microphone-parts.com

[CoolCat]

mic-parts....and the $379 kit....so you put it together yourself and you buy the parts and you are the end user..hmmm?

Its kind of ingenious really, to sell the kit and have the customer assemble it themselves and then they cant return anything if it fails. The customer is the 3rd Party assembler and the QC....and the Procurement office and the End User...

Outcome?

1) if it fails, doesnt work, has issues, theres no returns, its a bust or rework.

2) if it works! maybe some fun, some learning, some money saved?maybe....

$379 mic-parts Neumann 84 design kit

Original vintage 84 with transformers....$3,000 to $6000?
New TLM 84 ....$500-$600 used

I get the DIY build bug a lot, to draw out a mic preamp, no cost limits the best of the best would be fun...like George Martin did with Neve on the ISA console...blow that money!! all in..spare no expense!!! I never got past the paper scribble part...lol

 

[Papanate]

It’s tricky though when you see the guts and can do a simple calculation of the component costs! Awkward.

It's not awkward - if you capable of assembling the components you have no need for microphoneparts.com - but if you not sure and have little idea about the parts - then it's a service you can use.

 

[rob aylestone]

OK - embarrassing rather than Awkward. Kits are supposed to be (or at least that's how they used to be) cheaper than buying a lady made product, as the supplier just gives you a bag of bits. I'm trying hard to see why anyone would make their own in this way. Where is the advantage. I'm not really even having a go at the company - people certainly like what they offer, but You could buy a dirt cheap Chinese designed product and tweak that if you know what you are doing - but where is the 'value for money' part of this approach? The difficult to home brew parts are essentially the metalwork. The component count means you could probably use veroboard with such a simple circuit.

 

[keith.rogers]

You folks are pretty funny. The point is, the kit mics *are* cheaper than the product they claim to clone. And, the newer *KM 184* is fairly roundly criticized for not being an accurate reproduction of the original KM 84, which is the whole point. Are they cheaper than every other mic that claims to clone the original, no, but then finding the mic that does is not quite the same as finding a mic that suggests it does, but does not really get there, either, it would seem.

Now, are these kits cheaper than the cheapest SDC you can buy? Of course not, but then neither are a great number of SDC mics. If I understand the arguments, then every mic that costs more than some cheap offshore based child labor produced componentry + assembly is a pure ripoff. I'm sure the engineers in Germany, Austria, et al, would disagree, but then I don't know them, personally. Maybe they're all laughing at us as they cash their paychecks.

Also, if the kit business were such a lucrative way to con foolish folks out of their money, you'd think the market would probably support several contenders in this game. I don't see a lot of those, but maybe my googling skills are not that sharp...

Really, it was a simple question, but this being the internet, and there are clearly axes to grind here, so grind away. "Heat but not much light" is the output of energy being expended here.

 

[rob aylestone]

The point is that they are NOT going to sound like a KM184, but they'll sound similar - as in brightish, clean etc etc - The truth is that the sound of a microphone using a copy of a tried and tested capsule is going to be similar - but of course not the same. They can claim all they like, but they are a variation on a classic design.

I'm sorry to bang on - but if somebody sold a condenser that claimed to be a clone of an SM57 at £45 we'd be shouting about it. From the how terrible perspective, not how good the price is. Here - we have a clone but a very expensive one. I simply find this amazing. I'm aware the capsules are individually selected, but wonder if they get screwed on and an apprentice post them into boxes marked good/no good. I can make a clone of a U87 and charge people a grand for it - is that good value? It's still not a Neumann, its just a nice condenser. Neumann makes it a sought after product. Kits-R-us makes it simply not a Neumann. As a non-Neumann it needs to be cheap, especially with a silly name! I really can't imagine anyone using one of these in their publicity material, can you? It's simply one of those things where you might believe it's as good as Neumann, because you don't own one. Once you do, you have a different viewpoint. As it happens I have some Neumann hand held and they're very, er, unexciting. I bought them expecting something a bit more 'special'. Just shows we happily pay for the Kudos of a name.

 

[CoolCat]

I dont know, I mean if a person is building from a known schematic and mainly the capsule is copied well with holes and coating etc and voltages.., if the parts are all placed in the same place aka "the circuit" is the same, as has been said (the actual exact parts might not matter so much)...

so if the circuit and capsule is copied closely....then the transformer is maybe critical too but if its the same windings and impedance, materials... then its the body housing with resonance similar to the KM 84......not the new KM 184... it should be of a similar design.

but isnt it in the end like some excellent copy band playing a Beatles song? the songs great, the performance is great, but its never the same...maybe we cant catch magic twice, maybe the Beatles couldnt even capture the same song twice...but its still design is the same, same values, so it should be somewhat close.

so it is what it is a $379 copy, that might be a good performer.
or you spend $6,000 for a 1966 original...lol omg?

