B
baekgaard
New member
Maybe this subject has been beaten to death, but in case others might be interested, here are my findings with Oktava MK/MC-012 from Guitar Center. If you think it is unbearable to hear anything more about these budget mics, just jump to the next posting 
As I was looking for a somewhat "good enough" pair for a home studio/project studio, I took the chance, and managed to get 2 sets of '012 from Guitar Center during their "monthly price reduction". Apparently I got the last ones they had in stock in the Dallas area at the moment; a friendly employee (Greg) got them with a few days notice from somewhere else, but this was all they could get now. More should be on their way from Russia, however.
All of them came in small black plastic boxes. Two of them (#1 and #2) were marked MC-012-01 on the body. The #3 and #4 were marked MK-012-01 on the body. All had "A.S.M." and the Oktava logo imprinted on the body. #4 also had "2002 r" on the ring. Looking at the capsules, they all had a marking on the plastic part inside. These are all different, and are made up of either one dot, two dots or a dash -- in different colours on each unit. If anyone knows what they mean, I'd be happy to hear about it!
The #1 and #2 had identical "serial" numbers, on the bar code on the outside of the plastic box. #3 was adjacent, and #4 somewhat different from the others. Obviously #1 and #2 must have been from the same "batch" somehow, and maybe also #3.
I then proceeded to do a not-so-scientifc frequency plot in my home studio. As I don't have an anechoic chamber at home, I obviously have some "issues" around this, but for matching, it probably works OK, as it also approaches a real-life situation. I am using a ST-Audio C-port fed into Dynaudio BM6a active speaker(s) -- using only one for the measurements, of course. As reference, I am using a Behringer ECM8000 mic. Since this is an omnidirectional microphone, it is slightly more prone to standing waves/refeflections from the flor/ceiling/back than the cardiod capsules on the '012. These reflections manifests themselves as peaks in the frequency plot (in my case around 60 Hz, 120 Hz and 320Hz, fitting with the room dimensions). Thus, in the lower parts of the spectrum, there will be some comparative peaks between the ECM8000 and the '012 that should be contributed to the room and not the mics. Same of course applies to other cardiod mics, such as the Studio Projects B1 and C1 that I also tested at the same time.
The uncertainty between adjacent measurements, affected by me moving around in the room and the minuscle differences in placement of the microphones is around +/- 0.5 dB. By careful placement, I could, however, repeat measurements to much smaller differences than this value. But it also shows that in a recording situation, a small difference in the frequency responses is probably going to be overshadowed by other factors… moving the mics around more, or going to a different room can account for even 6 dB of difference for specific frequencies, even if the distance to the sound source is the same.
As a compromise between prominent proximity effect and still staying in the nearfield of the monitors, I placed the mics at a distance of roughly 40 cm (16 inches) from the tweeter, pointing directly towards the tweeter.
Testing all combinations of capsules and bodies showed that body #4 and capsule #4 were somewhat different from the rest; capsule #4 showing more high-end (maybe +4 dB at 20 kHz) and less proximity effect/bottom end, and body #4 having some ripple in the middle of the frequency spectrum (1 to 2 dB at most). Seems like a venting port maybe having a slightly smaller(?) diameter, or some differences in the cavity behind the diaphragm, and then some weird things happening around one frequency inside the body. Maybe it is an incorrect value of some resistor/capacitor?
Bodies #1 and #2 are closer to one another than 0.2 dB in the entire frequency spectrum, with just this tiny difference in the very top of the spectrum. Body #3 is very close to this as well.
Capsules #1 and #3 were rather close in their frequency response also; like within +0.2 and -0.6 dB from one another – in marketing speak, this would be less then +/- 0.5 dB from their common average By utilizing the small difference between body #1 and #2 creatively, I now have a pair (capsule #1 on body #2 and capsule #3 on body #1) that is by all means and practices quite close to one another, and likely indistinguishable in use. I could swap the bodies, and still have a matching pair, as the difference in bodies is so small, btw.
I could also have made a nearly similar pair between capsule #2 and #3, as capsule #3 is kind of in-between #1 and #2. Capsules #1 and #2 can also make a pair, but there the differences run up to maybe +/- 1dB.
Thus, in conclusion: I now have a matching pair, and one additional mic that I could keep as a spare, as they all 3 sound almost identical. For someone else, it might even be possible to make a pair also of the spare (capsule #3) plus the last one (#4), since they are "erring" to the same side of the matching pair, but the differences will be more than in the former case. Anyway, I am planning to get rid of #4 (and maybe also the spare) as I may not need 4 of these mics; 2 or 3 will probably do ;-)
Of course mathcing cannot be done only by looking at the frequency plots; other factors may come into play as well. But having an almost identical frequency response is a good starting point.
