Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 04, 2008, 02:14:56 AM
I'm looking to augment my collection with another tree option.
Right now I change between my M150's and my (amazing) VM1 KHE's for the Tree, depending on the style and size of the orchestra. Sometimes I wish I had a third option. I tried Senn MKH800's/80"S. Also B&K 4006's. All good, but not the business.
I'd love to investigate having some real basic custom mics built without all the "vintage" casings and PS's. For example, Doug Sax/Mastering Labs made these C-12-like mics a while back where they put all the money into the capsule and the electronics and didn't care about the cosmetics. They were some of the best mics I ever used.
That's what I'd like to investigate. Just great components without all the fancy cosmetics.
Any thoughts?
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 04, 2008, 02:24:54 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 04, 2008, 11:31:46 AM
I own the first pair sold into the U.S. and have enjoyed them for years. I use them on everything I can.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 04, 2008, 02:25:36 PM
I actually have the demo coming from Wunder now.
I'll tell you more when I get it.
AM
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 04, 2008, 02:26:38 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 16:31 |
I believe the answer to be Sonodore RCM-402s. |
Brad Lunde (Transaudio Group) been trying to get me to try it.
Maybe I will.
Thanks for the advice
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 04, 2008, 03:04:28 PM
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 04, 2008, 03:57:26 PM
I DO have a real one, although I'm not that concerned with it matching an original M50.
I'm looking for a new option.
It's coming either today or tomorrow.
I'll let you know what happens
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on April 05, 2008, 07:22:46 AM
I would be interessted in your thoughs about the wunder cm50 as well, Alan. Also if you find other solution's for Decca that are interessting.
My thoughs on omnis for orchestra, as far as I have experience...:
Although I mostly do Jazz Recordings, I have to record Orchestras from time to time, mostly for Soundtracks. I have experience's with Original M50, M150, and DPA 4006 on the Three.
With the M50 it depends extremly in what shape they are and what services have been done to them. While I have been extremly pleased with them in a session in Abbey Road I have been disapointed with them in another Studio. As it shows later , they have been serviced by neumann, and have been transitorized!
With the M150 I had a session recently in Munich and I was really not disappointed. Fine Mics. They provided the typical large, warm but also silky sound I want for Filmmusic.
The DPA 4006 are not really providing the sound I am looking for, when I record an orchestra for a Film-Score. Too clasical sounding maybe?
Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on April 05, 2008, 07:31:52 AM
If you use the 4006, you must put on the APE's to make them sound like the (TL)M(1)50. Once I got serious problems with my TLM50's and replaced them during orchestra recordings with a set of 4006 +APE's, and no one seemed to have heard a difference.
People speak about a the typical M50 sound, but infact there are two M50 sounds; the one with the aluminum capsule and the later one with the KM83 Mylar capsule. I do believe Wunder makes the KK83-style version.
If you do not have so many pennies, it is worth to try the poormen's M50, the KM130 + 4cm sphere. It might be even worth to try that sphere on the old KM83.
Erik Sikkema
Post by: ratite on April 05, 2008, 08:36:56 AM
Maybe Brauner VMA's in 'vintage' mode, Gefell UM930's which I'm keen to hear. If not DECCA then you could try the Soundfield or 5.1/7.1 holophones (I think that's what they're called?).
It might be worth seeing how much David Josephson would charge to do a custom mic assuming he has time.
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 05, 2008, 01:37:02 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 05, 2008, 02:29:14 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 05, 2008, 02:41:59 PM
At AES, Mike Castoro told me himself that they (Wunder) are using aluminum diaphragms on their M50 clones. I don't know who is making them for him.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 05, 2008, 07:18:14 PM
Post by: Klaus Heyne on April 05, 2008, 07:48:21 PM
I encourage you to keep hearsay (see Ground Rules) like that to a minimum because it does not advance knowledge among us the same way that actual experience with any of these mics would.
