Modded Oktava vs u47

After selling off most of my mic collection (inexpensive to 1000.00 range) I hung onto a KSM44, Joly modded 319, a pair of SP B1's, SM57 and SM58. They work great for most anything that happens in my living room recording studio.

The Oktava is Russian and was one of the GC $50.00 blowouts. It was purchased because it was cheap and had a darker sound than my other mics. After reading a bunch of reviews it was sent to Michael Joly. His work made it a more usable mic. It's still darkish but has a smooth opened up top end that sounds natural without the hyped response of so many others. In some ways it sounds kind of "Rubber Soulish", if you will. I love it.

I can't say how it compares to billion dollar mics and don't care. I just know that I like it... a lot.
 
Hey guys!

Original poster here. I have been busy for a few days, and am amazed to see the discussion that has happened while I was away.

Chessrock,
Over a period of time I have enjoyed your wit, but in recent times you have turned into a negative wet blanket.

If I had known that Fisher-Price made a U47 I would have included it in the comparison.

This test was very valuable to me personally. It was done on a respectable preamp, and showed me that I have an inexpensive mic that compares favorably with a well respected, time tested classic.
 
chessrock said:
And if you can't tell the (rather obvious differences) between a smokin' good microphone, and a doctored up Guitar-Center reject ... well, then that's your problem, I'm afraid. Now I'm not totally closed to the idea that they can be improved on, or that they can have their uses ... but the whole U47 comparison isn't even fair to the Oktava. You're not really giving it a fair enough shake.
Click to expand...

Actually, this comparison wasn't fair to the U47. ;) Please watch for the clips I will be posting soon and explain to all of us the "rather obvious differences." Oh, and don't forget to tell us which one sounds better. :) (I'm still smiling.)
 
Are you going to put them up as a blind test for a while before revealing them? The Barron Studios shoot out and poll is cool but the mic ID text file was posted at the same time as the audio files. I'm all for taking my lumps in a blind shoot out, tracking listener impressions via a poll and revealing the mics later.

In my opinion, one of the values of U47 / OktavaMod shoot outs is they demonstrate what my clients have called the "Neumann-esque" quality of the OktavaMod MK-219 / 319 PE mics. And this "Neumann-esque" quality or voicing is something many people are looking for as an alternative to overly bright mics that often don't track well in the digital domain.

There are many qualities that recordists find important in microphones - one of these is spectral balance. While there are certainly going to be differences between a legendary mic with a legendary vacuum tube and a more modern FET mic, I believe there is a similarity in spectral response between these two mics - that is, the overall balance of bass / mid / top in an M7 capsule-equipped mic is similar to the MK-219 capsule used in the 219, 319 and MK-101.

I've done quite a bit of spectral analysis of voices recorded simultaneously with various Neumann mics and the OktavaMod 219 or 319. Without giving away the specifics of the spectral differences before Omtayslick posts his files, I will say the differences are small enough that if you want an OktavaMod MK-219 / 319 to have a nearly identical spectral response to a U47, a UM-57 (scroll down) or M 149 a touch of EQ will get you there. This is because 1). the basic spectral response of the 219 capsule has a "Neumann-esque" spectral response voicing and 2.) the OktavaMod mics have low phase and acoustical refraction distortion that allow them to take EQ almost as well as a ribbon mic.

Please understand that I'm not saying an OktavaMod MK-219 or 319 sounds like a Neumann U47. I am saying that a long term averaged spectral response comparison of these two mics exhibits a strong correlation - this leads to a short-term, subjective impression of voicing similarity.

But of course there are differences...

... a supremely well-executed tube mic like the U47 is going to have an almost indescribable "depth" or "harmonic complexity" that comes from its vacuum tube topology. This is a characteristic that can be listened for and distinguished separately from spectral balance.

But when evaluating other criteria - transient response and refraction artifacts (in other words integrity of "T", "F" and "S" sounds - low sibilance) many of my clients have indicated a preference for their MK-319 Floating Dome PE over the M 149 or U47. The single layer grille 319 Floating Dome headbasket is more acoustically open with less capsule / headbasket reflection than the multilayer Neumann headbasket. (which, as the late Stephen Paul first pointed out, not only functions as an EMI shield but a high frequency boost EQ as well. And like all EQ, it is going to impart some audible artifacts)

So bring on the audio and let the listeners voice their opinions!
 
