Favorite mic kit - MicandMod, AMI, Micparts.com, BeesNeez, other?

[MasterEvan07]

Where's the fun in that?

I remember having more work with trying to figure out how to fit everything in the PSU enclosure than with the PCB and wiring itself. They're relatively simple circuits and require less attention to detail than what's inside the mic itself.

What’re your thoughts on the design of the power supply and its impact on tonality?

I know in guitar amps the PS significantly effects feel and response, but that’s a much more dynamic system than a mic, so I’m curious how it informs a microphone.

 

[My3gger]

Diy microphones seem to be really hot lately, when checking latest posts a few days ago almost all were about various mics.
Psu for tube mics normally requires very low power making filtering much easier, most have simple RC filters for filtering out ripple. Unlike push pull guitar amps, mics are in class a drawing the same power so they don't sag or "react" with competently designed supplies. DIY section of Gyraf Audio have really good, easy to understand explanation of various classic mics we build most often, info is under G7 microphone project (sounds very good if made with good material!).

 

[MasterEvan07]

Diy microphones seem to be really hot lately, when checking latest posts a few days ago almost all were about various mics.
Psu for tube mics normally requires very low power making filtering much easier, most have simple RC filters for filtering out ripple. Unlike push pull guitar amps, mics are in class a drawing the same power so they don't sag or "react" with competently designed supplies. DIY section of Gyraf Audio have really good, easy to understand explanation of various classic mics we build most often, info is under G7 microphone project (sounds very good if made with good material!).

You'd certainly know what's more popular around here than I. For me, it's purely coincidental as I found this place because I was getting into building more mics and it was a place where there were people doing the same - first forum I've found for that (not that I've looked terrible hard, though).

Thanks for the Gyraf Audio direction - I'll certainly do some reading there and further educate myself.

My primary hesitation, if it's even that, is I have no point of reference or access to those points of reference on the mics I build. I can only figure out which mics sound fun or interesting to build, or give me something I'm otherwise lacking, and go from there. In the end, if it sounds good in the DAW and helps facilitate capturing beautiful musical moments then it's a success and I can always compare and keep expanding from there.

 

[ElSmurf]

My primary hesitation, if it's even that, is I have no point of reference or access to those points of reference on the mics I build. I can only figure out which mics sound fun or interesting to build, or give me something I'm otherwise lacking, and go from there. In the end, if it sounds good in the DAW and helps facilitate capturing beautiful musical moments then it's a success and I can always compare and keep expanding from there.

My 2 cents : you'll know it in your gut. I initially built both Dany's D87 and D-EF47 with Chinese capsules. They were great sounding mics. But it was only after upgrading the capsules in both mics with the Arienne K87 and FlatK47, respectively, that there was a visceral recognition of the sound - a sound I'm familiar with from listening to music from the second half of the 20th century. IMHO the reason why cloning these classic mics is so popular is because their sonic signature is part of our collective consciousness. And I'm just using fancy words to describe the gut reaction you get when you hear it for yourself, there's an instant recognition and a feeling of familiarity to their sound - if all aspects of the build are done right of course.

 

[MasterEvan07]

It seems, from all my reading and inquiring, that I keep coming back to Dany's boards, Arienne's K47, and Moby's or AMI's BV08 to get it right...or as right as can be got.

@ElSmurf you description of that subconscious recognition of those sounds we all know and love being accessed with said build makes perfect sense to me...I spose I just need to grab the parts and make it happen. I like my "in-the-vein-of" ELAM251 build, but I can't say it struck any personal chord, so, the U47 calls to me...

 

[Roman Beilharz]

As I lately also had the U47-style sound calling me - an EU-customer of little DIY experience - I have just built this EF47 kit by Mic and Mod with the M7 option (and finally modded it with a Thiersch M7 red-line capsule, a Haufe BV08 transformer built to Andreas Grosser's specs, a Telefunken NOS tube and a relay for true cardioid switching):
U47 DIY Microphone Kit - Telefunken Neumann U47 Clone - Mic & Mod

Knowing that their offers, customs- and shipping-wise might be more attractive for other EU customers than for US- or other country's citizens, I can highly recommend the quality of the kit/mic as well as the overall experience: The web support was very helpful tracking down a VAT-related-error of the EU taxes API during checkout, shipping was quick, everything needed to get it done was included and neatly packed in protective packaging, the manual is pretty fool-safe and the company's discord support was extremely helpful during the modding process far beyond their duties to get the stock configuration done. Plus the included PSU is ready to go, already.