Thanks,
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 05, 2008, 11:27:31 PM
| Alan Meyerson wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 16:18 |
Do you say "based on seeing the inside of their 47s" as a bad thing or a good thing? |
I wasn't implying either. What I meant was that since they are very different on the inside, while using the same bodies, it's a pretty safe conclusion that they are not being assembled by FLEA. BTW, I liked what I saw inside the Wunder 47s. So as not to irritate Klaus with digression, feel free to PM me for my impressions, if you want.
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on April 06, 2008, 07:07:14 AM
Neumann had to discontinue the M50 because the aluminium they used, which they aquired from outside, was no longer made to their specifications. After that we all know they put in the KK83 capsule. Modern M50's (TLM50) used first nickel and because of technical failures they swiched over to titanium.
It would really "wunder" me if the Wunder guys use aluminium. But "Wunders" happen.
Erik Sikkema
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 06, 2008, 01:07:31 PM
If anybody knows something to the contrary, please feel free to correct that story. I don't know enough about metallurgy to really understand how that works. I'll e-mail Mike Castoro to confirm the use of aluminum in his M50 clones.
Post by: johnR on April 06, 2008, 01:35:47 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 18:07 |
Here's the story I was told from somebody involved with Neumann about what happened with the aluminum, and why they stopped using it. As was explained to me, the aluminum acted like a spore, and continued to grow to the point where it shorted the backplate. |
That would be due to whisker growth, encouraged by the electrical field in the capsule.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 06, 2008, 02:20:32 PM
I don't remember there ever being an aluminum capsule for them. Not one even talked about.
Post by: delcosmos on April 06, 2008, 04:07:52 PM
Best regards.
delcosmos.
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on April 06, 2008, 06:41:27 PM
Only if you would add a sphere.
Erik Sikkema
Post by: Plush on April 08, 2008, 11:35:17 AM
In seeking alternatives, we need to know what the problem is with the current set-up.
I suspect it must have something to do with sound. Alan, what do you notice that you do not like?
I am an M50 freak here using all different kind of variants. ALU capsule, mylar capsule, original tube version, Decca transistorized version etc.
FLEA makes a very good M50 copy---sorry to say that it is indeed also offering authentic "cosmetics." Their version is with a gold mylar capsule.
I would need confirmation direct from the source to buy the news that Wunder is using an ALU capsule since they are getting their mics from FLEA (with Thiersch's capsule membranes)
What would you like to change about the sound of your current set-up?
Alan---I really enjoyed your score recording of "Vantage Point." Very nice work!
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 08, 2008, 11:56:35 AM
http://www.flea-microphones.com/
Post by: Plush on April 08, 2008, 12:02:28 PM
I recently bought a FLEA M49 copy and, in my opinion, it IS like a M49 in all but country of origin.
You can see pictures of how I use it on the FLEA website under "Reviews."
FLEA also makes a mic that looks like an M50.
Post by: Fig on April 08, 2008, 05:14:04 PM
$0.02,
Fig
Post by: Ron Sweet on April 08, 2008, 08:57:47 PM
http://mixonline.com/recording/applications/audio_decca_tree /
Post by: wildplum on April 09, 2008, 02:24:13 PM
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on April 09, 2008, 02:53:56 PM
L50B (50mm) APE gives the closest approach to (TL)M50 sound.
Erik Sikkema
Post by: Steve Hudson on April 09, 2008, 06:38:40 PM
Post by: Plush on April 10, 2008, 05:47:56 PM
I appreciate your "eyes only" report about the Wunder alu capsules in the Wunder M50.
This is important to know and is the first I have heard of a mic freak offering a modern alu capsule.
I'm also a Hudson.
with appreciation,
PhlushPhonic
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 10, 2008, 09:22:21 PM
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 13, 2008, 12:06:06 AM
| Plush wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 16:35 |
What would you like to change about the sound of your current set-up? Alan---I really enjoyed your score recording of "Vantage Point." Very nice work! |
Thanks so much for the compliment Plush. Much appreciated...
Whats wrong with my setup now? Nothing. It works great but, as most people who would read this forum would understand, I have a lifelong goal of getting better.
