Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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! |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
On 12/29/2020 4:09 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul Dorman wrote: https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/pro...d-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! |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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! |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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? |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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? |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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/pro...d-part-2-gsps6 |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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/pro...d-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." |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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/pro...d-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 |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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! |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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." |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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! |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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! |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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 |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Dachman Audio U87 Clone Kit
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! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Good amps to clone | Vacuum Tubes | |||
WTB Waves Q-Clone License | Pro Audio | |||
The clone marching on | Audio Opinions | |||
Clone Ensemble dispute | Pro Audio | |||
N72 1272 clone | Pro Audio |