 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 26/12/2020 22:53, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> On 12/25/2020 8:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Â*Â* Again, I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
>> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests.
>>
>> Â*Â* Close your eyes, and see if you can tell when the real U87 is
>> used:
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouB66R4QrXQ
>
> Between my currently poor monitoring setup and Youtube's mangling of the
> audio, I couldn't tell any difference.
>

YouTube's audio is good enough. I have studio monitors on my
home computer, and I can easily tell if a live concert YouTube
video's audio was recorded with tape, or digital. It's like night
and day. It appears the transition from tape to digital, happened
roughly in the later 90's, or early 2000s.


> Mainly, I suspect the problem may have been with Youtube's audio
> compression or the choice of subject matter. I will happily use Youtbe
> to assess a performance, but having done the experiment, no way will I
> use it to check audio or video quality on a recording.
>

Go ahead and use the best equipment you can, at a 192kHz sample
rate, and I'll bet you still won't be able to tell Real versus a
good Clone.

There's no real good reason to be a microphone snob, especially
with MP3s into Apple earbuds!

:)

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/20/2020 8:26 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 6:37:25 AM UTC-8, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>>> What do you folks think about this?
>>>>
>>>> https://dachmanaudio.com/da-87i-vintage-condenser-microphone/
>>>>
>>>> It comes in both kit form, and fully assembled.
>>>>
>>>> I'd certainly love to save thousands!
>>> Everyone and his brother makes a U87 clone. Some are better than others.
>>
>> If everything else in the kit is true to the original, get a Neumann K87 capsule for less than $1K and put the Dachman capsule in inventory. Then do the blindfold test.
>
> Unfortunately there are two critical things that cannot be true to the
> original.
>
> First is the shape of the grille, which actually makes quite a difference in
> the sound. You can copy the material, but you can't copy the shape because it
> is trademarked and Neumann is very aggressive about legal action. So all the
> clones have slightly different grille shapes. The degree to which this changes
> the sound is something that nobody has systematically tested.
>
> The second is the diaphragm tensioning... the method Neumann uses today is
> a secret. The method all the people copying Neumann capsules use is one
> that Neumann abandoned some time in the sixties... and it can work well
> only if very skilled people are doing the work very carefully. The KM53
> was finally discontinued when the woman who could hand-tension those
> capsules retired and they couldn't do it properly anymore. Today, Neumann
> uses automated tensioning methods which among other things means a
> consistently good null in figure-8 mode. Nobody outside Neumann has seen
> it in operation and it has not yet been copied. (Most of the other big
> companies also use automated systems but the Neumann method, whatever it is,
> is clearly different than the ones Shure, A-T, and AKG are using.)
>
> It's easy to make U87-style microphones, but it's hard to make them well
> and I am not sure it's possible to make them exactly like Neumann.

If Neumann is so secretive, then why did they agree to do a
"How It's Made" video on the U87? This video is WAY too clean to be
from the 60's!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZy-ThRXeY

And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.

[John Williamson]

On 29/12/2020 13:54, Paul Dorman wrote:

> If Neumann is so secretive, then why did they agree to do a
> "How It's Made" video on the U87? This video is WAY too clean to be
> from the 60's!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZy-ThRXeY
>
> And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
> they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
> membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.
>
The "secret ingredients" are not even hinted at in the video. How thick
and how tense is the plastic sheet as delivered to the assembler, and
how thick is the gold plating? What type of plastic is used?

Just a couple of the variables I can see that will make a massive
difference to the end result.

The torque on the screws we saw being fastened, by the way, won't make a
massive difference to the consistency of the microphone performance as
long as they are tight enough, that is set by the consistency between
samples of the tension given to it by the ring it is mounted on during
the plating process, which in turn is governed by the heat treatment at
the initial mounting and plating stages. All the mounting ring you see
being fastened does is to lock that initial tension in place.

All the stuff you see is of minor importance compared to what they do
not show you.

Don't forget that video was passed by the legal department as not
disclosing any commercially sensitive information.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 8:16 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 29/12/2020 13:54, Paul Dorman wrote:
>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* If Neumann is so secretive, then why did they agree to do a
>> "How It's Made" video on the U87?Â* This video is WAY too clean to be
>> from the 60's!
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZy-ThRXeY
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* And I don't see anything too special here, really.Â* Assuming
>> they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
>> membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.
>>
> The "secret ingredients" are not even hinted at in the video. How thick
> and how tense is the plastic sheet as delivered to the assembler, and
> how thick is the gold plating? What type of plastic is used?
>
> Just a couple of the variables I can see that will make a massive
> difference to the end result.
>
> The torque on the screws we saw being fastened, by the way, won't make a
> massive difference to the consistency of the microphone performance as
> long as they are tight enough, that is set by the consistency between
> samples of the tension given to it by the ring it is mounted on during
> the plating process, which in turn is governedÂ* by the heat treatment at
> the initial mounting and plating stages. All the mounting ring you see
> being fastened does is to lock that initial tension in place.
>
> All the stuff you see is of minor importance compared to what they do
> not show you.
>
> Don't forget that video was passed by the legal department as not
> disclosing any commercially sensitive information.
>

High quality capsule are readily available
from many suppliers:

http://www.pelusomicrophonelab.com/parts/Capsules.html

https://microphone-parts.com/products/rk87-microphone-capsule

I'd say the "secret ingredient" is marketing hype, and mic-snobbery!

Very similar to what Steinway did in the piano world!

[John Williamson]

On 29/12/2020 17:25, Paul Dorman wrote:
> High quality capsule are readily available
> from many suppliers:
>
> http://www.pelusomicrophonelab.com/parts/Capsules.html
>
> https://microphone-parts.com/products/rk87-microphone-capsule
>
> I'd say the "secret ingredient" is marketing hype, and mic-snobbery!

I do not say that high quality capsules are not available elsewhere,
but, while there is undoubtedly an element of snobbery, if there are
measurable differences in either quality or consistency between brands,
then there is, by definition, a "secret ingredient".

> Very similar to what Steinway did in the piano world!

As Steinway hold 139 patents in the field of piano making, they have
many "secret ingredients".

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 10:45 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 29/12/2020 17:25, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> Â*Â* High quality capsule are readily available
>> from many suppliers:
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* http://www.pelusomicrophonelab.com/parts/Capsules.html
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* https://microphone-parts.com/products/rk87-microphone-capsule
>>
>> Â*Â* I'd say the "secret ingredient" is marketing hype, and mic-snobbery!
>
> I do not say that high quality capsules are not available elsewhere,
> but, while there is undoubtedly an element of snobbery, if there are
> measurable differences in either quality or consistency between brands,
> then there is, by definition, a "secret ingredient".
>

I don't believe they are noticeable by maybe 97% of people,
which means those differences don't matter.


> >Â*Â*Â* Very similar to what Steinway did in the piano world!
>
> As Steinway hold 139 patents in the field of piano making, they have
> many "secret ingredients".
>

Not really. Piano technology is well known. There are no secrets.

And I like Yamahas better!

:)

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
> If Neumann is so secretive, then why did they agree to do a
>"How It's Made" video on the U87? This video is WAY too clean to be
>from the 60's!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZy-ThRXeY

Because that video doesn't show anything important.

> And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
>they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
>membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.

There are two things they will not show you:

1. How the backplate is made optically flat and parallel to the diaphragm.

2. How the diaphragm is tensioned.

The trampoline method that all the Chinese factories are using is the method
that Neumann used back in the fifties, and it can be done well with very
skilled people. A torque wrench tells you something but it doesn't tell you
flatness, it only tells you tension at a few points. If you combine this
with interferometry you can make a capsule with a pretty good null. It's
not easy or cheap and you'll go through a lot of material.