I think the thread resonated with me because yeah, the classic gear and cost....and maybe a cheaper/recreation can work!?
Building a DIY is something I think of too, but same with capsules....I buy a MXL V67G for $70...do I want to put $300 in it?
or buy a Sennheiser 421 or SHURE KSM32?

 

[Papanate]

OK - embarrassing rather than Awkward. Kits are supposed to be (or at least that's how they used to be) cheaper than buying a lady made product, as the supplier just gives you a bag of bits. I'm trying hard to see why anyone would make their own in this way. Where is the advantage. I'm not really even having a go at the company - people certainly like what they offer, but You could buy a dirt cheap Chinese designed product and tweak that if you know what you are doing - but where is the 'value for money' part of this approach? The difficult to home brew parts are essentially the metalwork. The component count means you could probably use veroboard with such a simple circuit.

Once again - if you have the skill set then it would be impractical and expensive for you to use the microphone service.

 

[Papanate]

so it is what it is a $379 copy, that might be a good performer.
or you spend $6,000 for a 1966 original...lol omg?

A group of 1966 original KM84s are not going to sound identical to each other either (unless they were matched at inception) - how close they are - and how close the Microphone Parts are is speculation until you get the two side by side. Mic Kits might sound like a brand new KM84 - it might sound like an over hyped KM84 - you never know until you try them out.

I think the thread resonated with me because yeah, the classic gear and cost....and maybe a cheaper/recreation can work!?
Building a DIY is something I think of too, but same with capsules....I buy a MXL V67G for $70...do I want to put $300 in it?
or buy a Sennheiser 421 or SHURE KSM32?

This is a debate people have - I don't know if you can put $300 in a V67g - but at that point you replacing the entire microphone and keeping the shell ( I would think).
And whether that sounds better than a Shure KSM32 or not is subjective - it might and it might not. You can't compare a Dynamic like the 421 to a Condenser BTW.

 

[rob aylestone]

But that is exactly what we’re doing - comparing one with another. I have some Chinese slim condensers. Obviously themed on AKG 451s. Omni, cardioid and hyper-cardioid capsules with a similar fine thread screw. They even cross-thread like real 451’s do! They sound nice, but they are not 451s. Nor are the cheap behringer that also, like rode, look similar. I think the rise of firms like SSE who make some nice products from Chinese parts is a good business idea. For me, the concept of kits, surely must be a cost thing, but they are expensive. If you can afford their kits, you could buy something else, ready made, with a warranty. However, I think I’ve missed that these are boutique mics, intended for the recording version of the hi-fi fraternity who have magic ears and hear things I can’t. I gave up on hi-fi in 1994 when it started to get silly.

 

[Papanate]

But that is exactly what we’re doing - comparing one with another. I have some Chinese slim condensers.

You are? You have KM84s and compare them with the Mic Kits?

Obviously themed on AKG 451s. Omni, cardioid and hyper-cardioid capsules with a similar fine thread screw. They even cross-thread like real 451’s do! They sound nice, but they are not 451s. Nor are the cheap behringer that also, like rode, look similar.

What are you talking about? The Mic Kit you were looking at were comes of AKG 451s? None the less the Behringers and 451 Clones are just a capsule and a few. resistors away from sounding as good as a Rode IMO.

I think the rise of firms like SSE who make some nice products from Chinese parts is a good business idea. For me, the concept of kits, surely must be a cost thing, but they are expensive. If you can afford their kits, you could buy something else, ready made, with a warranty. However, I think I’ve missed that these are boutique mics, intended for the recording version of the hi-fi fraternity who have magic ears and hear things I can’t. I gave up on hi-fi in 1994 when it started to get silly.

I don't think Microphone Parts is aimed at the HiFi fraternity - I"m not sure who they are aimed at - being that you have have some great building skills in place - and if you can build one you could certainly source the parts you self - except maybe the PCB which you have to make yourself.