I also like the fact, that their instructions are freely available, so you kind of know before what you will have to do when you are new to DIY land like I am:
Downloads - Build Guides - Mic & Mod

The stock configuration with Replica Microphone M7 capsule, Replica Microphone "BV8" transformer and JJ EF806S tube sounds and works very good and gets irritatingly close to the sound of my final mod with the German brand parts mentioned above, which I wanted to put in to learn about potential differences - and because I was able to actually get (and pay) for them.

Listen to some standardized recordings* of the stock build vs. a variety of mods/builds (file names should be self explanatory) and of some other well known mic's for reference and judge for yourself:
Standardized_Mic_Demo_Rec

*here's how I made them:
A poor (wo)man's microphone measurement equipment

I prefer the satin/modern look of their body to the more vintage/original looking versions and the crucial 3-layer head basket is neatly constructed and sounds very good. Only the stock PSU needed some reworking, as the pattern switch started rotating freely plus I wanted "real" Neutrik sockets as the cheapos everyone seems to be using didn't even click when inserting an XLR cable. Ah well, and the power led solution is also a bit rickety. Not too much of a big deal, as I had to mod the PSU anyway for the relay switching. Btw. I ended up with a status LED indicating true cardioid mode (green) vs. multi-pattern-switch mode (blue). It's a NeOmann, obviously:

 

[ElSmurf]

@ElSmurf you description of that subconscious recognition of those sounds we all know and love being accessed with said build makes perfect sense to me...I spose I just need to grab the parts and make it happen. I like my "in-the-vein-of" ELAM251 build, but I can't say it struck any personal chord, so, the U47 calls to me...

When I finished my D87 and D-EF47 in their first iteration, with chinese capsules, I really liked the different flavors they brought compared to my V251. After installing Arienne's Flat K47 and K87 I was shocked by how lifeless the V251 sounded in comparison. I was using the D87 in a vocal session and switched to the V251 for recording a different song and both the vocalist and myself felt a visceral NOPE upon hearing the V251 signal come up in the headphones. A good capsule brings so much more engagement to the recording process - at least that was my big lesson from that day.

Here's hoping one of the upcoming CK12s will bring that magic without breaking the bank (or having to be shipped from the other side of the planet...)

 

[MasterEvan07]

When I finished my D87 and D-EF47 in their first iteration, with chinese capsules, I really liked the different flavors they brought compared to my V251. After installing Arienne's Flat K47 and K87 I was shocked by how lifeless the V251 sounded in comparison. I was using the D87 in a vocal session and switched to the V251 for recording a different song and both the vocalist and myself felt a visceral NOPE upon hearing the V251 signal come up in the headphones. A good capsule brings so much more engagement to the recording process - at least that was my big lesson from that day.

Here's hoping one of the upcoming CK12s will bring that magic without breaking the bank (or having to be shipped from the other side of the planet...)

Being a mic neophyte, I’m aware of but not informed about the 47, 87, and 12 capsules. I certainly gather by the frequency of reference that they’re peak examples of the era. How would you disambiguate them from each other?

 

[ElSmurf]

Being a mic neophyte, I’m aware of but not informed about the 47, 87, and 12 capsules. I certainly gather by the frequency of reference that they’re peak examples of the era. How would you disambiguate them from each other?

I'm hardly the most knowledgeable person on the forum to answer that question, but I'll give it a shot. The main differences between these capsules is their architecture, and the corresponding circuits that interface with them. This capsule-circuit combo is what gives each of them their signature sound. In the end what matters most is the quality and attention to detail that went into the manufacturing of any given capsule - much more than which kind of capsule you actually get - and how the following circuit translates the output of the capsule.

It's an abstract answer, because when discussing the actual sonic signatures of the different topologies, the conversation switches to personal preference and taste. For me personally it's more important to consider the synergy between all the elements that make up the signal that comes out of the mic - capsule, circuit, passive components, transistors or tubes and transformer - and make sure the weakest link in that chain is the highest quality possible for your budget. It's definitely a rabbit hole but the ultimate payoff is that you'll end up with one or several mics that have an engaging sound - a sound that will elicit "better" performances out of whomever is in front of it. And that's where the magic actually happens, IMHO.