The method Neumann is currently using is automated and results in a ring
with the diaphragm evenly tensioned across it and fixed into place. You
can tour the Neumann plant but they won't let you look into the room where
that takes place.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 29/12/2020 18:24, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 12/29/2020 10:45 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> I do not say that high quality capsules are not available elsewhere,
>> but, while there is undoubtedly an element of snobbery, if there are
>> measurable differences in either quality or consistency between
>> brands, then there is, by definition, a "secret ingredient".
>>
>
> I don't believe they are noticeable by maybe 97% of people,
> which means those differences don't matter.
>
If they exist, are measurable and we as professionals want to do the
best for our clients, they do matter, even is only 1% of people can
notice them.

But have you any research to back up your belief?
>
>> > Very similar to what Steinway did in the piano world!
>>
>> As Steinway hold 139 patents in the field of piano making, they have
>> many "secret ingredients".
>>
>
> Not really. Piano technology is well known. There are no secrets.
>
As it's all mechanical, it can easily be reverse engineered and the
patents evaded, but it's not so easy to reverse engineer the precise
tension in a microphone diaphragm.

> And I like Yamahas better!

That is your personal preference, and one opinion is not data.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 11:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> If Neumann is so secretive, then why did they agree to do a
>> "How It's Made" video on the U87? This video is WAY too clean to be
>>from the 60's!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZy-ThRXeY
>
> Because that video doesn't show anything important.
>
>> And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
>> they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
>> membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.
>
> There are two things they will not show you:
>
> 1. How the backplate is made optically flat and parallel to the diaphragm.

The flatness of the backplate will depend on the lathe that it is
cut with.

>
> 2. How the diaphragm is tensioned.

They DID show the diaphram tensioned!

>
> The trampoline method that all the Chinese factories are using is the method
> that Neumann used back in the fifties, and it can be done well with very
> skilled people. A torque wrench tells you something but it doesn't tell you
> flatness, it only tells you tension at a few points. If you combine this
> with interferometry you can make a capsule with a pretty good null. It's
> not easy or cheap and you'll go through a lot of material.
>
> The method Neumann is currently using is automated and results in a ring
> with the diaphragm evenly tensioned across it and fixed into place. You
> can tour the Neumann plant but they won't let you look into the room where
> that takes place.
> --scott
>

Capsule construction is not rocket science.

[John Williamson]

On 29/12/2020 20:10, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 12/29/2020 11:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> 2. How the diaphragm is tensioned.
>
> They DID show the diaphram tensioned!
>
They showed a pre-tensioned diaphragm being secured by a retaining ring
to the backing plate and a spacer.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 11:43 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 29/12/2020 18:24, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> On 12/29/2020 10:45 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>>> I do not say that high quality capsules are not available elsewhere,
>>> but, while there is undoubtedly an element of snobbery, if there are
>>> measurable differences in either quality or consistency between
>>> brands, then there is, by definition, a "secret ingredient".
>>>
>>
>> Â*Â*Â* I don't believe they are noticeable by maybe 97% of people,
>> which means those differences don't matter.
>>
> If they exist, are measurable and we as professionals want to do the
> best for our clients, they do matter, even is only 1% of people can
> notice them.
>
> But have you any research to back up your belief?

Again, there are plenty of mic shootouts on YouTube.

Most people can't tell the difference. Maybe the
differences don't really exist!


>>
>>> Â*>Â*Â*Â* Very similar to what Steinway did in the piano world!
>>>
>>> As Steinway hold 139 patents in the field of piano making, they have
>>> many "secret ingredients".
>>>
>>
>> Â*Â*Â* Not really.Â* Piano technology is well known. There are no secrets.
>>
> As it's all mechanical, it can easily be reverse engineered and the
> patents evaded, but it's not so easy to reverse engineer the precise
> tension in a microphone diaphragm.

Bull-S***.

You only need a torque wrench, and any assembler could do it.


>
>> Â*Â*Â* And I like Yamahas better!
>
> That is your personal preference, and one opinion is not data.
>

Not just me. Plenty of world-class pianists
prefer Yamaha.

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 1:13 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 29/12/2020 20:10, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> On 12/29/2020 11:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> 2. How the diaphragm is tensioned.
>>
>> Â*Â*Â* They DID show the diaphram tensioned!
>>
> They showed a pre-tensioned diaphragm being securedÂ* by a retaining ring
> to the backing plate and a spacer.
>

That didn't look like anything special. The gold-sputtered
mylar just has to be flat.

Watch this Soyuz video around the 1:50 mark:


https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/10/9/there-is-handmade-and-then-there-is-made-by-hand-see-how-the-skilled-technicians-at-soyuz-microphones-make-mics-by-hand-part-2-gsps6


The mylar is put into the tensioning ring, and tensioned by the
technician by hand. He doesn't measure the tension with any device!

Also, the technician securing the diaphragm to the backing plate,
does NOT appear to use a torque-wrench!

I'm not claiming the technicians don't need skill to do this work,
but it's clear there aren't any secrets in capsule building.

I would say reverse-engineering is the bane of all Mic-Snobs!

:)

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>On 12/29/2020 11:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
>>> they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
>>> membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.

No, you're at least two orders of magnitude off. However, that's how the
Chinese guys do it.

>> There are two things they will not show you:
>>
>> 1. How the backplate is made optically flat and parallel to the diaphragm.
>
> The flatness of the backplate will depend on the lathe that it is
>cut with.

Umm... no. It's flat. Not mils flat, not microns flat. It's hundreds of
angstroms flat. It's flat enough that you put the plate on it and you
don't see any Newton's rings. It is cut, yes, but then it's lapped and
then sometimes a third process is used to make it still flatter.

More than that, it's absolutely parallel to the diaphragm. This turns out
to be hard to do because it relies on more than just the stator being
flat.

If you don't get these right, your null in figure-8 mode turns to crap
because you can't balance the two halves of the capsule properly.

> Capsule construction is not rocket science.

Most of it isn't. I can make a serviceable K87-style capsule with a decent
null, after a good bit of practice. Making a KM84 capsule is a lot harder.
But you look at the more modern pop-together designs and it's impossible to
do any of those by hand.

I suggest you try it. I thought it would be a lot easier than it is.
Start with an M7 because it's definitely the easiest one to tension on
a trampoline and you can do it mostly with jeweler's tools. You'll need
to make custom jigs to drill the backplate but Neumann did something very
smart to make it easy to lap it on a hand machine.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>
>https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/10/9/there-is-handmade-and-then-there-is-made-by-hand-see-how-the-skilled-technicians-at-soyuz-microphones-make-mics-by-hand-part-2-gsps6
>
> The mylar is put into the tensioning ring, and tensioned by the
>technician by hand. He doesn't measure the tension with any device!
>
> Also, the technician securing the diaphragm to the backing plate,
>does NOT appear to use a torque-wrench!
>
> I'm not claiming the technicians don't need skill to do this work,
>but it's clear there aren't any secrets in capsule building.

This is the trampoline method I described. There are a couple steps left
out of that video but it's basically all that goes on.

Modern manufacturers do not use this method any longer, but it is possible
to get consistent capsules made this way if you have enough skill.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 30/12/2020 9:13 am, Paul Dorman wrote:

>
>
>>
>>> Â*Â*Â* And I like Yamahas better!
>>
>> That is your personal preference, and one opinion is not data.
>>
>
> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Not just me.Â* Plenty of world-class pianists
> prefer Yamaha.
>
>
>

And some world class rock singers prefer SM58s ....