 

[rob aylestone]

I have multiple AKG 451s, and for that matter, sm57s. None of them are matched pairs. ALL sound the same as each other. The fact that they do matched pairs of condensers also shows they are all measurably different, because they’re physical products, but while I know how the slight differences in performance impact things like image shift in stereo applications, I pick two, any two from the box because I cannot hear any differences between them. Hi-fi people believe they can. my belief is that if you build your own mic then the capsule sets the broad ‘sound’ of the mic. The preamp should just amplify, but we tweak to give a non-linear sound shift and we either like or hate the result. We can try to replicate a Neumann, AKG or any ‘sound’ but a simple discrete preamp has frequency response, gain, noise and distortion. It had nothing else to give. If the noise is good, then EQ could be done in the DAW, and gain with condensers is rarely an issue. Swapping capacitors and discrete components is in my humble view, hi-fi golden ears silly stuff. You read this lots. I swapped the unbranded 5pF capacitor for the XXX 4.97pF version and the improvement in the soundstage and transient response was outstanding. Well worth selling my youngest child into slavery for.

 

[Mickster]

I have a pair of Oktava MK-012 mics that are supposed to be a matched pair. I bought them many moons ago at GC in Los Angeles. They're exceelent mics BTW.

I have questions:

How do they manufacture matched pairs? Can they really make two identical?

How can I tell if my mics really are matched?

I confess that I know NOTHING about matched mics and the specific purposes behind them.

Mick

 

[TalismanRich]

It's more a matter of measuring samples and choosing pairs that are close to each other. The idea is that if the mics are identical, you won't run into issues with the stereo image shifting based on differences in response. This would be important, especially if you are recording something like an orchestra or choir. For something like overhead drums, I doubt you would ever notice since you've probably got other mics in the process.

Short of having a means of measuring your microphones, the best you can do is listen. Most mics today should be fairly close.

 

[Papanate]

I have multiple AKG 451s, and for that matter, sm57s. None of them are matched pairs. ALL sound the same as each other.

I've often heard the difference in microphones - whether this is significant or not depends on what your recording. AKG 451s are consistent - but it's rare that they sound exactly alike. SM57s - I'd say unless something is damaged or wrong - sound close to each other - over a 200 microphone sample.

The fact that they do matched pairs of condensers also shows they are all measurably different, because they’re physical products, but while I know how the slight differences in performance impact things like image shift in stereo applications, I pick two, any two from the box because I cannot hear any differences between them.

Well then it would matter to you would it - OTOH I can hear the differences and choose accordingly.

 

[Papanate]

I have a pair of Oktava MK-012 mics that are supposed to be a matched pair. I bought them many moons ago at GC in Los Angeles. They're exceelent mics BTW.

How do they manufacture matched pairs? Can they really make two identical?

How can I tell if my mics really are matched?

I confess that I know NOTHING about matched mics and the specific purposes behind them.

Mick

Regarding your first question: A "matched pair" is a set of two microphones that sound the same. Microphones are hand-matched for both sensitivity (0.5dB @ 1kHz) and frequency response (1.5dB, 50Hz–20kHz). To be honest with the consistency of manufacturers "Matched Pairs' are less common than they used to be - most microphones are made so well that they come from the manufacturer sounding alike.

The point of Matched Pairs is in stereo recordings - X/Y, ORTF or a Blumlein pair are best when the microphones a matched - it's just to maintain consistency through out the recording spectrum.

 

[CoolCat]

I didnt work microphone manufacturing, but I did many years in MFG for engineering groups of devices including test, final test, environmental test(military grade)..

So if the assembly line is setup well and all the supply chain parts are consistent. And the QC (final testing) is tight tolerences for pass or fail...Matching shouldnt be a big deal.
Isnt that why Neumann was so demanding on tubes, but then as transistors replaced tubes Neumann alone wasnt important enough for the tube mfg to make that specific tube forever. So the U47 was dead. Airplanes and Radios and the huge tube market switched to cheaper transistors from bulky tubes and tube consoles in planes..etc...so the Tube guys sales plummeted....just like CRT Tv's recently as flat panel tv's replaced them...the CRT Mfg is dead.

Matching...Then if the MFG is all the same "matching" could be selecting maybe a few who are very close to each other, per the test equipment. (and test engineer/employees integrity)

we had one product that had the welded gold hermetically sealed package $$$$$, while the cheaper line was glued plastic. $
...same device kind of, but the glued plastic one had massive fails and lower specs... the military spec'd gold glass welded part could last for decades and was in another league..performance much higher. probably like Neumann vs cheap-Hello Kitty crap mic. So a matched Neumann would probably be really close, a Shure maybe medium, and Hello Plastic Toy mics a joke...random... and in a HR environment theres the room the mic being 2ft from the other etc...so many variables to make the Matched "non-matched" in the real world... its back to using the ears maybe?

