R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences  (Read 4349 times)

klaus

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1829
Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« on: December 07, 2016, 01:16:48 am »

Can we reign in the sloppy usage of two words that have crept into mic forums, putting a copy in closer proximity to an original than it deserves?

Clone:
1. an organism or cell, or group of organisms or cells, produced from one ancestor or stock, to which they are genetically identical. Underline is mine.
2. a thing that duplicates, imitates, or closely resembles another in appearance, function, performance, or style

Replica:
1. a copy or reproduction of a work (of art, f.ex.) produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision.
2. any close or exact copy or reproduction.

In my experience, none of the mics deserve either term, certainly not 'replica', because they are more or less inaccurate copies of the originals.

The only microphones that can rightfully use the term 'replica' are Neumann's U67 and U47fet re-issues.

I invite others to list more "replicas" than the two I could find.
Logged
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks®
www.GermanMasterworks.com

gtoledo3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
  • Real Full Name: George Toledo
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2016, 08:43:04 pm »

I have a couple mics that I think are in the realm of clone definition #2.

In both cases, the mics have the original company capsules, and were put together by Oliver Archut as "Cathedral Guitars" editions - one a C12 clone, and the other an M49.

I think the combo of the original capsule with a knowledgeable reproduction of the amplifying system can be close enough to serve as a functional replica/clone.

Both mics really hit the specific sound. The M49 is a bit wild in this regard, as it's setup to use a different tube than AC701k (though it can take one with a small adjustment). It also has a desirable setup with a repro of the original transformer along with the later style circuit.

The C12 is setup with ECC801s...slightly different choice than the GE6072, but fantastic. Perhaps preferable.

I find both to be outrageously good in sound, and to have the expected character with no sonic shortcoming. There are some small cosmetic differences, some build differences, but I'm satisfied ... and I truly think that anyone who wanted to use the mics and expected a M49 or C12, would be as well.

(disclaimer: The CK12 for the C12 build was supplied by Klaus/German Masterworks, but no shilling is intended on my part.)
Logged

ratite

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2016, 12:07:07 am »

Other issues aside,a different tube is neither clone,nor replica by Klaus's definition.
Out of interest,how similar was the reissue U67 PSU?Were corners cut (according to Oliver Archut) a la the MGefell 75?
How about the MGefell CMV563 reissue?
Logged

gtoledo3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
  • Real Full Name: George Toledo
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2016, 12:22:43 am »

Other issues aside,a different tube is neither clone,nor replica by Klaus's definition.


2. a thing that duplicates, imitates, or closely resembles another in appearance, function, performance, or style

It's fine. Believe it, or don't  :)
Logged

J.J. Blair

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2016, 08:44:39 am »

The C12 is setup with ECC801s...slightly different choice than the GE6072, but fantastic. Perhaps preferable.

I never understood Oli's substitution of ECC801's in the C12 and 251.  I find it to be mismatched with the T14/1, resulting in a more robust low end, which is exactly what I don't want out of those mics. 
Logged

gtoledo3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
  • Real Full Name: George Toledo
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2016, 09:57:27 am »

That's cool by me JJ. Tbh, I think that the term "mismatch" is too strong, since it's not technically mismatched in the sense of impedance or anything like that.

I have used both mics by their vintage counterparts and been satisfied (c12, m49)... with the differences along the lines of what I would expect from the mic being another physical unit, or having made in another year.

For another comparison, the C12CG is distinct from the CS1 prototype I own.

The two are unique, with the C12CG having a brighter edge, a bit less subs, as expected from a C12. Different midrange character for that matter.

IDK, what do you guys think probably sounds closer to a C12 - the mic in question with a legit CK12/repro body/repro transformer, but a tube with slightly different MU value, or a FLEA C12? (rhetorical)

Logged

Jim Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2016, 11:21:43 am »

Reproduction is a closer term to what those older mic companies have been doing the last few years.

The English language is the most complex in the world with well over 250,000 words available, more are being created every day. Other complex languages are limited to about 50,000 words including German and French.

This is why literary writers have so much to lean on using English with multiple ways of saying the same thing.

Replica, reproduction, reissue, etc. all covers the same thing, companies that want to cash in on older designs because they still have a market.
Logged

Kai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 340
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2016, 06:02:40 pm »

The English language is the most complex in the world with well over 250,000 words available, more are being created every day. Other complex languages are limited to about 50,000 words including German and French
Sorry, but I have to correct this sloppy😀 statement: German "the language of poets and thinkers" has 5.3 million words, according to Duden, our standard  dictionary.
(EDIT: seems they found some more millions since the date this information origins from, see below)
Logged

klaus

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2016, 06:23:29 pm »

In line with the new thinking on eliminating fake news from the public space: Jim, if you could please reference a source for your statement as well?
Logged
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks®
www.GermanMasterworks.com

Kai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 340
Re: Sloppy Definitions and their (un)intended Consequences
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2016, 06:24:54 pm »

Jim, if you could please reference a source for your statement as well?
Maybe I can do that:
According to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary: "If distinct senses were counted, the total would probably approach three quarters of a million" (words). See:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language
According to Duden, German contains almost 9 million words of distinct basic form. "Das Dudenkorpus hat nach heutigem Stand (Frühjahr 2009) einen Umfang von knapp 9 Millionen Wörtern (Grundformen)"" See:
http://www.duden.de/sprachwissen/sprachratgeber/zum-umfang-des-deutschen-wortschatzes
I think in both cases this is much more then the average educated native speaker ever knows or uses.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up