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 4:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> On 12/29/2020 11:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
>>>> they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
>>>> membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.
>
> No, you're at least two orders of magnitude off. However, that's how the
> Chinese guys do it.
>
>>> There are two things they will not show you:
>>>
>>> 1. How the backplate is made optically flat and parallel to the diaphragm.
>>
>> The flatness of the backplate will depend on the lathe that it is
>> cut with.
>
> Umm... no. It's flat. Not mils flat, not microns flat. It's hundreds of
> angstroms flat. It's flat enough that you put the plate on it and you
> don't see any Newton's rings. It is cut, yes, but then it's lapped and
> then sometimes a third process is used to make it still flatter.
>

It's not hard to make a surface very flat. You'll
have to Bull-S*** better than that!


> More than that, it's absolutely parallel to the diaphragm. This turns out
> to be hard to do because it relies on more than just the stator being
> flat.
>
> If you don't get these right, your null in figure-8 mode turns to crap
> because you can't balance the two halves of the capsule properly.
>
>> Capsule construction is not rocket science.
>
> Most of it isn't. I can make a serviceable K87-style capsule with a decent
> null, after a good bit of practice. Making a KM84 capsule is a lot harder.
> But you look at the more modern pop-together designs and it's impossible to
> do any of those by hand.
>
> I suggest you try it. I thought it would be a lot easier than it is.
> Start with an M7 because it's definitely the easiest one to tension on
> a trampoline and you can do it mostly with jeweler's tools. You'll need
> to make custom jigs to drill the backplate but Neumann did something very
> smart to make it easy to lap it on a hand machine.
> --scott
>

Comments from Richard Wielgosz:

"If you're buying good parts like a Peluso capsule and transformer, the
parts come out to about $575. It's not magic, the rest of the components
are just common electronics parts. Caps, resistors, etc.... Neumann
builds lovely mic bodies machined to serious standards, so using a less
expensive body saves money here. The commonly used body is about $150 of
the aforementioned price. Is it as nice as the Neumann? No. Does it need
to be? No. The 150 one I've seen is plenty substantial. The rest is just
how good the clone of the actual circuit is. And the circuit boards
being used here are EXACT clones of a particular vintage U87 circuit. I
think he cloned a circuit from a 1970s U87.

So German capsules are between $600 and $800. Is the Peluso as good as
the Neumann? Well, a friend of mine who is a well respected tech in the
audio industry (he is known by everyone) uses Peluso capsules to replace
capsules in any German mics he repairs unless otherwise instructed by
the client. The Peluso U87 capsule is about $266. It is as good as the
Neumann? My friend thinks so. But objectively is it? Maybe, maybe not,
but if it's 97% there NO ONE is going to notice the odd 3%.

So yes, if you use good components, these are faithful reproductions of
a U87. They sound amazing.

This IS NOT a clone of the modern U87ai, which has a different amplifier
circuit and puts out about 8 dB more gain. So it is a little quieter,
but the circuit is a clone of the real U87 I work with in one of the
studios where I work, and give me that circuit all day long.

Here's why it's possible to build a high quality clone for less than
$1000 and certainly WAY less than what Neumann charges.


You see, NEUMANN ALREADY DID THE ENGINEERING ON THE MIC 50 YEARS AGO.
They were developing a solid state version of their U67 tube mic. Since
phantom power was lower voltage and lower current than the PSU's
available for tube mics, they had to develop a new capsule with dual
isolated backplates, and a new amplifier circuit. THEY ALREADY DID THE
MATH. Now, copying what they did is easy, and dozens of suppliers have
very high quality replicas of their capsules, and this circuit is an
EXACT replica of the amplifier circuit.


The sound in mics like these mostly comes from 3 places. In order of
importance it is probably the capsule, the circuit, and the
grill/capsule basket. The capsules are high quality replicas, the
circuit is exact, and the grill/basket varies depending on whose mic
bodies you use.


As I said, there is no magic here. IT'S JUST COMPONENTS THAT CAN BE, AND
HAVE BEEN COPIED."

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>
> It's not hard to make a surface very flat. You'll
>have to Bull-S*** better than that!

Again, I suggest you try it.

It's easy to make an omni capsule that does pretty well. It's hard to
make a cardioid capsule that does pretty well. It is damn hard to make
a figure-8 capsule that does pretty well.

I have been trying it. I can only tell you what I have experienced.

>Comments from Richard Wielgosz:
>
>"If you're buying good parts like a Peluso capsule and transformer, the
>parts come out to about $575. It's not magic, the rest of the components
>are just common electronics parts. Caps, resistors, etc.... Neumann
>builds lovely mic bodies machined to serious standards, so using a less
>expensive body saves money here. The commonly used body is about $150 of
>the aforementioned price. Is it as nice as the Neumann? No. Does it need
>to be? No. The 150 one I've seen is plenty substantial. The rest is just
>how good the clone of the actual circuit is. And the circuit boards
>being used here are EXACT clones of a particular vintage U87 circuit. I
>think he cloned a circuit from a 1970s U87.

Again, I suggest you try one of these microphones. Put it in figure-8
and put it in front of a singer with a guitar and see if you can null
the guitar out completely. Put it in a room, set it to omni, then see
how far from the source you can pull it before things fall apart. The
differences between microphones very quickly become evident.

Mr. Weilgosz is pretty much correct that the capsule is the hard part,
but I suggest that most of the companies selling Feilo-style capsules are
not saying anything comparable to a K87. But try it yourself in your
room and see for yourself.

Some of the companies making Feilo-style capsules have managed decent
nulls, but they are not any of the companies you have mentioned so far,
and they manage it mostly through extreme manual skill and high fall-outs.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 6:58 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>
>> It's not hard to make a surface very flat. You'll
>> have to Bull-S*** better than that!
>
> Again, I suggest you try it.
>
> It's easy to make an omni capsule that does pretty well. It's hard to
> make a cardioid capsule that does pretty well. It is damn hard to make
> a figure-8 capsule that does pretty well.
>
> I have been trying it. I can only tell you what I have experienced.
>
>> Comments from Richard Wielgosz:
>>
>> "If you're buying good parts like a Peluso capsule and transformer, the
>> parts come out to about $575. It's not magic, the rest of the components
>> are just common electronics parts. Caps, resistors, etc.... Neumann
>> builds lovely mic bodies machined to serious standards, so using a less
>> expensive body saves money here. The commonly used body is about $150 of
>> the aforementioned price. Is it as nice as the Neumann? No. Does it need
>> to be? No. The 150 one I've seen is plenty substantial. The rest is just
>> how good the clone of the actual circuit is. And the circuit boards
>> being used here are EXACT clones of a particular vintage U87 circuit. I
>> think he cloned a circuit from a 1970s U87.
>
> Again, I suggest you try one of these microphones. Put it in figure-8
> and put it in front of a singer with a guitar and see if you can null
> the guitar out completely. Put it in a room, set it to omni, then see
> how far from the source you can pull it before things fall apart. The
> differences between microphones very quickly become evident.
>
> Mr. Weilgosz is pretty much correct that the capsule is the hard part,
> but I suggest that most of the companies selling Feilo-style capsules are
> not saying anything comparable to a K87. But try it yourself in your
> room and see for yourself.
>
> Some of the companies making Feilo-style capsules have managed decent
> nulls, but they are not any of the companies you have mentioned so far,
> and they manage it mostly through extreme manual skill and high fall-outs.
> --scott

I'm sure with modern lathes and manufacturing techniques,
the capsules are pretty much the same these days. They
aren't that complicated, and Mr. Weilgosz seems to agree.

Again, I'd like to see two blind tests:

1) 5 mics. 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
2) 5 mics. 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.

I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests.