 

[MasterEvan07]

I'm hardly the most knowledgeable person on the forum to answer that question, but I'll give it a shot. The main differences between these capsules is their architecture, and the corresponding circuits that interface with them. This capsule-circuit combo is what gives each of them their signature sound. In the end what matters most is the quality and attention to detail that went into the manufacturing of any given capsule - much more than which kind of capsule you actually get - and how the following circuit translates the output of the capsule.

It's an abstract answer, because when discussing the actual sonic signatures of the different topologies, the conversation switches to personal preference and taste. For me personally it's more important to consider the synergy between all the elements that make up the signal that comes out of the mic - capsule, circuit, passive components, transistors or tubes and transformer - and make sure the weakest link in that chain is the highest quality possible for your budget. It's definitely a rabbit hole but the ultimate payoff is that you'll end up with one or several mics that have an engaging sound - a sound that will elicit "better" performances out of whomever is in front of it. And that's where the magic actually happens, IMHO.

Great answer, totally relate the abstraction.

 

[MasterEvan07]

Looks like Mic&Mod is having a sale and throwing in free international shipping which would end up being a U47 build for roughly $775 USD without a capsule, which is fine since I have an Arienne on order.

That seems like a decent price all things considered with a premade PS and a good platform (?). By the time I add up all the costs to build one from scratch with everything from vintagemicrophonepcbkit.com as well as body, transformer, etc. I'd be looking at over $1K.

I'm willing to spend a little more to do it as right as I can do it, but I'm not opposed to saving money if I can get the same result using essentially the same platform...but I don't know if it is...?

Some perspective in this regard would be much appreciated.

 

[soliloqueen]

Looks like Mic&Mod is having a sale and throwing in free international shipping which would end up being a U47 build for roughly $775 USD without a capsule, which is fine since I have an Arienne on order.

That seems like a decent price all things considered with a premade PS and a good platform (?). By the time I add up all the costs to build one from scratch with everything from vintagemicrophonepcbkit.com as well as body, transformer, etc. I'd be looking at over $1K.

I'm willing to spend a little more to do it as right as I can do it, but I'm not opposed to saving money if I can get the same result using essentially the same platform...but I don't know if it is...?

Some perspective in this regard would be much appreciated.

I'm not sure there's much technically wrong with the M&M set, but they do actively lie about a lot. I remember recently, someone pointed out that their U87 "comparison" recordings are just the same recording twice with a slight HPF to make the waveform look different. They lie about part sources, kit details, etc extensively. That's why they're not very popular here. Opinions on GDIY about M&M tend to range from "I don't prefer them" at best to "They're scam artists" for good reason.

 

[ElSmurf]

I'm willing to spend a little more to do it as right as I can do it, but I'm not opposed to saving money if I can get the same result using essentially the same platform...but I don't know if it is...?

You can also look at it this way : if you do spend $1K, you'd have a mic you'd pay at least $3-4K for a decent commercially available clone. A Telefunken U47 will set you back $8K, and I don't even want to know what a decent vintage Neumann will go for. And in the end, sonically they will all be in the same ball park, especially if you get a good capsule (which you already ordered,) a decent body and a good transformer.

 

[HerbertR]

I'm not sure there's much technically wrong with the M&M set, but they do actively lie about a lot. I remember recently, someone pointed out that their U87 "comparison" recordings are just the same recording twice with a slight HPF to make the waveform look different. They lie about part sources, kit details, etc extensively. That's why they're not very popular here. Opinions on GDIY about M&M tend to range from "I don't prefer them" at best to "They're scam artists" for good reason.

Not my opinion I've built far over 100 19" modules, 500 modules and mics... I think I must have used a ton weight of Audio parts, materials, cases.... Almost all major designs I have been built by now for myself. And yes, I've tried a few kit suppliers too. Like AML, Capi and M&M among others. And no, there is nothing wrong with the quality from them. No ripp off to customers. That my neutral opinion - not fair to say that about them....