Regarding the posting of clips: It seems that there may be a legal problem with this. I just pulled a song out of hat to compare the mics for my own purposes. I never considered that I might want to post the audio somewhere like this. The song is Kansas City. Ya know the one- "I'm goin' to Kansas City, Kansas City here I come." It's technically a cover I guess. Does anyone know if I can legally post a verse of this song. I would love for you guys to hear what I'm hearing but................. Help please. :(
 
I don't think anyone will care especially if it's just a short passage. I've heard plenty of shootouts with cover tunes.
 
i think that technically you're responsible for the number of times it's distributed or in this case heard, which could be problematic on a message board viewed by a number of people. i know that charging vs. not charging has no impact on using a cover tune.
still, i've seen a lot of people post cover tunes...
is that song old enough to be in public domain?
 
yeah man-- bigups for the effort. it would probably be fine, but i dunno if i would do it. it's not like covering a green day song or something, in that i imagine the writers and/or publishers of kansas city probably wouldn't be too aggressive in pursuing a copyright issue, but well, it's up to you.
 
kojdogg said:
The people posting testimonials here, on message boards like Gearslutz and TOMB aren't talking about 2005 dude, they're posting about the mics they have now and they (myself included) really seem to like them.
Click to expand...
Michael J - if you would care to address this, I for one would be interested in your thoughts. Have you found any significant or consistent differences in build or "modifyability" between the "modern" 219/319 capsules or electronics versus the "GC blowout" mics?
 
The only significant differences in build quality I've seen have been limited to the very poor and obvious Chinese copies. The "modifiability" of all authentic MK-319 mics - regardless of manufacture date, is very good (All MK-219s are authentic, made in Tula mics that were never copied and are thus also excellent mod candidates).

There are a small number of Chinese MK-319 copies that have a smooth blue-black body color (instead of flat black powdered coat), a shiny chrome XLR connector with no serial number (instead of a dull, pewter color XLR with stamped serial numbers) and the typical Chinese manufactured, brass back plate capsule (instead of the stock MK-219 Bakelite back plate capsule with two 8-hole perforated resonator discs) and different switch types. The internal circuit is different as well. These are not Oktava MK-319 mics and are not worth upgrading.

Re: authentic, made in Tula, Russia MK-219 and MK-319 mics -

Capsules - The design, construction and testing of the MK-219 capsule remains the same as the earliest silver-bodied MK-219 mics that where produced for domestic Russian use in the mid to late 1980s. My Oktava factory representative has described the diaphragm manufacturing process as being essentially the same process which was originated by Neumann-Berlin and continued by Gefell. Mylar diaphragms are placed over the mounting ring, tensioned by weights to a particular resonant frequency and glued to the ring. Once set, the diaphragms are gold-sputtered, baked in an oven, then re-tested for resonant frequency compliance. Only diaphragms that remain within a very narrow resonant frequency spec are then used to make up complete capsules. These capsule are then assembled into complete microphones which are then individually tested in one of two large anechoic chambers and are released with individual frequency response graphs.

Electronics - Unlike the component value substitutions that Scott Dorsey has commented on in old MK-012 mics, the 219 and 319 models I have seen only had variations in component manufacturer - not value or type.

Some thoughts regarding "Guitar Center era Oktava mics" -

I've described some of the manufacturing and quality control processes at the Oktava factory. But there is the possibility that, under pressure from Guitar Center and A.S. McKay (the former distributors who initiated the unauthorized Chinese copies) the Oktava factory may have endeavored to turn out more mics by skipping some quality control steps. I do not know if this true or not, but I know some authentic "made in Tula" mics sold through Guitar Center were not supplied with factory-produced frequency response charts. This seems to suggest that, at the very least, the final anechoic testing of these mics was skipped. For if the response plots were produced, why not include them with the mics?

This could explain some of the variability that listeners have commented on regarding later-year, Guitar Center Oktava mics.

However, prior to the later Guitar Center period, and now after it, all Oktava mics are supplied with anechoic chamber frequency response graphs as proof of performance. And these mics are highly consistent.

To recap - all authentic Oktava MK-219, MK-319 and '012 mics offer an excellent platform for acoustical, mechanical and electronics upgrade modifications. A few authentic, but later-year Guitar Center MK-319 may have some capsule performance limitations (an earlier HF roll-off for example) that may have slipped out of the factory if they did not go through anechoic chamber testing. But all modifications external to the capsule diaphragm (capsule resonance disc, headbasket, shock mounting, grille layers, wiring, circuit components and circuit topology) will benefit these mics as well.
 
Thanks for the useful info, Michael, but I feel like you're dancing around the edge of my question. :)

To be specific (for those of us that bought the GC mics not supplied with frequency response graphs), do you have any experience or information, objective or subjective, positive or negative, that these mics, once modified, are any different than the "mainstream" Oktava mics? In other words, have you noticed any of the widely touted QC issues in these mics, particularly in the capsule construction or frequency response?

Do you do any testing, once modified, other than go/no go? Do you test any before and after parameters of the mics?

Sorry to be such a PITA. If you don't want to answer, no problem. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top