[geoff]

On 30/12/2020 3:35 pm, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 12/29/2020 6:58 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Paul DormanÂ* > wrote:
>>>
>>> Â*Â*Â* It's not hard to make a surface very flat.Â* You'll
>>> have to Bull-S*** better than that!
>>
>> Again, I suggest you try it.
>>
>> It's easy to make an omni capsule that does pretty well.Â* It's hard to
>> make a cardioid capsule that does pretty well.Â* It is damn hard to make
>> a figure-8 capsule that does pretty well.
>>
>> I have been trying it.Â* I can only tell you what I have experienced.
>>
>>> Comments from Richard Wielgosz:
>>>
>>> "If you're buying good parts like a Peluso capsule and transformer, the
>>> parts come out to about $575. It's not magic, the rest of the components
>>> are just common electronics parts. Caps, resistors, etc.... Neumann
>>> builds lovely mic bodies machined to serious standards, so using a less
>>> expensive body saves money here. The commonly used body is about $150 of
>>> the aforementioned price. Is it as nice as the Neumann? No. Does it need
>>> to be? No. The 150 one I've seen is plenty substantial. The rest is just
>>> how good the clone of the actual circuit is. And the circuit boards
>>> being used here are EXACT clones of a particular vintage U87 circuit. I
>>> think he cloned a circuit from a 1970s U87.
>>
>> Again, I suggest you try one of these microphones.Â* Put it in figure-8
>> and put it in front of a singer with a guitar and see if you can null
>> the guitar out completely.Â* Put it in a room, set it to omni, then see
>> how far from the source you can pull it before things fall apart.Â* The
>> differences between microphones very quickly become evident.
>>
>> Mr. Weilgosz is pretty much correct that the capsule is the hard part,
>> but I suggest that most of the companies selling Feilo-style capsules are
>> not saying anything comparable to a K87.Â* But try it yourself in your
>> room and see for yourself.
>>
>> Some of the companies making Feilo-style capsules have managed decent
>> nulls, but they are not any of the companies you have mentioned so far,
>> and they manage it mostly through extreme manual skill and high
>> fall-outs.
>> --scott
>
> Â*Â*Â* I'm sure with modern lathes and manufacturing techniques,
> the capsules are pretty much the same these days.Â* They
> aren't that complicated, and Mr. Weilgosz seems to agree.
>
> Â*Â*Â* Again, I'd like to see two blind tests:
>
> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 1)Â* 5 mics.Â* 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2)Â* 5 mics.Â* 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.
>
> Â*Â*Â* I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests.
>


From what Scott says (cos I've never tried) try the test with a range
of different patterns and distances, and I bet it would be very apparent
which is which.

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 5:02 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 30/12/2020 9:13 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Â*Â*Â* And I like Yamahas better!
>>>
>>> That is your personal preference, and one opinion is not data.
>>>
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Not just me.Â* Plenty of world-class pianists
>> prefer Yamaha.
>>
>>
>>
>
> And some world class rock singers prefer SM58s ....
>

For live stage performances, the SM58 is the
standard!

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 4:09 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>
>> https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/10/9/there-is-handmade-and-then-there-is-made-by-hand-see-how-the-skilled-technicians-at-soyuz-microphones-make-mics-by-hand-part-2-gsps6
>>
>> The mylar is put into the tensioning ring, and tensioned by the
>> technician by hand. He doesn't measure the tension with any device!
>>
>> Also, the technician securing the diaphragm to the backing plate,
>> does NOT appear to use a torque-wrench!
>>
>> I'm not claiming the technicians don't need skill to do this work,
>> but it's clear there aren't any secrets in capsule building.
>
> This is the trampoline method I described. There are a couple steps left
> out of that video but it's basically all that goes on.
>
> Modern manufacturers do not use this method any longer, but it is possible
> to get consistent capsules made this way if you have enough skill.
> --scott
>

That Soyuz video was posted about 2 years ago, which
is recent enough for me!

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>
> Again, I'd like to see two blind tests:
>
> 1) 5 mics. 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
> 2) 5 mics. 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.
>
> I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
>out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests.

If you put the microphone in a dead room with a vocalist right on axis,
many of these microphones probably sound the same.

Put them in a place where they are getting a substantial amount of sound
from off-axis, such as tracking a band together or having a singer playing
guitar and you'll see dramatic differences.

If you start looking at the figure-8 pattern you'll find very few of the
clones have a very deep null at all. A lot of them don't even try.

Try it. It's not hard to do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>
> That Soyuz video was posted about 2 years ago, which
>is recent enough for me!

As I said, Neumann used this method back in the fifties but they do not
any longer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/30/2020 7:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>
>> Again, I'd like to see two blind tests:
>>
>> 1) 5 mics. 4 real U87s, and 1 U87 Clone.
>> 2) 5 mics. 4 Clones, and 1 Real U87.
>>
>> I'm willing to bet very, very few people could correctly pick
>> out the 1 Clone, and the 1 Real, in two blind audio tests.
>
> If you put the microphone in a dead room with a vocalist right on axis,
> many of these microphones probably sound the same.
>
> Put them in a place where they are getting a substantial amount of sound
> from off-axis, such as tracking a band together or having a singer playing
> guitar and you'll see dramatic differences.
>
> If you start looking at the figure-8 pattern you'll find very few of the
> clones have a very deep null at all. A lot of them don't even try.
>
> Try it. It's not hard to do.

That's what you claim, but I still doubt anyone could
tell the difference.

I know it's a hard pill to swallow, that recording gear is
more affordable than ever before!

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/30/2020 7:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>
>> That Soyuz video was posted about 2 years ago, which
>> is recent enough for me!
>
> As I said, Neumann used this method back in the fifties but they do not
> any longer.
> --scott
>

Since when do you speak for Neumann? What method do
you claim they use? And if it's so proprietary and "secret",
how do you know about it?

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>On 12/30/2020 7:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>>
>>> That Soyuz video was posted about 2 years ago, which
>>> is recent enough for me!
>>
>> As I said, Neumann used this method back in the fifties but they do not
>> any longer.
>
> Since when do you speak for Neumann? What method do
>you claim they use? And if it's so proprietary and "secret",
>how do you know about it?

Knowing it exists is very different than knowing how to make it work.

I don't know how they do it, although I have some idea about it I don't
know enough to make it work. I know that it is not the same method that
Shure uses, however. Shure also has an automated tensioning system.

The trampoline method is interesting because you get reasonably accurate
tension across the trampoline ring, and then once you put the ring on top
of the microphone the tension is equalized and the tension is proportional
to the weight of the ring. Then when the retaining ring is screwed down
or cemented in place it more or less retains the tension that it got; it
doesn't matter what the torque on those screws is because they just clamp
the thing in place, they don't actually set the tension. It's not like a
drumhead. However, although it does equalize the tension, it does not do
so perfectly.

I can do a decent job with the trampoline method and I have certainly made
better capsules than Feilo and crew have, but I can't make something as good
as I would want to use.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/30/2020 2:51 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> On 12/30/2020 7:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That Soyuz video was posted about 2 years ago, which
>>>> is recent enough for me!
>>>
>>> As I said, Neumann used this method back in the fifties but they do not
>>> any longer.
>>
>> Since when do you speak for Neumann? What method do
>> you claim they use? And if it's so proprietary and "secret",
>> how do you know about it?
>
> Knowing it exists is very different than knowing how to make it work.
>
> I don't know how they do it, although I have some idea about it I don't
> know enough to make it work. I know that it is not the same method that
> Shure uses, however. Shure also has an automated tensioning system.
>
> The trampoline method is interesting because you get reasonably accurate
> tension across the trampoline ring, and then once you put the ring on top
> of the microphone the tension is equalized and the tension is proportional
> to the weight of the ring. Then when the retaining ring is screwed down
> or cemented in place it more or less retains the tension that it got; it
> doesn't matter what the torque on those screws is because they just clamp
> the thing in place, they don't actually set the tension. It's not like a
> drumhead. However, although it does equalize the tension, it does not do
> so perfectly.
>
> I can do a decent job with the trampoline method and I have certainly made
> better capsules than Feilo and crew have, but I can't make something as good
> as I would want to use.