It's hard to make better mics at this price point. Try it. In fact, their mics outperform most mics twice or more the price. Test their 47Fet Style or C12 Mics. Or the U67 Style with the moddified FB circuit, fantastic. By upgrading some components these mics are surprisingly good, definitely in the upper range then. Personally I think it's unfair to compare a Grosser or Telefunken as a reference with a price 15 times higher. By the way, I don't like all designs like Grosser's VF14 Fet Circuit. It will never sound like a 47 tube and costs an arm and leg. Any Archuts Dual 408A circuit sounds much closer to a good original Tube47 than this super expensive replacement circuit.
Honestly, it's more of a moral question how to commercialize designs and knowledge from other colleagues. The same goes for almost EVERY audio manufacturer out there who uses the circuit knowledge, the engineering knowledge,.... of Neumann, AKG, Neve, SSL, API, Fairchild.... commercially....and never paid any cent to them. You need names? You can write nearly every Audio Manufacture here under the thread...And that's another story. ...just my opinion about stealing - my 50 cents....

 

[soliloqueen]

Not my opinion I've built far over 100 19" modules, 500 modules and mics... I think I must have used a ton weight of Audio parts, materials, cases.... Almost all major designs I have been built by now for myself. And yes, I've tried a few kit suppliers too. Like AML, Capi and M&M among others. And no, there is nothing wrong with the quality from them. No ripp off to customers. That my neutral opinion - not fair to say that about them....

It's hard to make better mics at this price point. Try it. In fact, their mics outperform most mics twice or more the price. Test their 47Fet Style or C12 Mics. Or the U67 Style with the moddified FB circuit, fantastic. By upgrading some components these mics are surprisingly good, definitely in the upper range then. Personally I think it's unfair to compare a Grosser or Telefunken as a reference with a price 15 times higher. By the way, I don't like all designs like Grosser's VF14 Fet Circuit. It will never sound like a 47 tube and costs an arm and leg. Any Archuts Dual 408A circuit sounds much closer to a good original Tube47 than this super expensive replacement circuit.
Honestly, it's more of a moral question how to commercialize designs and knowledge from other colleagues. The same goes for almost EVERY audio manufacturer out there who uses the circuit knowledge, the engineering knowledge,.... of Neumann, AKG, Neve, SSL, API, Fairchild.... commercially....and never paid any cent to them. You need names? You can write nearly every Audio Manufacture here under the thread...And that's another story. ...just my opinion about stealing - my 50 cents....

I don't disagree necessarily, but the quality of their kits doesn't change the fact that they actively lie and mislead. That's something that should be considered, whether you want to support something like that ethically or pay a little more to someone honest even if it's for the exact same thing. That's why I brought it up. Other companies may use engineering knowledge, but the good ones don't lie and say stuff is from Europe, or make fake comparison recordings, or mislead on what circuits are used.

 

[HerbertR]

I don't disagree necessarily, but the quality of their kits doesn't change the fact that they actively lie and mislead. That's something that should be considered, whether you want to support something like that ethically or pay a little more to someone honest even if it's for the exact same thing. That's why I brought it up. Other companies may use engineering knowledge, but the good ones don't lie and say stuff is from Europe, or make fake comparison recordings, or mislead on what circuits are used.

It's difficult to get proof. If you've studied their building instructions, they'll be clear and they are all honest imo. As an example their U67 clearly states that they use a different FB circuit, nothing wrong - they use a different transformer.

The audio samples recorded in parallel have different audible transients, so I can't spot any fakes. I got what I bought and at an excellent price. My C12 mics sound as expected. I upgraded them with a matched pair of GE 6072A 5 Stars and now the mids are stunning. The highs are brilliant. I would not change to an original old C12. Sorry. These mics are a very good starting point.

The price? You can easily calculate your own microphone:

-A HQ STY5 67/87 microphone body from Asia with a shock mount costs at least 200 USD plus import fees

-An adequate K67 like Dachmann's about 150 USD

-Transformer at least 80 USD or much more...

-6072 /12ay7 tube + microphone components, PCB boards from Poctop, at least about 150 euros

-Cable 7pin as from Thomann for about 20 USD

-Power supply - as an example an SCT2000 power supply / housing and new circuit board /parts for conversion....100 euros....

Hard to beat, defintly no ripp off. As said - a question of moral. Valid for everyone, including mine, since I'm too greedy to buy original equipment myself and prefer to build cheap ones myself....Guilty

 

[soliloqueen]

The audio samples recorded in parallel have different audible transients

No, they don't. At least not for the 87. They're the same recording at slightly different volumes with a slight filter.
Here's "Mic A"

And "Mic B"


They null if they're gain matched, but gain matching them is hard as it seems to be an intentionally random difference in gain that's difficult to replicate. Even with these changes, they null to over -50dB when gain matched as close as I can, with one inverted. That's impossible for 2 different recordings. That, and there's obviously no stereo image when they're played LR. If this is a "mistake," it's quite the mistake in one of their most important audio comparisons for them to leave up for years.