In case someone is interested in how the frequency plot looks, then here is a description -- comparing to the ECM8000: The proximity effect is present up until around 150 Hz, after that, they show some low-mid bumps in the area of 180Hz to 450Hz up to +2 dB, and then they are pretty flat with no major ripples, up until 2 kHz, where they seem slightly scooped until 4.5 kHz. Max dip is -2 dB around 3.2 kHz. (*) Then they show a broad and gentle peak from 4.5 kHz to 12 kHz, at most +2 dB between 7 and 9 kHz. This is followed by another, smaller, peak of +0.5 dB to +1 dB around 14 to 17 kHz (this is the only place where capsules #1 and #3 differ by more than 0.1-0.2 dB), and then they roll of gently, down to -2 dB at 20 kHz. Judging from the frequency plot, this would probably make them “warm” rather than having a lot of “presence”, and a good complement to some of the more popular LDC, with their notorious presence peaks.
Note (*): This could also have to do with the cross over network and the difference in distance to the tweeter/woofer.
I think this generally fits quite well with how people have described them elsewhere, and it also looks resonably similar to the pattern shown on www.oktava.net. [Note that the later is a free field measurement; as I measure them in a room with reflections coming also from the side, my measurements are expected to be a superpostion of the 3 curves -- which indeed seems to be the case (from the side, they show a dip in the 2-3 kHz area and a peak around 8 to 15 kHz, and it seems to show in my case - and probably also in your case, if you record in a real room.]
Comparing with the Studio Projects B1 and C1 mics, these look somewhat different. The B1 has a more pronounced proximity effect, and the C1 less proximity effect -- or maybe their cardiod patterns are just different, causing a difference in the plots due to room reflections. The C1 has a low cut filter; apparently the B1 needs it more Anyway, from around 500 Hz to 800 Hz, the SP mics both are a bit less sensitive than the '012 (maybe -1 to -2 dB), and from 1.2 up til 4 kHz, they have a minuscle "presence peak" of +1 dB, where the '012 dips -2 dB in the same area. Thus, in this area, the '012 show more "body" (150 Hz to 1.3kHz) and less "presense" (1.3kHz to 5 kHz) than the SP mics. It may make the ‘012 sound a wee bit “warmer” or e.g. more “woody” on guitar? If that is not what you’re looking for, pick the SP mics instead; it is the opposite of the ‘012 here.
The differences between the B1 and C1 shows really in the top end of the spectrum.
The B1 has a somewhat more pronounced peak of +3 dB in the same range where the '012 has its less pronounced high frequency peak (which is only +2 dB), between 6 kHz and 10 kHz. But then instead of the '012's more gentle 2nd peak, the B1 continues to rise to a whopping +5.5 dB at around 15 kHz, and then rolls off to +1 dB at 20 kHz. The C1, on the other hand, has just one slightly "skewed" peak, starting at 5kHz, showing with +3.5 dB at 7kHz, rising to +6 dB at 12.5 kHz or so, with a more sharp roll of down to -1 dB at 20 kHz. Between the C1 and the B1, the B1 has the highest content in the very top (it peaks later), whereas the C1 has a broader top that starts earlier, rises more, and rolls of faster. Biggest differences are at 10 kHz, where the C1 is +2.5 dB compared to the B1, and at 17 kHz, where the B1 is +3dB compared to the C1. This is almost just the opposite of the published curves of the C1 and the B1... but maybe someone accidently swapped them around
Now, I know all these mics are very different animals, for different purposes. But this was what I chose to test them against, and all in all, I guess the '012 complements the SP B1 and C1 quite well. The '012 being more flat, with just a slight flattering high end and a bit more body, and the B1/C1 having a bit more presence and a more flattering high end (or harsh, depending on your preferences -- although I don't personally find them harsh
So, would I recommend anyone to buy GC Oktavas? It depends... If you need a matching pair, you need to buy more than 2 in order to get something that is reasonably close, unless you count yourself as very lucky. Based on my very limited experience, those with serial numbers close to one another may match better, but you can make even better pairs by swapping a bit around between capsules and bodies. And then, of course, you need to be willing to spend some time listening to them and/or making measurements. How much your own time is worth, is something only you can determine... if it is too much worth, then just buy good and matching mics from Taylor (Sound Room).
This was just my 0.02 cents and some "factual findings". Oh, and I spend this much time testing mics (and writing this up), as I was intrigued by the many different statements on the GC Oktavas, so for me, establishing some factual data was part of the fun YMMV.