So you claim Neumann uses a different method, but you don't
know what that method is? Sound like you are pulling things out of
your ass, just to support your argument that they have some sort
of esoteric "secret" method of making their capsules.

They probably still use the same method that everyone else does.

It looks to me like the famed U87 has been successfully reverse-
engineered, and with modern lathing and CNC techniques, the classic
U87 sound is now available to everyone.

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>On 12/30/2020 7:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Try it. It's not hard to do.
>
> That's what you claim, but I still doubt anyone could
>tell the difference.

You should try it. Because you won't understand the whole point of the
thing until you have actually used the things.

Personally, I don't like the U87. But then, it's not the tool for the
sort of thing I do. I have one in the cabinet because people demand it,
but it doesn't come out often. So I don't really see the point of people
wanting to copy it, especially when they fail to copy the most interesting
parts about it. Go figure.

> I know it's a hard pill to swallow, that recording gear is
>more affordable than ever before!

It certainly is, but good rooms and talent are still in short supply.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 4:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> On 12/29/2020 11:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
>>>> they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
>>>> membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.
>
> No, you're at least two orders of magnitude off. However, that's how the
> Chinese guys do it.
>
>>> There are two things they will not show you:
>>>
>>> 1. How the backplate is made optically flat and parallel to the diaphragm.
>>
>> The flatness of the backplate will depend on the lathe that it is
>> cut with.
>
> Umm... no. It's flat. Not mils flat, not microns flat. It's hundreds of
> angstroms flat. It's flat enough that you put the plate on it and you
> don't see any Newton's rings. It is cut, yes, but then it's lapped and
> then sometimes a third process is used to make it still flatter.
>

This video claims that "cutting the electrode is perhaps the most
difficult part of making a capsule":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-i0GztOrlg

They claim the process requires a lathe of 2 microns flatness
accuracy. Another Soyuz video says that some lathes can get down to
1-2 microns accuracy.

The video shows that they further hand-polish the electrodes on a
"special surface", and then they measure the flatness with an old Soviet
micrometer, which measures down to 1 micron.

500 angstroms is 0.05 microns. How are they supposed to measure
down to 1/20th of a micron? And would it even matter?

Must be more of your BullS***!

> More than that, it's absolutely parallel to the diaphragm. This turns out
> to be hard to do because it relies on more than just the stator being
> flat.
>
> If you don't get these right, your null in figure-8 mode turns to crap
> because you can't balance the two halves of the capsule properly.
>
>> Capsule construction is not rocket science.
>
> Most of it isn't. I can make a serviceable K87-style capsule with a decent
> null, after a good bit of practice. Making a KM84 capsule is a lot harder.
> But you look at the more modern pop-together designs and it's impossible to
> do any of those by hand.
>
> I suggest you try it. I thought it would be a lot easier than it is.
> Start with an M7 because it's definitely the easiest one to tension on
> a trampoline and you can do it mostly with jeweler's tools. You'll need
> to make custom jigs to drill the backplate but Neumann did something very
> smart to make it easy to lap it on a hand machine.
> --scott
>

Have you ever cut your own electrode? Do you have access to a
2 micron accurate lathe?

[Paul Dorman]

On 12/29/2020 11:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> If Neumann is so secretive, then why did they agree to do a
>> "How It's Made" video on the U87? This video is WAY too clean to be
>>from the 60's!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZy-ThRXeY
>
> Because that video doesn't show anything important.
>
>> And I don't see anything too special here, really. Assuming
>> they use torque wrenches for the ring that mounts the plastic
>> membrane, it looks like any assembler could do it.
>
> There are two things they will not show you:
>
> 1. How the backplate is made optically flat and parallel to the diaphragm.
>
> 2. How the diaphragm is tensioned.
>
> The trampoline method that all the Chinese factories are using is the method
> that Neumann used back in the fifties, and it can be done well with very
> skilled people.

Based upon the clarity of that video, it looks to me like Neumann
still uses this method.

And since the Soyuz videos I posted are about 2 years old, it
looks like at least some Russians use the same method too!

Here is the video again. They hand-tighten the mylar into the
rings, and they do NOT measure the tension!


https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/10/9/there-is-handmade-and-then-there-is-made-by-hand-see-how-the-skilled-technicians-at-soyuz-microphones-make-mics-by-hand-part-2-gsps6

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
> This video claims that "cutting the electrode is perhaps the most
>difficult part of making a capsule":
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-i0GztOrlg
>
> They claim the process requires a lathe of 2 microns flatness
>accuracy. Another Soyuz video says that some lathes can get down to
>1-2 microns accuracy.

Yes. You don't really need to get it that accurate because it will be
lapped, but the better you get it, the easier and faster the lapping
process is.

> The video shows that they further hand-polish the electrodes on a
>"special surface", and then they measure the flatness with an old Soviet
>micrometer, which measures down to 1 micron.

Yes, this is called lapping.

They only need to get it down to about a micron because of the way the
capsule is designed; there is no need to balance two halves perfectly
to make a figure-8 pattern work like there is with the U87. From the
standpoint of manufacturability, this is a much better capsule than the
K87.

> 500 angstroms is 0.05 microns. How are they supposed to measure
>down to 1/20th of a micron? And would it even matter?

In the old days, people used optical flats. These days we use an
interferometer. Cheap semiconductor lasers have made this a very easy
method to measure the backplate accuracy and flatness, as well as to
measure the diaphragm flatness once it's in place.

> Have you ever cut your own electrode? Do you have access to a
>2 micron accurate lathe?

I have certainly cut hundreds of backplates and stators over the years.
Sadly, the runout on my lathe is not within 2 microns, though, which
makes the lapping a pain.

It's very easy to make a microphone capsule, it's very hard to make a good
one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
> Here is the video again. They hand-tighten the mylar into the
>rings, and they do NOT measure the tension!
>
>https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/10/9/there-is-handmade-and-then-there-is-made-by-hand-see-how-the-skilled-technicians-at-soyuz-microphones-make-mics-by-hand-part-2-gsps6

As I explained before, they are not tensioning the mylar when they turn
those screws down. At that point it is already tensioned and they are
just clamping it into place.

The tension is set by the weight of the trampoline ring. When the ring
with the diaphragm is placed on top of the capsule, the weight of the
ring produces uniform tension across the capsule. Watch the video and
see it work! It works pretty well, actually.

They don't need to measure the tension because the tension is mostly a
function of the weight of the ring and that is the same every time.

It's actually a very ingenious process and you have to wonder who came
up with it back in the 1930s. And the Soyuz people are pretty smart
about designing the capsule to work with their manufacturing process.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/1/2021 8:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> Here is the video again. They hand-tighten the mylar into the
>> rings, and they do NOT measure the tension!
>>
>> https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/10/9/there-is-handmade-and-then-there-is-made-by-hand-see-how-the-skilled-technicians-at-soyuz-microphones-make-mics-by-hand-part-2-gsps6
>
> As I explained before, they are not tensioning the mylar when they turn
> those screws down. At that point it is already tensioned and they are
> just clamping it into place.

I understand that the screws on the ring do not set the tension,
which is already in the mylar when set in the ring. The ring only
holds the mylar in place.

