By popular demand to continue the discussion I have unlocked this topic for now...BUT we will be monitoring the behavior. Let's not ruin this for everybody else.
Please behave...
JR
rules said:
Please behave...
JR
American octal steel tubes in LDC microphones?
- Thread starter rock soderstrom
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
dmp
Well-known member
This thread does not need to be locked, the belligerent posts by Kingkorg attacking KlausHeine need to be addressed. These are not courteous and respectful discussion.
rock soderstrom
Tour de France
Hey guys, let's all relax a little bit. There's no need to freak out, we're not talking about murder and manslaughter, just steel tubes.
Would be a real shame if this thread didn't continue.
Would be a real shame if this thread didn't continue.
rock soderstrom
Tour de France
Back to the topic. I don't have a single donor body lying around here in which a 6J7/1620 would even come close to fitting. Damn.
I'm currently in a trial and error phase. This situation is slowing me down this weekend. I think I need to find a bigger body or add a extension tube to the SCT700.
I wonder if that's why these tubes are rarely seen in mics?
I'm currently in a trial and error phase. This situation is slowing me down this weekend. I think I need to find a bigger body or add a extension tube to the SCT700.
I wonder if that's why these tubes are rarely seen in mics?
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
I agree. SYT-5 still isn’t quite big-enough for most large steel-housing tubes and with the 47-size, you’re limited to the 47-head. Maybe someone can make me a 47-size top-plate where I can attach the mount for a lollipop capsule. I still wish someone would make a 47-size body with multiple head options to choose.
rock soderstrom
Tour de France
That's right, that would actually be a dream if there was a supplier for a modular body system with many options.
Sure, you can contact the guys in China, they can do something like that, but for them I'm not interesting as a single hobbyist.
Maybe a topic for our @soliloqueen in the near future?
Modeling u47 compatible alternate basket shapes would not be hard. The difficulty is really paying for the molds to press the mesh into the shape. Such parts are similar to injection molds and would cost a fair amount of money. Maybe $2,000 per shape. We could set up a group buy for the mold fee? after paying for the mold the parts themselves would be pretty inexpensive. Maybe $20 each, again much like injection molding.
I would remind people that Neumann has a registered design for their basket shape and has gotten more litigious about it lately. I've even heard of SYT-5s and the like getting seized. Are the basket shapes you guys want legal? If so, maybe, but there would need to be a lot of interest. I wouldn't be opposed to it. It would certainly be cheaper and easier than doing whole bodies.
I would remind people that Neumann has a registered design for their basket shape and has gotten more litigious about it lately. I've even heard of SYT-5s and the like getting seized. Are the basket shapes you guys want legal? If so, maybe, but there would need to be a lot of interest. I wouldn't be opposed to it. It would certainly be cheaper and easier than doing whole bodies.
Last edited:
capacitor
Well-known member
I'm only a rank newbie, but given the legalities, could it be practical to 3d print the outer shell out of (eg) nylon, and press fit some kind of metallic mesh inside?
In order to prevent a "basket case"? I'll show myself out...
In order to prevent a "basket case"? I'll show myself out...
capacitor
Well-known member
I want one of the screwdrivers that the nice lady was using during capsule assembly 
Very cool video.
Very cool video.terry setter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 155
I was told by a VERY well respected audio designer who studied the VF14 quite closely that when it comes to performance, the EF12 is a better match with the VF14 than the EF14. He had done solidly based testing, building, and listening and this was his final take-away. (His own products are critically acclaimed for their outstanding sound quality.) There is good information on the internet as to how to best implement the EV12 when trying to emulate the performance of the VF14.
If you go with the 13CW4, make sure that you change the bias point and run the tube at higher plate current. Again, there is good information on the internet to guide you with this. Best of luck, and have some fun, too!
moamps
Well-known member
It is really interesting to re-read from this distance what Mr. Heyne wrote almost 10 years ago about me and those articles, and how skillfully he locked the whole thread after his post. Thank you all for your support, I got a lot of compliments for the articles and I hope they helped at least someone.
"The site the OP refers to (Journey into the Legend: the VF14), claims, in so many words and graphs, that there is no measurable difference in performance between the VF14 tube and supposedly similar tubes, all of which require a separate heating supply.
The larger context of this article, unfortunately, is not enlightenment but the promotion of the web host's product, a dual-output voltage power supply he manufactures ("Moxtone")*, which can power aftermarket U47 copies with separate heater supply (the product does not work with the VF14, the original U47 tube).
The scientific-appearing tests are meant to show that the VF14's unique characteristics are not unique, after all, thus making other tubes, which the product is designed for, acceptable alternatives.