With apologies for the long post, any factual errors and biased opinions,
-- Per.
As I was looking for a somewhat "good enough" pair for a home studio/project studio, I took the chance, and managed to get 2 sets of '012 from Guitar Center during their "monthly price reduction". Apparently I got the last ones they had in stock in the Dallas area at the moment; a friendly employee (Greg) got them with a few days notice from somewhere else, but this was all they could get now. More should be on their way from Russia, however.
All of them came in small black plastic boxes. Two of them (#1 and #2) were marked MC-012-01 on the body. The #3 and #4 were marked MK-012-01 on the body. All had "A.S.M." and the Oktava logo imprinted on the body. #4 also had "2002 r" on the ring. Looking at the capsules, they all had a marking on the plastic part inside. These are all different, and are made up of either one dot, two dots or a dash -- in different colours on each unit. If anyone knows what they mean, I'd be happy to hear about it!
The #1 and #2 had identical "serial" numbers, on the bar code on the outside of the plastic box. #3 was adjacent, and #4 somewhat different from the others. Obviously #1 and #2 must have been from the same "batch" somehow, and maybe also #3.
I then proceeded to do a not-so-scientifc frequency plot in my home studio. As I don't have an anechoic chamber at home, I obviously have some "issues" around this, but for matching, it probably works OK, as it also approaches a real-life situation. I am using a ST-Audio C-port fed into Dynaudio BM6a active speaker(s) -- using only one for the measurements, of course. As reference, I am using a Behringer ECM8000 mic. Since this is an omnidirectional microphone, it is slightly more prone to standing waves/refeflections from the flor/ceiling/back than the cardiod capsules on the '012. These reflections manifests themselves as peaks in the frequency plot (in my case around 60 Hz, 120 Hz and 320Hz, fitting with the room dimensions). Thus, in the lower parts of the spectrum, there will be some comparative peaks between the ECM8000 and the '012 that should be contributed to the room and not the mics. Same of course applies to other cardiod mics, such as the Studio Projects B1 and C1 that I also tested at the same time.
The uncertainty between adjacent measurements, affected by me moving around in the room and the minuscle differences in placement of the microphones is around +/- 0.5 dB. By careful placement, I could, however, repeat measurements to much smaller differences than this value. But it also shows that in a recording situation, a small difference in the frequency responses is probably going to be overshadowed by other factors… moving the mics around more, or going to a different room can account for even 6 dB of difference for specific frequencies, even if the distance to the sound source is the same.
As a compromise between prominent proximity effect and still staying in the nearfield of the monitors, I placed the mics at a distance of roughly 40 cm (16 inches) from the tweeter, pointing directly towards the tweeter.
Testing all combinations of capsules and bodies showed that body #4 and capsule #4 were somewhat different from the rest; capsule #4 showing more high-end (maybe +4 dB at 20 kHz) and less proximity effect/bottom end, and body #4 having some ripple in the middle of the frequency spectrum (1 to 2 dB at most). Seems like a venting port maybe having a slightly smaller(?) diameter, or some differences in the cavity behind the diaphragm, and then some weird things happening around one frequency inside the body. Maybe it is an incorrect value of some resistor/capacitor?
Bodies #1 and #2 are closer to one another than 0.2 dB in the entire frequency spectrum, with just this tiny difference in the very top of the spectrum. Body #3 is very close to this as well.
Capsules #1 and #3 were rather close in their frequency response also; like within +0.2 and -0.6 dB from one another – in marketing speak, this would be less then +/- 0.5 dB from their common average
By utilizing the small difference between body #1 and #2 creatively, I now have a pair (capsule #1 on body #2 and capsule #3 on body #1) that is by all means and practices quite close to one another, and likely indistinguishable in use. I could swap the bodies, and still have a matching pair, as the difference in bodies is so small, btw.I could also have made a nearly similar pair between capsule #2 and #3, as capsule #3 is kind of in-between #1 and #2. Capsules #1 and #2 can also make a pair, but there the differences run up to maybe +/- 1dB.
Thus, in conclusion: I now have a matching pair, and one additional mic that I could keep as a spare, as they all 3 sound almost identical. For someone else, it might even be possible to make a pair also of the spare (capsule #3) plus the last one (#4), since they are "erring" to the same side of the matching pair, but the differences will be more than in the former case. Anyway, I am planning to get rid of #4 (and maybe also the spare) as I may not need 4 of these mics; 2 or 3 will probably do ;-)
Of course mathcing cannot be done only by looking at the frequency plots; other factors may come into play as well. But having an almost identical frequency response is a good starting point.
