Dynamic mics - why so difficult to reproduce?

[OneRoomStudio]

The sheer number of condenser microphone companies, projects, and clones out there is dizzying, but I'm always struck by how few high quality dynamic mics there are outside of the half-a-dozen big names (i.e. Shure, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic, ElectroVoice, AudioTechnica, Audix, etc.), and even those companies are generally producing mics that aren't as well liked as their older models. What gives?

It can't be due to lack of profit margin - look at what these mics are going for theses days! Sennheiser MD409, AKG D20, Shure SM5B, Beyerdynamic M380. These mics go for thousands of dollars. Granted, some of them are somewhat complex (AKG dynamics with bass chambers), but many of them are fairly straight-forward driver-style capsules in a basic housing - often without any circuitry or transformers.

What makes these so difficult to reproduce? Why have MD409's become "holy grail" mics? Why are M380's no longer produced (I know some people have tried replicating them with headphone drivers, with mixed results)? Are dynamic capsules much harder to make than a K47? It seems that there are tons of companies out there making speakers and headphone drivers. How different can it be?

I'm completely ignorant in this space, so it's entirely possible that I'm missing some big factor.

 

[Recording Engineer]

It can't be due to lack of profit margin - look at what these mics are going for theses days! Sennheiser MD409, AKG D20, Shure SM5B, Beyerdynamic M380.

I don’t think profit-margin and the supply and demand of those out-of-production mics, in good-working-order, go hand-in-hand at all. Plus, I pretty-much never see anyone excitingly-raving about the purchase a new MD-441U, regardless of many people thinking it’s nearly the perfect dynamic mic. I know how great they are and I never have either! In fact, I’m not sure if I’ve bought a brand new dynamic mic; maybe once or twice, maybe?

 

[soapfoot]

I’d speculate:

Good condenser mic performance is primarily a result of good capsule and good electronics

The capsule is the hard bit, but you can buy it ready-made

In a moving-coil dynamic, aspects like pattern formation more often make intentional, designed-in use of body/housing acoustics

This would mean we’d have to get not only the moving-coil assembly right, but also the construction of any acoustical labyrinth that might exist within the body itself

Not by any means impossible, but probably harder to use “donor bodies” and such

Headbasket acoustics do matter to condensers, of course… but compared to something like an RE-20, it’s less-integral to the function (read: having a mic that works as intended)

Again, just speculating

 

[k brown]

I read the post as not regarding DIY so much as why not more on the market; not more new designs/innovations in dynamics vs condensers.

My hunch is it's mostly disparate market demand - there'e simply a much greater demand for condensers. Once the SM-58 dominated the live sound market, there hasn't been nearly the interest in new ideas, etc., that there's been in studio condeners.

It's always surprised me that EV thought the demand for the RE15 had gotten so low that they dropped it and retained only the RE16 and it's various permutations. It's flat response from all angles, and deep rejection from behind, has never been beaten (show me another supercard that's that flat at 180 degrees). And with nearly zero proximity effect to boot.

The RE16 is less directional and has considerably less flat response.

 

[soapfoot]

Likely a similar cause!

There are scores of new condenser mic products, but virtually no new condenser mic technologies

The vast majority of these new products use K47 and K67 capsule variants, most bought even from the same suppliers in Asia

The R&D investment to devise a new moving-coil design is probably on par with the investment to devise a *truly* new condenser (capsule and all)

 

[OneRoomStudio]

All these responses make a lot of sense. I wonder why Beyerdynamic doesn't resurrect the M380 though, or why Sennheiser can't seem to make a comparable MD409 reissue. Even without any new development, surely these companies would be able to reproduce their previous work...yet they don't (or can't). Is it really that much harder to recreate an accurate moving-coil capsule than it is to recreate a K67?

 

[k brown]

All these responses make a lot of sense. I wonder why Beyerdynamic doesn't resurrect the M380 though, or why Sennheiser can't seem to make a comparable MD409 reissue. Even without any new development, surely these companies would be able to reproduce their previous work...yet they don't (or can't). Is it really that much harder to recreate an accurate moving-coil capsule than it is to recreate a K67?

Indeed - look how long it took Neumann to (sort of) reissue the M 49 and M 50.

 

[OneRoomStudio]

Indeed - look how long it took Neumann to (sort of) reissue the M 49 and M 50.

Fair, although clones (of various quality) of both had been around for a long time before Neumann decided to "reissue" them. Nobody else has seemed to have picked up the mantle for dynamics, save for the Warm WA-19.

 

[emrr]

You have to remove the assumption that condenser clones are true to the originals. It's just not so, but there IS more margin and demand.