>
> The tension is set by the weight of the trampoline ring. When the ring
> with the diaphragm is placed on top of the capsule, the weight of the
> ring produces uniform tension across the capsule. Watch the video and
> see it work! It works pretty well, actually.

That's not what I'm seeing. It looks to me like he sets the
diaphragm tension by screwing the inner ring tighter.

>
> They don't need to measure the tension because the tension is mostly a
> function of the weight of the ring and that is the same every time.

Again, that's not what I'm seeing. It looks to me like he sets the
diaphragm tension by screwing the inner ring tighter. And he doesn't
measure the tension! He probably just tightens it enough to get the
wrinkles out of the mylar!

>
> It's actually a very ingenious process and you have to wonder who came
> up with it back in the 1930s. And the Soyuz people are pretty smart
> about designing the capsule to work with their manufacturing process.
> --scott
>

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/1/2021 8:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> This video claims that "cutting the electrode is perhaps the most
>> difficult part of making a capsule":
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-i0GztOrlg
>>
>> They claim the process requires a lathe of 2 microns flatness
>> accuracy. Another Soyuz video says that some lathes can get down to
>> 1-2 microns accuracy.
>
> Yes. You don't really need to get it that accurate because it will be
> lapped, but the better you get it, the easier and faster the lapping
> process is.
>
>> The video shows that they further hand-polish the electrodes on a
>> "special surface", and then they measure the flatness with an old Soviet
>> micrometer, which measures down to 1 micron.
>
> Yes, this is called lapping.
>
> They only need to get it down to about a micron because of the way the
> capsule is designed; there is no need to balance two halves perfectly
> to make a figure-8 pattern work like there is with the U87. From the
> standpoint of manufacturability, this is a much better capsule than the
> K87.
>
>> 500 angstroms is 0.05 microns. How are they supposed to measure
>> down to 1/20th of a micron? And would it even matter?
>
> In the old days, people used optical flats. These days we use an
> interferometer. Cheap semiconductor lasers have made this a very easy
> method to measure the backplate accuracy and flatness, as well as to
> measure the diaphragm flatness once it's in place.
>
>> Have you ever cut your own electrode? Do you have access to a
>> 2 micron accurate lathe?
>
> I have certainly cut hundreds of backplates and stators over the years.
> Sadly, the runout on my lathe is not within 2 microns, though, which
> makes the lapping a pain.
>
> It's very easy to make a microphone capsule, it's very hard to make a good
> one.

I don't see why it would be hard, if you have a 2 micron
accurate lathe!

[John Williamson]

On 01/01/2021 15:58, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 1/1/2021 8:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> They don't need to measure the tension because the tension is mostly a
>> function of the weight of the ring and that is the same every time.
>
> Again, that's not what I'm seeing. It looks to me like he sets the
> diaphragm tension by screwing the inner ring tighter. And he doesn't
> measure the tension! He probably just tightens it enough to get the
> wrinkles out of the mylar!
>
Watch the video more closely. The procedure Scott Dorsey describes is
what happens. The operator does not actively set the tension, which is
set by the weight of the outer ring, to which the diaphragm is bonded.
All the operator has to do is make sure the securing bolts that hold the
sandwich together are tight enough that the diaphragm or any other
component can not slip under vibration as experienced in use.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 01/01/2021 16:00, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 1/1/2021 8:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> It's very easy to make a microphone capsule, it's very hard to make a
>> good
>> one.
>
> I don't see why it would be hard, if you have a 2 micron
> accurate lathe!
>
Have you tried it? Scott has, and is passing on the benefit of his
experience.

How is life under your bridge?
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>On 1/1/2021 8:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> It's very easy to make a microphone capsule, it's very hard to make a good
>> one.
>
> I don't see why it would be hard, if you have a 2 micron
>accurate lathe!

Because getting the backplate flat and parallel to the diaphragm is not
the only problem. It's one of the two hard ones, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 01/01/2021 16:06, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/01/2021 15:58, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> On 1/1/2021 8:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> They don't need to measure the tension because the tension is mostly a
>>> function of the weight of the ring and that is the same every time.
>>
>> Again, that's not what I'm seeing. It looks to me like he sets the
>> diaphragm tension by screwing the inner ring tighter. And he doesn't
>> measure the tension! He probably just tightens it enough to get the
>> wrinkles out of the mylar!
>>
> Watch the video more closely. The procedure Scott Dorsey describes is
> what happens. The operator does not actively set the tension, which is
> set by the weight of the outer ring, to which the diaphragm is bonded.
> All the operator has to do is make sure the securing bolts that hold the
> sandwich together are tight enough that the diaphragm or any other
> component can not slip under vibration as experienced in use.
>
By the way, the only variable that can be affected by the torque of the
fixing screws is the spacing between the diaphragm and the stator, and
correct choice of materials and accurate machining will eliminate that
problem. You need a rigid, stable insulator for the spacer.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>On 1/1/2021 8:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The tension is set by the weight of the trampoline ring. When the ring
>> with the diaphragm is placed on top of the capsule, the weight of the
>> ring produces uniform tension across the capsule. Watch the video and
>> see it work! It works pretty well, actually.
>
> That's not what I'm seeing. It looks to me like he sets the
>diaphragm tension by screwing the inner ring tighter.

No. Watch the video again. The guy is going very slowly and carefully,
too, to make it easy for you to see what is going on. If you look at
the Feilo factory they are just slamming these out about once a minute.
This guy is going a far more careful job; you can see exactly how the weight
works.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/1/2021 9:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>> On 1/1/2021 8:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> The tension is set by the weight of the trampoline ring. When the ring
>>> with the diaphragm is placed on top of the capsule, the weight of the
>>> ring produces uniform tension across the capsule. Watch the video and
>>> see it work! It works pretty well, actually.
>>
>> That's not what I'm seeing. It looks to me like he sets the
>> diaphragm tension by screwing the inner ring tighter.
>
> No. Watch the video again. The guy is going very slowly and carefully,
> too, to make it easy for you to see what is going on. If you look at
> the Feilo factory they are just slamming these out about once a minute.
> This guy is going a far more careful job; you can see exactly how the weight
> works.
> --scott
>

Ok, you mean at about 3:08 in the video? Ok, I was referring to
about the 1:50 mark in the video, where he tensions the mylar in the
rings by screwing the inner ring tighter.

But again, using the weight of the rings, to set the diaphragm
tension, isn't rocket science! Any factory could do that! The
mylar just needs to be reasonably flat against the electrode.

I don't see the big secret of capsule construction, other than
having a 2 micron accurate lathe.

[John Williamson]

On 01/01/2021 17:58, Paul Dorman wrote:

> I don't see the big secret of capsule construction, other than
> having a 2 micron accurate lathe.
>
>
If it's so easy, then why aren't you selling microphones?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/1/2021 11:59 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/01/2021 17:58, Paul Dorman wrote:
>
>> Â*Â* I don't see the big secret of capsule construction, other than
>> having a 2 micron accurate lathe.
>>
>>
> If it's so easy, then why aren't you selling microphones?
>

I'm not, but other people ARE, at a far lower price
than Neumann, for a comparable product!

Just look at all the countless mic shoot-outs on
YouTube. On the blind tests, people often pick the
far cheaper mics!

Depending on the source material, of course. But just
the fact that a $200 mic is being compared to a $3,200
mic, is absolutely astounding!

Just like everyone has a smartphone now, whose capabilities
could not be bought AT ANY COST, not too long ago!

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/1/2021 2:34 PM, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> If it's so easy, then why aren't you selling microphones?