I had a beautiful dinner with Prof. Keith O. Johnson (Reference Recording). I consider him to be the finest orchestral engineer I have ever heard. We had a long and detailed conversation about techniques. He was very interested in the "hybrid" world I live in. I was actually mixing Vantage Point when he came. He had never seen a modern film music mix and he was blown away with the 500 tracks, 4 Protools rigs....etc. He was also, to my great joy, very complimentary of my recording.
I think his recording are, by far, the most depthful, 3D recordings I have heard. Although it wouldn't translate to film score exactly, there are elements that I took away from my conversation that I have applied.
The reason for telling this long boring story- we both tried to figure out how to take our stuff to the next level.
Hopefully, I'll never figure it out, because the journey is a ball!
Alan
Post by: Plush on April 13, 2008, 10:17:38 AM
Yes, for sure Keith Johnson is a master. He employs solid by the book techniques augmented by radical room boundary micing and some special unorthodox mic placements. I have visited some of his hall set-up sessions here in Chicago when he was working at DePaul Univ. His sound is particularly 3D.
Incorporating more of that depth is something that orchestral recording people should attempt to refine each year. Of course the simplest techniques offer up the sound with the most depth. ie. Blumlein and ORTF stereo mic set-ups.
Of course the journey is worth the trip (sic) and the revelatory moments (like a recent recording/mixing a Bruckner 7) is worth all the work.
I used to visit the Radford stage in LA and I always thought it looked like a very flexible gymnasium type room. Now that it is closed, what are the scoring rooms of choice in Los Angeles?
As far as alternatives to the real M50 and M49, I vote for the FLEA mics.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 13, 2008, 11:36:30 AM
Even before hearing Wunder's aluminum capsules? Or have you heard them.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 13, 2008, 11:29:56 PM
| Plush wrote on Sun, 13 April 2008 15:17 |
...We will miss Todd AO (scoring Stage.) |
I was fortunate enough to do the last session at Todd. It was a sad night.
We have MGM/Sony. It's a great stage, very big. I just did M. Night Shylaman's new movie, The Happening there.
We had 104 players and it sounded great. You can see session pictures on scoringsessions.com
We have Fox, and also Warner Bros. Both great places. But it's tough. I go up to Skywalker alot and have a feeling that will happen more and more.
I'm going to experiment more with DPA 4006 with balls. When the Wunder mic comes I'll give it a good look.
Plush, I'd love to hear your Bruckner!!
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 14, 2008, 02:33:35 AM
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 14, 2008, 04:36:51 AM
Post by: compasspnt on April 14, 2008, 07:01:15 PM
Must do that.
They have been very good on percussion, acoustic guitar, piano, and even lead vocal (used as "ambient" mic in conjunction w/U-47, but when solo'd, would have worked fine for entire vocal sound). That was the Cat Power song on "The Hottest State" soundtrack.
Post by: KB_S1 on April 15, 2008, 11:58:51 AM
Not a full orchestra obviously but a good indication of how they may fare.
I am keen to hear more on the FLEA mics.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 15, 2008, 01:39:59 PM
Post by: Plush on April 15, 2008, 03:12:19 PM
I bought a FLEA 49 at the end of last year and started using it this Jan. The thing is sounding and behaving like a real 49. I endorse it and I hail its sound.
The FLEA 50 uses a gold capsule of the correct size in the sphere. Sound is quite good and faithful to the real M50. The price is reasonable. I did not buy it because I already have real M50's here.
As we know, Neumann themselves equipped a LOT of M50 mics with a gold capsule (after 1968) and claimed no big deal--it has the same sound they said.
I have not heard the Wunder M50 version. We know that it is a modified (greatly modified when using an ALU capsule) FLEA.
I can only stand by as others use the Wunder 50's and then send in their report.
My endorsement of FLEA is based on hearing the FLEA 49 and FLEA 50 and using the FLEA 49---an authentic 49 sound in every way.
As Tony Faulkner told me in his kitchen one day, "I have to have so many M50's here because at any one time several are making a buzzing noise."
