Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mannix]

Does it bother anyone else that so many of the clones have crooked mesh screens? Not talking about the basket themselves, but the way the mesh is soldered into the basket. In far too many examples, the patterns are off, not aligned symmetrically.  Look at any AKG or Neumann, perfectly straight mesh wherein the pattern is perfectly lined up all the way around. To me aesthetics matter, I think to the fine microphone makers, it does too. Rant over.

[klaus]

Rant duly noted.

But, I assume you had already considered that shitty assembly goes with shitty mics? That's why a recent thread on GS about faint fingerprints (oh my!) on the frame bars of a new U87Ai probably will get Neumann's attention.

Customers who pay premium prices for premium products expect less visible flaws than what would be found on their mid-priced copies. Customers also deduct that the same lack of quality control spent on finishing external parts correctly will also show up inside- where it really counts.

A couple of years back, the press and user forums hammered Tesla for misaligned doors and hoods and other minor quality issues. Tesla recognized that this was really bad for sales, so doors and hoods were more carefully aligned-not exactly to the perfection of Porsche-but... good enough to stop the complaints. Maybe not just coincidental, sales since then have gone through the roof.

[Mannix]

I can't unsee small bothersome details like this. I don't know how hard it is to align mesh inside a basket, (maybe it is) but why not do it right? I mean you're 'cloning' a U47... at least make it look right. Talk about cars... I saw a film on the making of the current Mazerati models. I was floored at their incredible quality control, and not just the mechanics... airtight soundproofing and laser-measured door jambs and hood gaps. Serious high tech factory with crazy attention to detail.

[klaus]

I don't know how hard it is to align mesh inside a basket, (maybe it is) but why not do it right?

Because you would have to pay someone a quality wage to fully address all aspects of quality when making a product.
But if you did that, the profit margin in a highly competitive segment of microphones-copies of famous heritage mics- would shrink even further.

Think about it: how many misaligned baskets, sticky pattern switches, sloppy solder connections, inaccurate moldings for plastic parts can you afford to throw away?
"Good Enough", is the motto for these manufacturers. The market does the rest.

[Mannix]

True. I heard an interview with a head of a fairly popular Clone builder, and he said (paraphrased) "There is a point where you need to cut corners in order to make a mic affordable."

[klaus]

"Good Enough" will be the subject of a forthcoming commentary on this forum.

[David Satz]

Here are two TLM 103s that I owned for years, both facing the same way.

Their serial numbers weren't very close, however, so there may have been a production change in between.

[klaus]

The TLM103 is a cardioid-only mic, and as such, the front side should be the one with the steeper screen angle, to reduce front-of-diaphragm reflections.
The mic on the right therefore is likely a production mistake that should have been caught by quality control.

I cannot imagine any reason to intentionally put the traditional, patented, Neumann wedge shape on the back screen, thereby increase unwanted reflections on the side that matters.

[Mannix]

That 103 must have had it's basket flipped, no? I don't own the mic, but maybe it was done by a person having a gander at the capsule? I've done that myself with the body tube of a mic. Even so, look at how perfect those screens are aligned!

[klaus]

but maybe it was done by a person having a gander at the capsule?

There is no chance of mounting the head basket backwards on a TLM103 by mistake. The positions for the mounting screws allow only one position.

[David Satz]

I no longer have these mikes. With the grille being held on by three screws, can it really be put on backwards? (Ah, I see that Klaus just answered that.)

In any case, the screens didn't have the same shape even if you did turn one of them around backwards. As I said, there was a significant difference in their serial numbers, so this could be a generational difference.

[gtoledo3]

Does it appear that the unit on the right side had someone press on the grill at some point, or that it was even possibly reshaped from the inside some? There is a kind of dip at one part that is apparent in the second picture, that looks like when someone presses on a grill with their thumb, or when reshaped with a spoon from the inside.

I know my impression of the shape from the second pic is a bit different from the first. I think the perspective was slightly misleading, for me at least.

Since seeing this topic started, I have had so many thoughts running through my mind about the unfortunately long list of technical and cosmetic inadequacies I have encountered with various “boutique” mic companies. To sum up across many...capsules not correctly mounted, poor s/n ratio, poor PSUs that directly limit the sound quality, bad plating and paint jobs, very inconsistent sound from unit to unit, RF interference, bad grounding schemes, capsules with large peaks that are inconsistent across units, over accentuated top end, veiled top end, etc, it really just goes on and on. And crooked grille mesh too!