I dont have the ear or demand for any of it, but in theory its good stuff.

 

[rob aylestone]

If you have a non-matched pair of mics you can actually see the problem with the things built into a typical DAW. Set up your stereo array in whatever layout you prefer. Put a speaker centre and play a 20-20K sweep tone through it, recording the result on the pair. Then slap a stereoscope plugin on the output. You should get a straight line that is pretty much fixed, but you'll find it drifts to the left and right as the two mic's frequency response curves differ. In fairness if you try this in a recording space like a church, even with a matched pair the results are pretty wild, but in dead environments they should stay firmly in the centre. I'm not too worried if one mic is even a bit low output as long as the frequency response curve is the same.

I'm interested in what Papenate hears when he grabs a couple of mics. I've never been able to pick up a mic from the mic box and listen and say - ah, I picked up the wrong 57 or the wrong 451. All my mics are so similar between examples of the same thing.

 

[Gtoboy]

For a different perspective: I have , dunno 30 odd mics, mostly chinese(~ 20 MXL), with a few higher price specialties , and among my well liked are three MK219's and none of them sounds the same. Similar , yes. The same, no.

 

[rob aylestone]

That's interesting. The only one I have that I couldn't;t use in a pair (not that I would) is an AKG D190 that is a bit duller? Maybe dropped - don't know. I have a couple of MK319s I rather like and they're indistinguishable. I have a load of 57s - and one of them is the one I bought in 1976 and cost me a weeks wages. I've honestly not ever worried about which one I use. I've been thinking about how to test pairings. If you put them side by side and inverted the polarity of one of them, then panned them both dead centre and played sweep tones or even music - the mic output should be nothing - 100% cancellation. Any output would be the difference between the two. I wonder if that would produce any meaningful results - it certainly would produce a result - nothing in the way of output would be perfect matching. I wonder what the real results would be? Maybe next week if I have some spare time I'll try it? Worth doing do you think or a bit pointless? I'd be a bot worried that the mics I use for stereo recording might fail the test? Test signal into one speaker - both mics together pointing at it - start the tones with a constant 1K line up, adjust gains to give exactly the same levels, hit record - start sweep tone - invert one - save the combination. I'm guessing that you'd then need, after doing the same test to all the mics, to decide how to quantify the results. They'd all be very low level audio files, so you'd have to apply gain equally to all of them to get something measureable you could compare? Anybody see any flaws in the methodology here?

 

[Gtoboy]

That's interesting. The only one I have that I couldn't;t use in a pair (not that I would) is an AKG D190 that is a bit duller? Maybe dropped - don't know. I have a couple of MK319s I rather like and they're indistinguishable. I have a load of 57s - and one of them is the one I bought in 1976 and cost me a weeks wages. I've honestly not ever worried about which one I use. I've been thinking about how to test pairings. If you put them side by side and inverted the polarity of one of them, then panned them both dead centre and played sweep tones or even music - the mic output should be nothing - 100% cancellation. Any output would be the difference between the two. I wonder if that would produce any meaningful results - it certainly would produce a result - nothing in the way of output would be perfect matching. I wonder what the real results would be? Maybe next week if I have some spare time I'll try it? Worth doing do you think or a bit pointless? I'd be a bot worried that the mics I use for stereo recording might fail the test? Test signal into one speaker - both mics together pointing at it - start the tones with a constant 1K line up, adjust gains to give exactly the same levels, hit record - start sweep tone - invert one - save the combination. I'm guessing that you'd then need, after doing the same test to all the mics, to decide how to quantify the results. They'd all be very low level audio files, so you'd have to apply gain equally to all of them to get something measureable you could compare? Anybody see any flaws in the methodology here?

Admittedly, I did non scientific testing, thus: I wanted to know which mic sounded best for recording a small guitar amp and stuck all three 219's as well as my 319 in the same spot and recorded them playing approx the same riff. The 319 eventually had to be pulled back 8-10 inches from where the others were as even with the pad it was too hot. The result was not spectacular differences, however I marked each mic and I found that my first impressions from those efforts have worked well when I am using them to mic other instruments by knowing the "character" each seemed to present to me. I still have those tracks somewhere so I can refer to them as needed.

On the other hand, I have 4 MXL sdc's that are all the same model, two are a "matched" pair. Oddly enough all but one of them sounds exactly the same (I am using them as cymbal mics ). The one that doesn't may be damaged though. It just sounded harsh on the cymbals, so I switched with another and haven't used it since. So, yeah-chinese made mics can certainly be made to tight enough spec to "match" IME.