Post by: Klaus Heyne on April 15, 2008, 03:52:44 PM
| Plush wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 12:12 |
... As we know, Neumann themselves equipped a LOT of M50 mics with a gold capsule (after 1968) and claimed no big deal--it has the same sound they said. |
I have not seen that claim by Neumann. Can you post it? It is not credible on account of the entirely unrelated capsule designs, and certainly, once you hear KK50 and KK83 -equipped M50 side by side, no one in his right mind would make such a claim.
| Quote: |
As Tony Faulkner told me in his kitchen one day, "I have to have so many M50's here because at any one time several are making a buzzing noise." |
..because Tony may not have maintained these mics appropriately; a service these and any other precious tube mics require, just like any tool one depends on. If anything, Neumann mics, especially M49/M50, are some of the more reliable, well-designed specimens out there.
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 15, 2008, 06:23:14 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 15, 2008, 06:53:47 PM
Post by: Plush on April 15, 2008, 08:07:01 PM
I should not have said that people at Neumann claim no difference in gold and ALU M50 capsules. Upon refreshing my recollection (thank you Johnny Cochran) I recall that the people I talked to were at TELDEC and DECCA. They were discussing the various M50 models. Both places took delivery of gold capsuled M50's and then converted them to ALU capsule versions. This work was usually done at DECCA for both companies. No, I can't post anything because these were conversations in person not something on a website or in a document.
In the FLEA 49 the tube is an AC701k and the capsule is a Thiersch version of the M7 capsule. What HO?? Believe it or not I got a good one (you guys bash Thiersch all the time.) I think FLEA gets select versions of capsules from Thiersch. It sounds good and it sounds authentic.
I don't know what Wunder does to the FLEA parts it gets. Please ask them. I know that there are extensive FLEA elements in Wunder and that they are not re-inventing the wheel. Maybe they are like the old Neumann in that they are real mic people, real module people AND real console people.
Lastly, Klaus, your commentary about Faulkner is suspect and curious. It is certainly not Faulkner's neglecting maintenance that causes any faults in his stable of M50's. I'd venture instead that it is heavy usage of his M50's and his travel schedule that is the culprit. He didn't go into detail because he knows that I know that 50+ year old gear can develop problems. We all know that. One things for sure, Tony's not a mope who beats his gear or neglects inspection and spending money on having his main set-ups serviced.
For me it is only the sound that counts, not the look of the mic.
I know, too, that in our current climate, there are those who want a trophy and a "look."
It's a big world, so I have to believe that there is room for both interests and pursuits.
Post by: J.J. Blair on April 16, 2008, 12:17:37 AM
Post by: Plush on April 17, 2008, 09:48:12 AM
The bashing is extensive and relentless.
In any case, and getting back to the original poster's questions, I can only offer my opinion that it is the source (the ensemble) that is making the sound, not the mic that is making the sound. Therefore, a different ensemble/arrangement/hall will make more difference than changing out the mics on the chosen set-up.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 17, 2008, 01:28:05 PM
| Plush wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 14:48 |
In any case, and getting back to the original poster's questions, I can only offer my opinion that it is the source (the ensemble) that is making the sound, not the mic that is making the sound. Therefore, a different ensemble/arrangement/hall will make more difference than changing out the mics on the chosen set-up. |
Begging to disagree but I feel that it's the sum of all the parts that make the sound. The players, the room, the perspective of the engineer/producer,etc ad infinitum. Certainly you could change players. That's not my point in this case. I just wanted to start a conversation of alternates to the tried and true.
Unfortunately, I started my microphone collection too late. I couldn't afford real M50's
so I bought M150's and they have served me well. I also have 3 KHE's and alot of assorted SCC's. There really are no good M50's out there any more, and even if there were the price would be ridiculous.
So that's the fun here. Figuring out how to re-invent a very good wheel. I've had alot of good luck with it, if you've heard any of my flim scores.