 

[soapfoot]

I’d love to see Beyer bring out a reissue M380

And from a layperson’s standpoint, I see no reason it shouldn’t be possible in that specific case

The M380 is a bidirectional, single-pattern moving coil with (I believe?) a headphone driver as mic element.

Its vintage value has gotten up there, so I imagine it could be made profitably

 

[KrIVIUM2323]

Is there any parts in some of this dynamics mic which doesn't follow ROHS? I wonder if it's not the reason why there is not this much reissue of 'classics'.

 

[Microphoniste]

My 2 cents… condenser mics have the reputation to be the way to go… now that noise floor is not that much of an issue anymore, people could jump back on the train of traditional mics.
Condenser mics are supposed to be the thing. It needs some time to “redesign thinking processes” and trends. As a student I was told that a famous french production sound mixer used to work with Beyer mics that were directly soldered on the used cables…

 

[jeremynothman]

I think that maybe people don't want to give out that much money for dynamic mics. Also, they often have long life-spans, so there aren't so many people purchasing the more expensive models. SE are now selling a lot of dynamics for live use, competing with Shure and Sennheiser for that market, but for the most part, they keep their prices down. Not many companies try to play in the sub 1K field for a dynamic - the RE20 and MD441 are two of the only contenders, and given that there are so many quite high quality condensers for a cheap price, I totally understand why.

For the most part, condensers have a reputation as being superior (whether that is true or not), so except for on-stage use, they are usually taking precedent. The Beyerdynamic M-380 seems like a surprise though, especially as the company have reissued a bunch of mics. I know plenty of people who really like this mic for kick or bass.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

All these responses make a lot of sense. I wonder why Beyerdynamic doesn't resurrect the M380 though, or why Sennheiser can't seem to make a comparable MD409 reissue.

Similarly, you could ask why AKG haven't reissued the D12 and its siblings.
The reason is that it was very labour extensive and has proved to be unreliable in the long term, mainly because of the suspension sagging.
Re-issuing a product without solving known issues is a bad idea. In most cases, re-issuing with solving issues results in a product that's too different from the original that it desreves to be named differently.
Then, it is tempting for the mktg dept to announce it as a completely new product, painstakingly designed, with thousands of man-hours in R&D, and using the latest computer-aided whatever and materials designed by NASA.

 

[soapfoot]

A thing I've noticed with high-end "NY Style" pizza in Los Angeles: the chefs can't seem to resist making "improvements" like using premium ingredients, and what they end up with doesn't really scratch the itch anymore

Musical instrument and music tech companies can sometimes fall into the same trap

The D12 was always flawed and fragile--and somehow everyone fell in love with it, anyway. I'd buy a 100% faithful repro--even if sold with an unprecedented non-warranty caveat-emptor model--before I'd buy an "improved" version. Because it's the actual thing I want.

The Gibson Les Paul had a design flaw that caused headstocks to break off if you looked at them funny (brittle mahogany, truss-rod cutout too close to the edge). Gibson fixed this with a 3-piece maple neck and a volute... and the players revolted. They wanted their fragile, easily-broken headstocks back, thank you very much, so Gibson has since the late-1980s given them what they want.

They still complain about the headstocks breaking, but they sure buy a lot more of them...

 

[panman]

Similarly, you could ask why AKG haven't reissued the D12 and its siblings.
The reason is that it was very labour extensive and has proved to be unreliable in the long term, mainly because of the suspension sagging.
Re-issuing a product without solving known issues is a bad idea. In most cases, re-issuing with solving issues results in a product that's too different from the original that it desreves to be named differently.
Then, it is tempting for the mktg dept to announce it as a completely new product, painstakingly designed, with thousands of man-hours in R&D, and using the latest computer-aided whatever and materials designed by NASA.

This has never occured to me, but I think you have hit a point here.
Somebody mentioned before the WA19. I of course was curious about it and the price is really cheap too, so I got one for me to test it. Well, it looks very close to D19C, but the sound is not the same. D19 B and D19C sound slightly different and WA19 is closer to D19B, but not quite there either. Yet, it resembles the D19-family sound. What counts for me, the WA is lacking bass in comparison to D19B,C and WA19 had some not so nice bleed during my so far limited testing. I need to do more of course, but I did not have the time yet. Obviously some corners were cut to achieve such a cheap price. At some point I intend to take it apart to see, what is different. Anyway, not a bad mic for that price.

 

[Microphoniste]

This has never occured to me, but I think you have hit a point here.
Somebody mentioned before the WA19. I of course was curious about it and the price is really cheap too, so I got one for me to test it. Well, it looks very close to D19C, but the sound is not the same. D19 B and D19C sound slightly different and WA19 is closer to D19B, but not quite there either. Yet, it resembles the D19-family sound. What counts for me, the WA is lacking bass in comparison to D19B,C and WA19 had some not so nice bleed during my so far limited testing. I need to do more of course, but I did not have the time yet. Obviously some corners were cut to achieve such a cheap price. At some point I intend to take it apart to see, what is different. Anyway, not a bad mic for that price.