> Â*Â*Â* I'm not, but other people ARE, at a far lower price
> than Neumann, for a comparable product!
>
> Â*Â*Â* Just look at all the countless mic shoot-outs on
> YouTube.Â* On the blind tests, people often pick the
> far cheaper mics!

I'm an "just about all mics sound just about the same just about all the
time" kind of a guy, and I suspect that those who participate in
shootouts, even the brand name engineers, feel about the same way. Sure,
they have their favorite mics for particular things, often Neumann mics,
but more and more often we'll read an interview with an engineer who was
pleasantly surprised at how well a less expensive mic that he tried
worked. That doesn't mean he'll sell his Neumanns, just that he knows
that he has one more useful mic on his shelf.

> the fact that a $200 mic is being compared to a $3,200
> mic, is absolutely astounding!

Yes, it's astounding that people think of doing that and find someone
somewhere who thinks the less expensive mics beat out a top shelf mic
for some combination of source, technique, and acoustic space.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 2/01/2021 8:34 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 1/1/2021 11:59 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 01/01/2021 17:58, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>
>>> Â*Â* I don't see the big secret of capsule construction, other than
>>> having a 2 micron accurate lathe.
>>>
>>>
>> If it's so easy, then why aren't you selling microphones?
>>
>
> Â*Â*Â* I'm not, but other people ARE, at a far lower price
> than Neumann, for a comparable product!

Suitably comparable for the needs of many people, yes.

> Â*Â*Â* Just look at all the countless mic shoot-outs on
> YouTube.Â* On the blind tests, people often pick the
> far cheaper mics!

You can/they tell that from YouTube audio ?!!!!

>
> Â*Â*Â* Depending on the source material, of course.Â* But just
> the fact that a $200 mic is being compared to a $3,200
> mic, is absolutely astounding!

Yes.


> Â*Â*Â* Just like everyone has a smartphone now, whose capabilities
> could not be bought AT ANY COST, not too long ago!

The technology level of smartphones and optical sensors increases
yearly, if not more rapidly. The technology of K87 capsules has had only
one minor change in decades.

Disappointed most prefer slamming and/or don't seem to have any major
experience or opinions of AA's new CKR12 capsule which is a relatively
major change in manufacturing and materials for condenser mic capsules,
which according to them makes the concept of individually matched pairs
redundant.

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/1/2021 4:14 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 2/01/2021 8:34 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> On 1/1/2021 11:59 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2021 17:58, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Â*Â* I don't see the big secret of capsule construction, other than
>>>> having a 2 micron accurate lathe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If it's so easy, then why aren't you selling microphones?
>>>
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* I'm not, but other people ARE, at a far lower price
>> than Neumann, for a comparable product!
>
> Suitably comparable for the needs of many people, yes.
>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Just look at all the countless mic shoot-outs on
>> YouTube.Â* On the blind tests, people often pick the
>> far cheaper mics!
>
> You can/they tell that from YouTube audio ?!!!!
>

Dude, YouTube audio is good enough! Especially through
good headphones!


>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Depending on the source material, of course.Â* But just
>> the fact that a $200 mic is being compared to a $3,200
>> mic, is absolutely astounding!
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Just like everyone has a smartphone now, whose capabilities
>> could not be bought AT ANY COST, not too long ago!
>
> The technology level of smartphones and optical sensors increases
> yearly, if not more rapidly. The technology of K87 capsules has had only
> one minor change in decades.

Sure, but the knowledge of capsule construction and microphone
circuitry has spread wider and farther, and in places where the labor
is cheaper.

>
> Disappointed most prefer slamming and/or don't seem to have any major
> experience or opinions of AA's new CKR12 capsule which is a relatively
> major change in manufacturing and materials for condenser mic capsules,
> which according to them makes the concept of individually matched pairs
> redundant.
>

The OC818 sounds like a great microphone!

Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpm7WL8GOUU

[John Williamson]

On 02/01/2021 01:44, Paul Dorman wrote:
> Dude, YouTube audio is good enough! Especially through
> good headphones!
>
>
Good enough for some, maybe, but have you ever compared an item you
recorded yourself with what comes down the line from Youtube?

I have, and even using loops to generate background music for the video,
I can tell the difference with no problem.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Phil W]

Paul Dorman" >:
> On 12/29/2020 5:02 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 30/12/2020 9:13 am, Paul Dorman wrote:

>>>>> And I like Yamahas better!

>>>> That is your personal preference, and one opinion is not data.
>>>>
>>> Not just me. Plenty of world-class pianists
>>> prefer Yamaha.
>>
>> And some world class rock singers prefer SM58s ....
>
> For live stage performances, the SM58 is the
> standard!

For world class BRAGGISTS like you, SPAMMING and SPILLING know-it-all
junk is the standard!

Please, just shut up and go elsewhere or at best NOWHERE AT ALL!
Thank you very much for understanding at least this simple request -
though it might obviously exceed your abilities.

[geoff]

On 2/01/2021 11:44 pm, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/01/2021 01:44, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> Â*Â* Dude, YouTube audio is good enough!Â* Especially through
>> good headphones!
>>
>>
> Good enough for some, maybe, but have you ever compared an item you
> recorded yourself with what comes down the line from Youtube?
>
> I have, and even using loops to generate background music for the video,
> I can tell the difference with no problem.
>

They request 24/44k1 or better source media, then drop it to 128k or
256K best AAC.

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/01/2021 12:04 am, Phil W wrote:
> Paul Dorman" >:
>> On 12/29/2020 5:02 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 30/12/2020 9:13 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
>
>>>>>> Â*Â*Â* And I like Yamahas better!
>
>>>>> That is your personal preference, and one opinion is not data.
>>>>>
>>>> Not just me.Â* Plenty of world-class pianists
>>>> prefer Yamaha.
>>>
>>> And some world class rock singers prefer SM58s ....
>>
>> Â*Â*Â* For live stage performances, the SM58 is the
>> standard!
>
> For world class BRAGGISTS like you, SPAMMING and SPILLING know-it-all
> junk is the standard!
>
> Please, just shut up and go elsewhere or at best NOWHERE AT ALL!
> Thank you very much for understanding at least this simple request -
> though it might obviously exceed your abilities.


Yes he's a dick. And so am I.

But please just take your pills when you should Phil.

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/2/2021 4:48 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 3/01/2021 12:04 am, Phil W wrote:
>> Paul Dorman" >:
>>> On 12/29/2020 5:02 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 30/12/2020 9:13 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Â*Â*Â* And I like Yamahas better!
>>
>>>>>> That is your personal preference, and one opinion is not data.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not just me.Â* Plenty of world-class pianists
>>>>> prefer Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> And some world class rock singers prefer SM58s ....
>>>
>>> Â*Â*Â* For live stage performances, the SM58 is the
>>> standard!
>>
>> For world class BRAGGISTS like you, SPAMMING and SPILLING know-it-all
>> junk is the standard!
>>
>> Please, just shut up and go elsewhere or at best NOWHERE AT ALL!
>> Thank you very much for understanding at least this simple request -
>> though it might obviously exceed your abilities.
>
>
> Yes he's a dick. And so am I.

Yes, sometimes one must be a dick, to the dickless!

:)

>
> But please just take your pills when you should Phil.
>

Agreed!

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/2/2021 4:46 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 2/01/2021 11:44 pm, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 02/01/2021 01:44, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>> Â*Â* Dude, YouTube audio is good enough!Â* Especially through
>>> good headphones!
>>>
>>>
>> Good enough for some, maybe, but have you ever compared an item you
>> recorded yourself with what comes down the line from Youtube?
>>
>> I have, and even using loops to generate background music for the
>> video, I can tell the difference with no problem.
>>
>
> They request 24/44k1 or better source media, then drop it to 128k or
> 256K best AAC.
>
> geoff


Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
set of studio monitors, or headphones.