But let's keep the converation going. It's fun.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 17, 2008, 02:00:19 PM
| Plush wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 14:48 |
So that's the fun here. Figuring out how to re-invent a very good wheel. I've had alot of good luck with it, if you've heard any of my flim scores. |
I hope that doesn't come acros as egotistical. I didn't mean it that way
Post by: Klaus Heyne on April 17, 2008, 03:58:45 PM
| Plush wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 06:48 |
J.J.---please do a search on here and you will see who bashes the Thiersch capsules. The bashing is extensive and relentless. |
I take responsibility here. 'Bashing' and 'relentless are a bit over the top, but the gist is right, nevertheless:
Thiersch's M7 PVC jobs were not good in the past. Similarly, his large diaphragm Mylar work, at least until a year ago, when I last tested his U87 re-diaphragming job, on a couple of Robert Crash's eBay products, was disappointingly mediocre (to me!), in regards to timbre or consistency compared to a Neumann capsule. His attempts at CK12s were even less convincing.
On the other hand, his metal diaphragm work on KM54, KM56, and SM2 capsules is pretty good, considering that this at least as hard of work (I find) as doing a large diaphragm Mylar capsule, and I gladly (and often) have used his reskinning metal diaphragm jobs, when I had to replace original Neumann diaphragms.
I am eager to revise my opinions. I understand that he has new people working for him, and I am sure, he gets better with time, like most of us.
One more comment: I have not felt yet the need to 'recalibrate' my expectations, in order to reflect the currently abysmal state of aftermarket diaphragm manufacturing for vintage capsules. Under this light, Thiersch is second only in quality to Haun.
But ultimately, I compare every attempt by these manufacturers to the standards that Neumann and AKG set. Nothing short of it.
Post by: ETM Dude on April 18, 2008, 12:08:39 PM
| Alan Meyerson wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 18:28 | ||
I hope that doesn't come acros as egotistical. I didn't mean it that way |
Hi Alan,
I have to admit I've been a lurker on this forum for a little while, however it is your score mixes that brought me here! Hope not to come across as a too much a fanboy, but from a composer perspective your sound (John Powell mixes in particular) is the benchmark I constantly go back to. Interesting thread, and indeed fun stuff!
Post by: davebl on April 19, 2008, 06:03:57 AM
| Quote: |
.J.---please do a search on here and you will see who bashes the Thiersch capsules. The bashing is extensive and relentless. |
Only in the last couple of years have I had reason to use STM and I feel I have to say that on the occasions I have used STM that the work has been to a very good standard, promptly carried out and at reasonable cost. I found the company to be courteous and helpful in-spite of my lack of German.
I am not a mic tech but have worked in professional audio for 30 years now although audio forms only part of my current work. On comparing the refurbished or repaired capsules with known good factory examples they have been near identical from listening tests. I've had both Gefell M7's and nickel capsules repaired and have been pleased with the results.
I can't compare to other mic capsule repair companies as I have not used any excepting the mic manufacturers themselves. I only speak as I find.
Dave Blackham
UK
Post by: raal on August 29, 2008, 12:58:37 AM
Post by: Alan Meyerson on August 30, 2008, 01:54:44 PM
If your lurking around, what would you think about the idea of retooling my KM 54's and building the caps into a perspect?
One of the mic manufacturers I have a relationship with is anxious to give it a try.
He promises not to hurt the original mic and be able to put it back together in case I don't like the results.
Thoughts?
Alan
Post by: J.J. Blair on August 30, 2008, 02:29:50 PM
Not that you wouldn't like the sound of the nickel, but I was just pointing that out.
And did you ever get to try those Wunders M50s?
Post by: Barry Hufker on August 30, 2008, 04:05:13 PM
My suggestion would be to try to keep the M50's ratio of diameter size to sphere size no matter which mic you use for the experiment.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on August 30, 2008, 06:16:31 PM
oops
Post by: Alan Meyerson on August 30, 2008, 06:19:52 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 19:29 |
And did you ever get to try those Wunders M50s? |
Wunder never supplied me demos. I gave up/
Post by: klaukholm on December 22, 2008, 08:45:18 AM
I guess this makes the choice easy, we likely will get three tlm50 to augment our collection of M150.
edit: to be clear, they do offer a full refund. This is sort of a mute point here anyways as that is required by law anyway. I believe the law states 30 days for sales not made in person, i.e. internet and phone purchases.
Post by: Klaus Heyne on December 22, 2008, 02:07:11 PM
If you are already familiar with the sound of the TLM 150s, you will not be disappointed with the TLM50s.
