Saw this in another place and thought I’d repost. It’s a video by Vanguard Audio highlighting some of the choices they made when designing one of their tube mics. Has some moments of interest for DIY mic design, including capacitor shootouts (Solen vs Auricap, Silmic vs Muse).
Interesting Vanguard Audio video
- Thread starter Dylan W
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
rock soderstrom
Tour de France
Yes, there are interesting tests in this video. I like the comparison of the different anode voltages, which is in line with my tests.It's also interesting to hear where you can't hear (almost?) any differences.
rock soderstrom
Tour de France
that would be a good subtitle for your first book
Rant warning!
Issue #1
Why not show example with two stock NOS tubes before comparing the NOS to EHX one. Spoiler, because the mics sound different to begin with.
Issue #2
Why isn't the tube re-biased for lower vs higher voltage. So we just ignore cathode resistor? What does this do to the tube output impedance? We are talking about voltage without mentioning the current? We want to talk electronics without talking electronics for subjectivity sake? Why omit this also changes the capsule polarization voltage? So are you just changing the gain of the tube? What about noise? That serious nerd stuff he fails to mention is exactly what matters! This is not plate voltage change, this is intentional un-biasing of the tube, and has nothing to do with absolute plate voltage.
You can start messing with any component in any circuit, and see if it kills you, or the gear, or if it gives you interresting results.
Long live cucumbers and Sylvia Massy!
Issue #3
Is it difficult to add a resistor to simulate mic load in plate voltage part?
Issue #4
No point shooting out two caps of same value if the mics sound different to begin with.
Conclusion.
Either by listening, or doing analysis in a DAW of the audio material in the video, the mics have obviously differently sounding capsules. The difference is predominantly in the high end, and renders the video useless and misleading. I don't think Vanguard does this on purpose, to me it seems they genuinely don't understand how microphones work. Every time i think, here he comes with the explanation, out comes -''without going into nitty gritty'', or ''i'm oversimplifying''. Convenient...
This video is the perfect example why you should buy gear from reputable manufacturers, and why many ''boutique'' and similar brands often stand for ''i have no idea what i'm doing, but i have a story to back it up''. I'm not surprised they cryo treat components and ''hear'' the results.
Just in case someone chimes in with a claim the capsules are matched, i would like to see a certificate, matched capsules always come with a certificate.
Issue #1
Why not show example with two stock NOS tubes before comparing the NOS to EHX one. Spoiler, because the mics sound different to begin with.
Issue #2
Why isn't the tube re-biased for lower vs higher voltage. So we just ignore cathode resistor? What does this do to the tube output impedance? We are talking about voltage without mentioning the current? We want to talk electronics without talking electronics for subjectivity sake? Why omit this also changes the capsule polarization voltage? So are you just changing the gain of the tube? What about noise? That serious nerd stuff he fails to mention is exactly what matters! This is not plate voltage change, this is intentional un-biasing of the tube, and has nothing to do with absolute plate voltage.
You can start messing with any component in any circuit, and see if it kills you, or the gear, or if it gives you interresting results.
Long live cucumbers and Sylvia Massy!
Issue #3
Is it difficult to add a resistor to simulate mic load in plate voltage part?
Issue #4
No point shooting out two caps of same value if the mics sound different to begin with.
Conclusion.
Either by listening, or doing analysis in a DAW of the audio material in the video, the mics have obviously differently sounding capsules. The difference is predominantly in the high end, and renders the video useless and misleading. I don't think Vanguard does this on purpose, to me it seems they genuinely don't understand how microphones work. Every time i think, here he comes with the explanation, out comes -''without going into nitty gritty'', or ''i'm oversimplifying''. Convenient...
This video is the perfect example why you should buy gear from reputable manufacturers, and why many ''boutique'' and similar brands often stand for ''i have no idea what i'm doing, but i have a story to back it up''. I'm not surprised they cryo treat components and ''hear'' the results.
Just in case someone chimes in with a claim the capsules are matched, i would like to see a certificate, matched capsules always come with a certificate.