You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
with tape, or digitally recorded. Tape recordings sound
dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings. It's like
night and day.

[John Williamson]

On 02/01/2021 16:43, Paul Dorman wrote:
> Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
> set of studio monitors, or headphones.
>
> You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
> with tape, or digitally recorded. Tape recordings sound
> dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings. It's like
> night and day.

"Listen to a live concert" "You'll be able to easily tell if the
recording was..."

Make your mind up... Is it live or Memorex, to quote the old advert.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 3/01/2021 5:43 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 1/2/2021 4:46 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 2/01/2021 11:44 pm, John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2021 01:44, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>>> Â*Â* Dude, YouTube audio is good enough!Â* Especially through
>>>> good headphones!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Good enough for some, maybe, but have you ever compared an item you
>>> recorded yourself with what comes down the line from Youtube?
>>>
>>> I have, and even using loops to generate background music for the
>>> video, I can tell the difference with no problem.
>>>
>>
>> They request 24/44k1 or better source media, then drop it to 128k or
>> 256K best AAC.
>>
>> geoff
>
>
> Â*Â*Â*Â* Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
> set of studio monitors, or headphones.
>
> Â*Â*Â*Â* You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
> with tape, or digitally recorded.Â* Tape recordings sound
> dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings.Â* It's like
> night and day.


Um ..... a 'live' concert - tape or digital ? Think about that for a bit.

There are good and indifferent tape recordings, and similarly digital.
Different badnesses. And best you can get on YTM is 2456kbps AAC, more
typically 128 on straight YT.

Try your famous 'live' concert on mere CD version versus a 256kbps AAC,
MP3, or whatever equiv. If nothing else should be a good test for your
headphones, or hearing. Granted that lossy-encoding is much better now
than the earliest days of MP3.

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/2/2021 5:51 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 3/01/2021 5:43 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> On 1/2/2021 4:46 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 2/01/2021 11:44 pm, John Williamson wrote:
>>>> On 02/01/2021 01:44, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>>>> Â*Â* Dude, YouTube audio is good enough!Â* Especially through
>>>>> good headphones!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Good enough for some, maybe, but have you ever compared an item you
>>>> recorded yourself with what comes down the line from Youtube?
>>>>
>>>> I have, and even using loops to generate background music for the
>>>> video, I can tell the difference with no problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They request 24/44k1 or better source media, then drop it to 128k or
>>> 256K best AAC.
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
>> set of studio monitors, or headphones.
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
>> with tape, or digitally recorded.Â* Tape recordings sound
>> dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings.Â* It's like
>> night and day.
>
>
> Um ..... a 'live' concert - tape or digital ? Think about that for a bit.
>

Uuh..... a "live" concert in front of an audience, versus a studio
recording. They used to be recorded on tape, but now they are
recorded digitally, which is the FAR superior sounding format.
Get it?


> There are good and indifferent tape recordings, and similarly digital.
> Different badnesses. And best you can get on YTM is 2456kbps AAC, more
> typically 128 on straight YT.
>
> Try your famous 'live' concert on mere CD version versus a 256kbps AAC,
> MP3, or whatever equiv. If nothing else should be a good test for your
> headphones, or hearing.Â* Granted that lossy-encoding is much better now
> than the earliest days of MP3.
>

Live concerts are too obvious.

Go to any of the mic shoot-outs on TY. Use a good pair of
headphones, or studio monitors. You'll be able to hear subtle
differences between the mic takes.

[geoff]

On 3/01/2021 4:40 pm, Paul Dorman wrote:
> On 1/2/2021 5:51 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 3/01/2021 5:43 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2021 4:46 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 2/01/2021 11:44 pm, John Williamson wrote:
>>>>> On 02/01/2021 01:44, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>>>>> Â*Â* Dude, YouTube audio is good enough!Â* Especially through
>>>>>> good headphones!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Good enough for some, maybe, but have you ever compared an item you
>>>>> recorded yourself with what comes down the line from Youtube?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have, and even using loops to generate background music for the
>>>>> video, I can tell the difference with no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They request 24/44k1 or better source media, then drop it to 128k or
>>>> 256K best AAC.
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>>
>>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
>>> set of studio monitors, or headphones.
>>>
>>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
>>> with tape, or digitally recorded.Â* Tape recordings sound
>>> dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings.Â* It's like
>>> night and day.
>>
>>
>> Um ..... a 'live' concert - tape or digital ? Think about that for a bit.
>>
>
> Â*Â*Â* Uuh..... a "live" concert in front of an audience, versus a studio
> recording.Â* They used to be recorded on tape, but now they are
> recorded digitally, which is the FAR superior sounding format.
> Â*Â*Â* Get it?

I do. You apparently don't. Over and out.

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/3/2021 1:38 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 3/01/2021 4:40 pm, Paul Dorman wrote:
>> On 1/2/2021 5:51 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 3/01/2021 5:43 am, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2021 4:46 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 2/01/2021 11:44 pm, John Williamson wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/01/2021 01:44, Paul Dorman wrote:
>>>>>>> Â*Â* Dude, YouTube audio is good enough!Â* Especially through
>>>>>>> good headphones!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good enough for some, maybe, but have you ever compared an item
>>>>>> you recorded yourself with what comes down the line from Youtube?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have, and even using loops to generate background music for the
>>>>>> video, I can tell the difference with no problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They request 24/44k1 or better source media, then drop it to 128k
>>>>> or 256K best AAC.
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
>>>> set of studio monitors, or headphones.
>>>>
>>>> Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
>>>> with tape, or digitally recorded.Â* Tape recordings sound
>>>> dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings.Â* It's like
>>>> night and day.
>>>
>>>
>>> Um ..... a 'live' concert - tape or digital ? Think about that for a
>>> bit.
>>>
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Uuh..... a "live" concert in front of an audience, versus a
>> studio recording.Â* They used to be recorded on tape, but now they are
>> recorded digitally, which is the FAR superior sounding format.
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Get it?
>
> I do. You apparently don't. Over and out.
>

Ah yes, another stellar example of how I get
treated when I try to be nice to someone!

I'd say you're Over your Head, and Out of your
Mind!

:)

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>
>Disappointed most prefer slamming and/or don't seem to have any major
>experience or opinions of AA's new CKR12 capsule which is a relatively
>major change in manufacturing and materials for condenser mic capsules,
>which according to them makes the concept of individually matched pairs
>redundant.

AKG has had a history for a few years now of making beautifully-engineered
terrible-sounding microphones. So many times I have asked the engineering
folks why particular microphones sound the way they do, to receive the
politic answer that the sound was part of the design requirements.

What you are seeing now is what happens when you take AKG engineering people
and free them from the AKG marketing people. And it's a beautiful thing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Dorman > wrote:
>
> Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
>set of studio monitors, or headphones.
>
> You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
>with tape, or digitally recorded. Tape recordings sound
>dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings. It's like
>night and day.

I'm sorry. I thought you were actually serious until I read this.

I don't actually think this is funny.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/4/2021 5:27 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Paul Dorman > wrote:
>>
>> Just listen to live concerts on YouTube, using a good
>> set of studio monitors, or headphones.
>>
>> You'll be able to easily tell if the recording was done
>> with tape, or digitally recorded. Tape recordings sound
>> dull, and mushy, compared to digital recordings. It's like
>> night and day.
>
> I'm sorry. I thought you were actually serious until I read this.
>
> I don't actually think this is funny.


I am serious. Live tape recordings suck compared to
digital, or at least the recordings I have heard!