Post by: Alan Meyerson on January 06, 2009, 12:12:46 AM
I'm not quite willing to go public yet. Still need a little more testing. But when I am, I'll upload some great A/B/C comparisons.
That's all for now,
Alan
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 06, 2009, 12:21:39 AM
I'm eager to hear what you've found/learned.
Barry
Post by: Plush on January 09, 2009, 05:12:58 PM
Post by: Rich Mays on January 11, 2009, 12:16:23 AM
Simon was in the middle of a Beethoven Symphony series when Decca bellied up and the M50s were withdrawn. The client wanted to continue so Simon switched to the Schoeps and in his words, "no one seemed to notice."
Either they were all lead-ears, OR.....
Rich
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on January 11, 2009, 06:52:53 AM
I was in a similar situation, one Neumann TLM50s (nickel diaphragm) bellied up, and I had no other choice than bringing in the B&K4003 with spheres. .... and no one seemed to have noticed either.
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 13, 2009, 06:42:33 AM
Post by: Eric H. on March 15, 2009, 08:33:39 PM
| Alan Meyerson wrote on Tue, 06 January 2009 05:12 |
I think I found my answer! I'm not quite willing to go public yet. Still need a little more testing. But when I am, I'll upload some great A/B/C comparisons. That's all for now, Alan |
Some 3 months later and the answer is.....?
I'm still very curious about that subject.
Post by: wildplum on March 19, 2009, 02:34:23 PM
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on March 21, 2009, 11:56:52 AM
| wildplum wrote on Thu, 19 March 2009 18:34 |
Daniel- which size ball did you use on the 4006? |
I will check on Monday...
Daniel
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 22, 2009, 03:30:31 PM
SFN
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 22, 2009, 05:14:11 PM
Barry
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on March 23, 2009, 08:35:44 AM
| Daniel_Dettwiler wrote on Sat, 21 March 2009 15:56 | ||
I will check on Monday... Schallfeldnebel: The only sphere diameter giving similar specs as the M50, is the 5cm one. Check the graphs in the paper DPA has published. Daniel |
Aha. 5 cm are mine...
Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
www.volkshausstudio.com
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 23, 2009, 08:09:14 PM
| Schallfeldnebel wrote on Sun, 22 March 2009 12:30 |
The only sphere diameter giving similar specs as the M50, is the 5cm one. Check the graphs in the paper DPA has published. |
Hard to believe, as the ball in the M50 is exactly 40mm
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 23, 2009, 10:21:04 PM
Post by: David Bock on March 23, 2009, 10:53:27 PM
| Quote: |
The M150 uses a titanium diaphragm? |
Yes, and I don't think the capsule itself sounds too bad.
Klaus, what material would you say the new M150 ball was made of? I'm surprised they would have "gone soft" on it.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 24, 2009, 12:20:04 AM
Barry
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 24, 2009, 12:50:15 AM
| dbock wrote on Mon, 23 March 2009 19:53 |
Klaus, what material would you say the new M150 ball was made of? I'm surprised they would have "gone soft" on it. |
I am not a plastics expert, but it felt to the touch and dented very much like Nylon or something similar would feel or dent.
The larger acoustic issue, in my mind, and probable source for unpleasant artifacts is the fact that the M150 ball is hollow.
Yes, of course, if you don't have a comparison like the real thing next to it, the mic's sound is probably quite acceptable. But how can I ever forget such a comparison, and go to a condition that existed before I heard the M50 next to it?
| Quote: |
As I've said often, it is not the size of the sphere per se, it is the ratio of the sphere's size to the size of the diaphragm... |
You are quite right, Barry. The 12mm M150 titanium capsule is smaller than the K50, but, if there is a fixed ratio of ball-to-diaphragm
Post by: David Bock on March 24, 2009, 12:41:45 PM
| Quote: |
The larger acoustic issue, in my mind, and probable source for unpleasant artifacts is the fact that the M150 ball is hollow. |
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 24, 2009, 01:18:14 PM
It would be fairly easy to make two tests of the same recorded high-impact, short-duration sound source. One, with the ball as is, and two, after spritzing the ball full of a damping goo (silicone glue, E6000 or similar), then comparing the sound waves created by an impact sound.
