Donner DC 87 on Amazon

[Nen'O]

Anyone heard of this one before?

https://www.amazon.com/-/en/DC-87-M...6090&sprefix=donner+dc-87,aps,146&sr=8-1&th=1
whats inside this mic?
can it be modded?
Someone already makes PCB upgrades for this mic?

thanks
N

 

[RuudNL]

I suppose the only way to find out is to order one...
I find it a bit suspicious that they call it a 'large diaphragm microphone', but the capsule is only 25 mm.
That may be 'just on the edge'.
Usually these microphone use low quality electret microphone capsules., but judging the pictures it is hard to tell.

 

[Nen'O]

The question is can Donner be right donor for U 87 mod

Cheers

 

[McIrish]

I wonder if you could even fit a correct sized K87 capsule in the headbasket. Looks like a fairly tight fit already.

 

[Drosselmeier]

I find it a bit suspicious that they call it a 'large diaphragm microphone', but the capsule is only 25 mm.

i think they mean not the size of the capsule, but of diaphragm

 

[mrgrooves666]

so anyone planning to bite the dust and let us know

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

I wonder if you could even fit a correct sized K87 capsule in the headbasket. Looks like a fairly tight fit already.

Well Khron managed to fit a 34mm edge terminated capsule in a BM-800 body. From the pictures this headbasket looks like it's a decent size so I don't see how it would be an issue.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I suppose the only way to find out is to order one...
I find it a bit suspicious that they call it a 'large diaphragm microphone', but the capsule is only 25 mm.
That may be 'just on the edge'.
Usually these microphone use low quality electret microphone capsules., but judging the pictures it is hard to tell.

I believe there's a confusion there, entertained by parts vendors.
The classic definition of capsule diameter is the diaphragm diameter, with the historic classification of 1/4", 1/2", 3/4" and 1"; as a result, the outer diameter for a one-inch capsule is about 34mm.
In an attempt at outplussing competition, some advertise them as ambiguously "34mm".
I would think a "real" 34mm capsule would have its diffraction peak at about 5kHz, which nobody really wants.

In that respect, I think the Neweer ad is legit.

 

[Drosselmeier]

Well Khron managed to fit a 34mm edge terminated capsule in a BM-800 body.

any capsule can fit in bm-800 case

 

[Nen'O]

Here is nice comparison of DC 87 with U87AI



To me it sounds like it needs some serious mod, though mic body looks very nice.


Cheers

 

[mhelin]

Not so cheap here (in Europe) though there seems to be a €40/£30 voucher:
UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09N8T2JMD
DE: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09N8T2JMD
(links don't work properly for some reason, goes always to UK site)

 

[MicMaven]

Here is nice comparison of DC 87 with U87AI

Novice Question: (Asking a question -not showing off...)

Um ... er ... ahem ... Should I be somewhat, sorta, kinda skeptical of this type of comparison on YouTube and similar platforms?

I believe YouTube shrinks or compresses or at least may converts audio files from the original form and quality, with some concomitant loss of quality, such that we do not necessarily hear the original recording without some alteration. YouTube says: "The audio you hear during a YouTube video will usually be 126 kbps AAC in an MP4 container or anywhere from 50-165 kbps Opus in a WebM container." I interpret this to mean the audio I hear at my end may not equal the original recording, depending on multiple factors, including, but not limited to download speed, the quality of my computer audio gear, and other salient factors.

Moreover, we often have no specific information on what equipment, what settings, and under what conditions the original audio clips were recorded, including, but not limited to, the effects of equalizers, compressors, noise gates, de-essers, and so forth. I also guess it depends, in part, on what settings were used to upload the file, and more. skill level ...)

So, can one make good, reliable, well-informed judgments from this type of video comparison? I sorta suspect a myriad conspire to adversely affect the sound reaching my ears. Or ... am I missing something? Any traction? James

 

[abbey road d enfer]

You're largely right, however, since it's a comparative test, we could (?) assume the other settings are not different, so the differences between one and the other are intrinsically correct. Data compression just reduces the range of detectable anomalies.

 

[Nen'O]

Wish someone can show us guts of this mic.

 

[LevinGuitar]

A bit late, but still interesting.


https://prosound.ixbt.com/microphones/donner-dc87.shtml

And



Seems a copy of the new B2pro, with a 797 CY002 capsule inside

The headbasket is quite different from the U87 style

 

[Paul W]

A bit late, but still interesting.


https://prosound.ixbt.com/microphones/donner-dc87.shtml

And



Seems a copy of the new B2pro, with a 797 CY002 capsule inside

The headbasket is quite different from the U87 style

How so? They look generally similar to me... similar aspect ratio, similar width band up the sides and across the top, similar approximately rectangular cross section near the top, round at the bottom, flattish forward and somewhat upward facing bits in between. Looks like the Neumann might be a bit shorter front-to-back at the top, and squarer on the sides there, and with a sharper transition between the flat bit and the round part, but would that affect the sound?

 

[Paul W]

Here is nice comparison of DC 87 with U87AI



To me it sounds like it needs some serious mod, though mic body looks very nice.


Cheers

What in particular do you hear that sounds bad, or just different, and how does it differ?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

That's interesting. This vid shows there is not much difference in the final result between the Neumann and the Donner, but the United Twin is a clear winner IMO.
Now I must say I'm not a fan of this guy's voice.
The subsequent clip where he compares the Donner with an M149 clearly marks the deficiencies of the Donner, being oversibilant and lacking "girth".
However, a little EQ may (or not) bridge the gap...
It's a good illustration that, whatever the mic (within reason) a recording made in a protected acoustic environment can always be perfected by EQ since the only significant difference between mics is the frequency response.

 

[Nen'O]

What in particular do you hear that sounds bad, or just different, and how does it differ?

IMO Donner suffer from hi frequencies distortion and low frequencies are not there. Saying that it might be good choice for tracking gtr amps of even percussions.
Can't comment how it handles high SPL as I dont have one.
Most cheap mics suffer from the same problem but it can be easy fix. I had very good results with converting t.bone SC 450 into usable mics.