All of that is done by conditioning the reader with scientific-sounding material:
"Hopefully, you will find the data presented in this article a sufficiently valuable contribution to the relatively scarce body of knowledge on the VF14 and a significant help in designing microphones, particularly in understanding and evaluating different options once the VF14 wears out and fails, which it most certainly will."(italics and bold added)
The article uses questionable methodology in its test arrangement and execution. I already mentioned one in a previous response- the fallacy of lowering the heater voltage of the EF14, which does not take kindly, loses noise floor, and clogs up its cathode with time; is not peer-reviewed, and lacks objective, scientific approach appropriate to discover new information.
Its further discussion, therefore, has no merit for this forum, and the usual caution applies: if at first you don't understand the reason why something is pitched to you, just follow the money.
Thread closed (violation of forum Ground Rules), but kept up for benefit of the reader, as a slick example to study how quasi-science is put into service to peddling a product."
Really disappointing, Mr. Heyne.
Milan Uskoković, PhD EE
Moxtone.com
rock soderstrom
Tour de France
Thank you for your contribution and your valuable information regarding the production process. I know that somewhat from my apprenticeship days, I was often able to watch how this is done in the similar injection moulding process.
The creation and production of the mould is complex and often requires some testing. Once it is successfully set up, it starts to be fun.
I have no idea what Neumann has had protected and have no intention of coming into conflict with them or encouraging others to do so. How do the other manufacturers like Telefunken USA do it, for example? Do they buy licences or do they just do it? The question is whether you have to clone at all or just be inspired by the original design?
rock soderstrom
Tour de France
I respect your work very much and I thank you very much for the extensive information you have made available to the community!
I would still prefer it if your personal differences were not discussed in this thread. That goes for others too, this isn't the The World vs. K.H. thread. That leads nowhere and only distracts from the actual topic. The thread was already closed once and it would be a shame if that happened again. Please respect that, thank you!
Last edited:
Indeed, the molds are very expensive because of how wear-resistant they have to be. I admit I am not well-versed enough in the specifics of tooling to tell you in what way. My guess is that they have to be quite hard and it is difficult to machine a mold that hard...?
They only have an RD on the 67/87 design. The others are not protected, so it should be fine. This is why the WA-87 and probably the United look so different, since Neumann also filed the RD in America. However, people in countries where the RD doesn't apply can continue selling clones with SYT-5 style bodies. This is why you don't see any commercial (high volume) American U67 or U87 clones with accurate basket shapes like the others. They used to go after people in other countries outside of Germany and the US (Notably, they put the fear of God into 797 a few decades ago for some early Rode mics) but they gave up eventually.
Moving from fact into the realm of my opinion, as I've touched on before, this only really started happening at the level it does now once Sennheiser acquired Neumann, and I think it is likely due to cultural conflicts between Sennheiser and Neumann. Sennheiser wants Neumann to focus on continuing to sell classic models, and re-introducing models they would not otherwise re-introduce. This is kind of sad to say, but from what I have seen, Sennheiser is moving Neumann into the business of producing Neumann clones, so they want all the competition out of that sector...
Last edited:
What I have read on the web is the 87/67 head basket shape is covered by trademark (This is from the web so it might not be true does anyone know the real story)
Trademark is different than design patent
Design patents have a lifetime
Interesting to read about trademarks
https://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/product-design-trademark/
Trademark is different than design patent
Design patents have a lifetime
Interesting to read about trademarks
https://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/product-design-trademark/
correct
https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:u15kx1.9.10
Neumann has stated a few times over the years that they arrived at this particular shape for acoustics reasons, which makes this filing technically trademark fraud, but Sennheiser seems to be hoping most people will just be scared out of using it by the C&D and not challenge it legally. Sennheiser is on their way to a run-in with the law over how they've acted IMO, it's unethical and probably illegal. I really would hate to see them drag Neumann down with them. I wonder if they even know what Sennheiser's legal agent is doing in the US, over there in Berlin...
Last edited:
According to this document, there's better protection for something that has no purpose, than for something that's arguably an improvement on the state of the art.
Sees weird to me...
I'm not sure the definition of trademark's domain is the same all over the world.
You seem to have a beef against Sennheiser. AFAI can tell, Sennheiser is a company very dedicated to their products, image and customer base.
Their recent move away from consumer business is a sign of it IMO.
Accusing Sennheiser of milking the Neumann cow is not fair.
If Sennheiser had not bought Neumann, Neumann would have stagnated for lack of investment in R&D.
On a business point of view, it's only legitimate to want to show the best return on investment; if this comes partially from selling products on which R&D is long paid for, waiting for the newly designed products to become profitable.
AFAIK, no one was made redundant at Neumann's R&D, and they have benefited from the huge Sennheiser's resources in electronics R&D.
Maybe you have contrary information; if you have, let us know.
Similar threads