There was a reason why Neumann/NWDR originally used a high-density, solid Plexiglass ball for the M50.
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 24, 2009, 01:30:44 PM
http://www.westcoastdrums.com/rtmodapa.html
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 24, 2009, 06:08:25 PM
Post by: Eric H. on March 03, 2010, 04:14:59 PM
I have not the experience necessary to pronounce myself on this, but would really like to hear what scoring engineers have to say on this.
Or is the M150 stil the better way to get (almost) there?
also, if I really like the plastic ball solution, it is currently available only on Fet mics, if I am not mistaken.
What about tube SDC with balls ( if I may say so)?
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 03, 2010, 05:34:18 PM
SFN
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 04, 2010, 03:53:46 AM
| Klaus Heyne wrote on Tue, 23 December 2008 03:07 |
Sorry to hear. That kind of (non) arrangement is unusual in our industry, where not only Guitar Center Pro, or Sweetwater etc. but vintage mic equipment brokers will honor a no-charge, money back try-out warranty on even their most expensive mics. If you are already familiar with the sound of the TLM 150s, you will not be disappointed with the TLM50s. |
Even after introducing the titanium capsule for the TLM50, there is still a low-cut filter active in the TLM50. It is rather common to have low-cut filters in small diaphragm microphones with interchangeable capsules, but they are never on such high frequency as the TLM50. A system like the TLM50 should be flat at 20Hz. Martin Schneider told me it was built in for German broadcasters, Stephan Peus told me test sessions at certain radio concerthouses revealed rumble problems from the airco-systems.
When we took away the rumble filter ourselves, my nickel TLM50's got a fat bulky low-end. Listening to recordings made with M150's (Kimber Sound), Ray Kimber's M150's did not show any problems with rumble, although the M150 seems to have not such filter built in. Kimber's recording of a Beethoven stringquartet sounded very controlled in the low end, it could have even been more strong in the great-octave region. For me it is not understandable why Neumann did not take the filter away after introducing the new membrane material. In so far comparing a TLM50 with a M150 will be rather dissapointing.
SFN
Post by: Jim Williams on March 04, 2010, 11:22:34 AM
Those mics are flat from 2 hz to well over 25k hz, with very good phase linearity. They are being used in a Decca tree using omni capsules, those are directional at the high frequencies like the M-50 capsule. Others use the CK-22 free field omni, it is not directional at all as it's pure omni, 20 to 20 k hz. Those work very well for pipe organ recordings.
They may not be a great choice for mushy Hollywood scores, but the classical recordists love them for their realism, if you like that sort of thing...
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 04, 2010, 12:54:34 PM
To call the CK22 a 'diffuse field compensated' microphone goes a bit too far, and the CK62 has not the same characteristics as the M50, microphones with spheres already become slightly directional just above 2K. 2Hz to 25KHz is a bit exaggarated, the CK22 is indeed very omni-directional for high frequencies.
SFN
Post by: Eric H. on March 04, 2010, 08:01:36 PM
| Schallfeldnebel wrote on Wed, 03 March 2010 22:34 |
Just have some patience, there will come soon a very nice microphone alternative for Decca Tree use. SFN |
Can you share more?
I know that apart from Neumann, we have the flea copy of the M50 in europe. But I bet you were talking about something different, probably not a tube mic with transformer. Am I right?
Post by: Silas on March 05, 2010, 10:27:03 AM
Has anyone heard it?
http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/bock-audio/50
-Silas
Post by: Hank Alrich on March 05, 2010, 08:10:42 PM
| Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 04 March 2010 08:22 |
One other alternative working very well are AKG 460B's with transformer removal. There are several sets used in the EU for classical orchestral recordings. One company sold off their M-50's after using the 460's. Those mics are flat from 2 hz to well over 25k hz, with very good phase linearity. They are being used in a Decca tree using omni capsules, those are directional at the high frequencies like the M-50 capsule. Others use the CK-22 free field omni, it is not directional at all as it's pure omni, 20 to 20 k hz. Those work very well for pipe organ recordings. They may not be a great choice for mushy Hollywood scores, but the classical recordists love them for their realism, if you like that sort of thing... |
I'll testify to the excellence of Jim's C460 mods. A friend bought 8 C460's and had Jim mod 'em. I've been loaned four of them, and they are very good. His mod makes them sound like a completely different and much more high quality mic.