In case someone is interested in how the frequency plot looks, then here is a description -- comparing to the ECM8000: The proximity effect is present up until around 150 Hz, after that, they show some low-mid bumps in the area of 180Hz to 450Hz up to +2 dB, and then they are pretty flat with no major ripples, up until 2 kHz, where they seem slightly scooped until 4.5 kHz. Max dip is -2 dB around 3.2 kHz. (*) Then they show a broad and gentle peak from 4.5 kHz to 12 kHz, at most +2 dB between 7 and 9 kHz. This is followed by another, smaller, peak of +0.5 dB to +1 dB around 14 to 17 kHz (this is the only place where capsules #1 and #3 differ by more than 0.1-0.2 dB), and then they roll of gently, down to -2 dB at 20 kHz. Judging from the frequency plot, this would probably make them “warm” rather than having a lot of “presence”, and a good complement to some of the more popular LDC, with their notorious presence peaks.
Note (*): This could also have to do with the cross over network and the difference in distance to the tweeter/woofer.
I think this generally fits quite well with how people have described them elsewhere, and it also looks resonably similar to the pattern shown on www.oktava.net. [Note that the later is a free field measurement; as I measure them in a room with reflections coming also from the side, my measurements are expected to be a superpostion of the 3 curves -- which indeed seems to be the case (from the side, they show a dip in the 2-3 kHz area and a peak around 8 to 15 kHz, and it seems to show in my case - and probably also in your case, if you record in a real room
.]Comparing with the Studio Projects B1 and C1 mics, these look somewhat different. The B1 has a more pronounced proximity effect, and the C1 less proximity effect -- or maybe their cardiod patterns are just different, causing a difference in the plots due to room reflections. The C1 has a low cut filter; apparently the B1 needs it more
Anyway, from around 500 Hz to 800 Hz, the SP mics both are a bit less sensitive than the '012 (maybe -1 to -2 dB), and from 1.2 up til 4 kHz, they have a minuscle "presence peak" of +1 dB, where the '012 dips -2 dB in the same area. Thus, in this area, the '012 show more "body" (150 Hz to 1.3kHz) and less "presense" (1.3kHz to 5 kHz) than the SP mics. It may make the ‘012 sound a wee bit “warmer” or e.g. more “woody” on guitar? If that is not what you’re looking for, pick the SP mics instead; it is the opposite of the ‘012 here.The differences between the B1 and C1 shows really in the top end of the spectrum.
The B1 has a somewhat more pronounced peak of +3 dB in the same range where the '012 has its less pronounced high frequency peak (which is only +2 dB), between 6 kHz and 10 kHz. But then instead of the '012's more gentle 2nd peak, the B1 continues to rise to a whopping +5.5 dB at around 15 kHz, and then rolls off to +1 dB at 20 kHz. The C1, on the other hand, has just one slightly "skewed" peak, starting at 5kHz, showing with +3.5 dB at 7kHz, rising to +6 dB at 12.5 kHz or so, with a more sharp roll of down to -1 dB at 20 kHz. Between the C1 and the B1, the B1 has the highest content in the very top (it peaks later), whereas the C1 has a broader top that starts earlier, rises more, and rolls of faster. Biggest differences are at 10 kHz, where the C1 is +2.5 dB compared to the B1, and at 17 kHz, where the B1 is +3dB compared to the C1. This is almost just the opposite of the published curves of the C1 and the B1... but maybe someone accidently swapped them around
Now, I know all these mics are very different animals, for different purposes. But this was what I chose to test them against, and all in all, I guess the '012 complements the SP B1 and C1 quite well. The '012 being more flat, with just a slight flattering high end and a bit more body, and the B1/C1 having a bit more presence and a more flattering high end (or harsh, depending on your preferences -- although I don't personally find them harsh
So, would I recommend anyone to buy GC Oktavas? It depends... If you need a matching pair, you need to buy more than 2 in order to get something that is reasonably close, unless you count yourself as very lucky. Based on my very limited experience, those with serial numbers close to one another may match better, but you can make even better pairs by swapping a bit around between capsules and bodies. And then, of course, you need to be willing to spend some time listening to them and/or making measurements. How much your own time is worth, is something only you can determine... if it is too much worth, then just buy good and matching mics from Taylor (Sound Room).
This was just my 0.02 cents and some "factual findings". Oh, and I spend this much time testing mics (and writing this up), as I was intrigued by the many different statements on the GC Oktavas, so for me, establishing some factual data was part of the fun
YMMV.With apologies for the long post, any factual errors and biased opinions,
-- Per.