The proof isn't difficult, it's extremely easy actually.

Let's take a look at some of their other "comparisons." Maybe it's just a fluke!


Obviously the same recording, but the waveform has been altered slightly. Let's delta it with (rough) gain matching:
View attachment c12 diff.wav

They put a light expander over one. Is that your "difference in transients?"

Once is a fluke, but now we have pretty irrefutable evidence of intentional tampering. You see why people's faith in them is relatively low?

 

[HerbertR]

"They put a light expander over one. Is that your "difference in transients?""

The "remained" Audio File sounds exactly when I "phase extinguish" due a fast check new Mics or Equipment for a correct phase, or also for properly matching of a new pair of Equipment. Generally only "long Wavelength" Material will extinguish when the Phase of one Source is added inverted in "real analog" life. Only unmatched, minimal runtime differences... ..from short Wavelengs remain, like in your example. IMO and experience the File sounds more similar like a "inverted Phase distingushed" comparison of a Mic with an other Mic of the same Line like C414 with a C3000 or so. Not like the same mic and stacked with the same excited, HP...added Audiofile. Try it on your mixer with two different "in phase" Mics. In the digital realm I would estimate a stronger extinguishing if it is the same source. More "algorithmic" artefacts would remain in my opinion. I always build two pieces of gear that go as close matched together as well as possible using this method. This is in my opinion and I have no prove. Exciter, Hp.. I am not sure but I think its very far-fetched. This would also make no real sense for me.

 

[soliloqueen]

"They put a light expander over one. Is that your "difference in transients?""

The "remained" Audio File sounds exactly when I "phase extinguish" due a fast check new Mics or Equipment for a correct phase, or also for properly matching of a new pair of Equipment. Generally only "long Wavelength" Material will extinguish when the Phase of one Source is added inverted in "real analog" life. Only unmatched, minimal runtime differences... ..from short Wavelengs remain, like in your example. IMO and experience the File sounds more similar like a "inverted Phase distingushed" comparison of a Mic with an other Mic of the same Line like C414 with a C3000 or so. Not like the same mic and stacked with the same excited, HP...added Audiofile. Try it on your mixer with two different "in phase" Mics. In the digital realm I would estimate a stronger extinguishing if it is the same source. More "algorithmic" artefacts would remain in my opinion. I always build two pieces of gear that go as close matched together as well as possible using this method. This is in my opinion and I have no prove. Exciter, Hp.. I am not sure but I think its very far-fetched. This would also make no real sense for me.

This is just not true. Examine it mid side. Listen to the two tracks in stereo. There's audible mono reverb behind the transient differences caused by compression. There is no true stereo field. This is obvious on any kind of stereo field or phase meter. The differences between the files are clearly added intentionally. I can literally hear the attack and release of the expander they put on one of the files (or compressor they put over the other). It doesn't sound anything like 2 similar mics cancelling due to distance related phase at all. there is no or little frequency based cancellation, it's entirely dynamics.

My purpose here was to inform OP of a potential problem and I have done that, so I'm going to leave now.

 

[HerbertR]

This is just not true. Examine it mid side. Listen to the two tracks in stereo. There's audible mono reverb behind the transient differences caused by compression. There is no true stereo field. This is obvious on any kind of stereo field or phase meter. The differences between the files are clearly added intentionally. I can literally hear the attack and release of the expander they put on one of the files (or compressor they put over the other). It doesn't sound anything like 2 similar mics cancelling due to distance related phase at all. there is no or little frequency based cancellation, it's entirely dynamics.

My purpose here was to inform OP of a potential problem and I have done that, so I'm going to leave now.

The audible mono behind causes from " non distingushed " content from two different sources. I recommend to adjust yourself it with two mics in the studio. As explained. It is physics, not more.....
I am also leaving this discussion because it is now off topic and one-sided, not helpfully anymore. I can no longer see an overall full lightening objectivity here. It only aims at one not full provable point and does not illuminate the rest. My opinion and peace