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 06, 2010, 06:24:18 AM
SFN
Post by: Stephen Andrew Bright on March 06, 2010, 09:27:40 AM
Stephen
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 06, 2010, 09:52:59 AM
This a bit of an AKG problem, you find it also in the C422. There it is 4-5 dB at 30Hz. I guess AKG has very narrow distances between backplate and membrane. It is not always an advance to have such sensitivity for low frequencies, therefore the 2Hz earlier mentioned does not really impress me, neither having a value like -10dB at 20Hz. (Neumann TLM50).
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on March 07, 2010, 09:27:04 AM
SFN
Post by: Didier Brest on March 07, 2010, 01:13:04 PM
Post by: Jim Williams on March 07, 2010, 01:35:28 PM
| Schallfeldnebel wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 03:24 |
The 480 is the transformerless successor of the 460 and is still in AKG's ULS program. I just wonder how well 48V phantom power goes together with the 2 Hz output. SFN |
The 480 is a good discrete transistor design, but unfortunatly is built with metal oxide resistors and monolythic ceramic signal capacitors. The metal oxide resistors are noisy and have non-linearities and the mono ceramic caps are very lossy and strident sounding. Besides the external capsules, the circuit is built more like a Rode than AKG.
Those parts are fine for your computer but they have no business in high end audio. The reason they are selected is first they are very cheap and second, they can be built and soldered by a machine. The bean counters love them.
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 07, 2010, 01:47:40 PM
Neither M50 not KM53 capsules were ever delivered from the factory with nickel membranes, to my knowledge.
If you think you may have original (not second-hand) factory information that claims otherwise, please share.
Post by: Didier Brest on March 07, 2010, 02:30:54 PM
The fact that the book has a foreword from Wolfgang Fraissinet and Stephan Peus may not authorize me to qualify this information as first-hand. Nonetheless I considered it as being worth to be shared here. I'm keen to get more information on vintage microphones. I ordered some months ago a book entitled The Microphone Vintage Handbook, which hopefully should be better informed, but it has not yet been delivered to me.
Post by: skemp on March 07, 2010, 03:23:37 PM
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 07, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
This may have been an short-lived experiment that did not bear fruit. I will investigate further as to actual numbers shipped.
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 11, 2010, 06:45:03 PM
I must say that I am still incredulous, having seen close to 100 M50 in my life, with almost all of them featuring a blueish-hued silver colored membrane, distinctly different in appearance from the yellowish nickel K54 hue of the same period.
But, who am I to question the authorities?
Post by: David Bock on March 12, 2010, 12:57:54 PM
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 12, 2010, 02:01:28 PM
Post by: skemp on March 14, 2010, 02:39:51 PM
Post by: Klaus Heyne on March 14, 2010, 02:49:29 PM
Post by: DavidSpearritt on March 14, 2010, 03:05:12 PM
| Schallfeldnebel wrote on Wed, 25 March 2009 08:08 | ||
Klaus Heyne wrote:"You are quite right, Barry. The 12mm M150 titanium capsule is smaller than the K50, but, if there is a fixed ratio of ball-to-diaphragm Post by: David Bock on March 15, 2010, 01:31:25 PM
Post by: Alan Meyerson on May 16, 2010, 01:55:33 AM After much comparison and taking into account my specific needs, I am now using Sennheiser MKH800 Twins as my usual tree mics. I understand it's sacrilege to not use a ball capsule of some sort. In my case having the ability to vary the polar pattern in the mix combined with how open and big these mics sound made it the right mic for me. I've used them on about 10 movies so far and have been thrilled. I'd like to say that David Bock sent me a demo of his 50 and it was WONDERFUL. If I had the dough I would have bought three of those also. But, in the end, all things considered this was the right decision for me. Thanks to Fred Vogler for planting the seed. Alan |