Oh yes please share your pictures!

 

[brucega]

I read the post as not regarding DIY so much as why not more on the market; not more new designs/innovations in dynamics vs condensers.

My hunch is it's mostly disparate market demand - there'e simply a much greater demand for condensers. Once the SM-58 dominated the live sound market, there hasn't been nearly the interest in new ideas, etc., that there's been in studio condeners.

It's always surprised me that EV thought the demand for the RE15 had gotten so low that they dropped it and retained only the RE16 and it's various permutations. It's flat response from all angles, and deep rejection from behind, has never been beaten (show me another supercard that's that flat at 180 degrees). And with nearly zero proximity effect to boot.

The RE16 is less directional and has considerably less flat response.

I still have (and use) two RE 16s I bought in the late '60s or early '70s. Not sure why I got them instead of the 15s, but they have been great.

I also have a pair of akg c1000s condensers which people say are awful sounding. I think they are the first gen ones. One needs a repair, but I mostly do IT work, so it's not been urgent to get it fixed (if I an e en get it repaired).

 

[MicMaven]

For the most part, condensers have a reputation as being superior (whether that is true or not), so except for on-stage use, they are usually taking precedent.

We may be missing the big elephant in the other room. It is all about MARKETING and what the traffic will bear.

Legions of self appointed YouTube experts universally tout "studio grade" condenser microphones as "best" for practically every use imaginable. Labeling anything "professional" and "studio grade" has more sales panache. So-called "influencers" tout condensers as more professional and superior to dopey old dynamic microphones, which are perceived as unprofessional and relegated to stage and utility work like sining in a band or announcing a sporting event. How plebian ...

The market is driven by manufacturers, consumers, a hoard of self-proclaimed YouTube product reviewers claiming condenser microphones are "best" for all sorts of applications - like we can all be voice over artists earning six figures in our bedrooms or foam lined closets.

The lure of "best" and "studio grade" drives the market. Nobody wants an "amateur" grade anything. Shoot, practically EVERYTHING is labeled "Professional" these days - to the point where it no longer signifies high quality or high performance. Some of us may recall a toothless commercial dish washer proclaiming, "Professional speaking, Ajax for dishes is ..."

There is a similar trend in other applications, including, without lmitation, computer speech recognition and amateur radio. Even when dynamic microphones are most appropriate, equipment vendors promote the most expensive "professional studio" or "broadcast" quality dynamic microphones as "best" because it drives sales with higher margins. For example, since the late 1990s, many speech recognition equipment vendors claim the $500 Sennheiser MD 431II is the best, and "most accurate" microphone for speech recognition - notwithstanding the software programmers say otherwise. Similarly, Bob Heil (K9EID SK) owned HEIL Sound and sold a lot of very expensive "studio grade broadcast" microphones to amateur radio operators with the pitch, "It all starts with at microphone." notwithstanding these applications use a mere 2700 Hz of audio and RF frequency bandwidth! Shoot, practically ANY microphone more than $15 is sufficiently linear and accurate from 300 to 3000 Hz!

Parenthetically, I previously indicated MY preference for dynamic microphones in various applications. I find dynamic microphones easier to close-talk, rejecting (ignoring) ambient environmental noise, while condensers tend to capture more ambient noise - you know the old phrase, "condensers can hear a gnat sneeze across the room." Dynamic microphones are often better at rejecting (ignoring) unwanted noise, for example, equipment cooling fans, marauding grandchildren, barking dogs, and especially, wives issuing orders from a 3-year old To-Do List like an Army Drill Sergeant! Nobody wants any of THAT in a recording or on the air from a ham transceiver!

Simply put, condensers are PERCEIVED as more sexy, exciting, "better" and more "professional" which drives demand compared to dynamic types.

And that is just my best wild Alex guess (WAG.) Your mileage may differ. James

 

[mrchapp]

The sheer number of condenser microphone companies, projects, and clones out there is dizzying, but I'm always struck by how few high quality dynamic mics there are outside of the half-a-dozen big names (i.e. Shure, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic, ElectroVoice, AudioTechnica, Audix, etc.), and even those companies are generally producing mics that aren't as well liked as their older models. What gives?

[...] What makes these so difficult to reproduce? [...]

I was thinking about this very subject earlier this week, but more from a DIY perspective, and found this old thread and a few other resources online. It seems that it boils down to the capsule and the body, and because the body is hard to machine and the capsules, well, are sold as they are, then there's little that can be done about it.

I'm still interested in the DIY aspect of it and would like to explore more in case anyone has any good pointers.