Last edited:
KrIVIUM2323
Well-known member
'provocative mode on' :
Have you seen this one?
Have you seen this one?
'provocative mode on' :
Have you seen this one?
This is, on the other hand, totally cool imho. He doesn't pretend to be an expert, nor does he sell a product. Being basically a noob he did manage to test and adress decently quite a few aspects "gurus" often avoid or omitt.
Yet manufacturers often conveniently omitt stuff, so it's difficult to come to any conclusions. This video shows bigtime incompetence, and even if the "subjectivity" is the measure, this is not the way to select component values or type.
Not to mention selecting a random tube, throwing off bias of that specific tube, and basing the whole line of mics on that value expecting every tube in serial production to behave the same way. That is exactly why middle of the road values are selected so they fit large number of different tubes. But that’s not something i should explain to you, i'm just rambling.
pasarski
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 412
The video is flawed in many ways, but I think it actually shows nicely how easy it is to design a tube microphone. The differences are miniscule. To quote a member @bockaudio from a Tape Op interview: "There is no simple FET circuit that works perfectly — not like a tube where you can throw a triode on a good capsule and you've got a halfway decent mic."
Speaking of boutique vs. reputable manufacturers, I can relate to what @kingkorg is saying. I have had 10x more trouble with boutique gear than big brand gear (even cheap). But I still have sympathy for the boutique manufacturers. The reputable brands also use questionable marketing methods. Also, they have been mostly interested on improving the specs and that's not what have pleased all audio engineers (the only self claimed engineering title, "audio artist" could fit better ).
Some boutique manufacturers on the other hand have managed to produce some well respected gear without the specs oriented engineering. Groove Tubes comes to mind, as well as the before mentioned Bock. On the other hand it could be said that these guys actually know what they're doing, regardless of lacking the formal education and the big companie's r&d muscle.
It's clear that that's not always the case, but some people selling stuff that some people like, marketing it with BS and making a living out of it doesn't seem totally wrong to me. Especially when the BS is not itentional, but more a product of enthusiasism combined with lack of knowledge, rather than intention to decieve people. Calling the BS is also totally fine, respectable actually because it saves peoples hard earned money.
The other video is wonderful IMO. I think he should start to sell the soda can elam
Speaking of boutique vs. reputable manufacturers, I can relate to what @kingkorg is saying. I have had 10x more trouble with boutique gear than big brand gear (even cheap). But I still have sympathy for the boutique manufacturers. The reputable brands also use questionable marketing methods. Also, they have been mostly interested on improving the specs and that's not what have pleased all audio engineers (the only self claimed engineering title, "audio artist" could fit better ).
Some boutique manufacturers on the other hand have managed to produce some well respected gear without the specs oriented engineering. Groove Tubes comes to mind, as well as the before mentioned Bock. On the other hand it could be said that these guys actually know what they're doing, regardless of lacking the formal education and the big companie's r&d muscle.
It's clear that that's not always the case, but some people selling stuff that some people like, marketing it with BS and making a living out of it doesn't seem totally wrong to me. Especially when the BS is not itentional, but more a product of enthusiasism combined with lack of knowledge, rather than intention to decieve people. Calling the BS is also totally fine, respectable actually because it saves peoples hard earned money.
The other video is wonderful IMO. I think he should start to sell the soda can elam
I should have said some boutique manufacturers! I'll correct that!The video is flawed in many ways, but I think it actually shows nicely how easy it is to design a tube microphone. The differences are miniscule. To quote a member @bockaudio from a Tape Op interview: "There is no simple FET circuit that works perfectly — not like a tube where you can throw a triode on a good capsule and you've got a halfway decent mic."
Speaking of boutique vs. reputable manufacturers, I can relate to what @kingkorg is saying. I have had 10x more trouble with boutique gear than big brand gear (even cheap). But I still have sympathy for the boutique manufacturers. The reputable brands also use questionable marketing methods. Also, they have been mostly interested on improving the specs and that's not what have pleased all audio engineers (the only self claimed engineering title, "audio artist" could fit better ).
Some boutique manufacturers on the other hand have managed to produce some well respected gear without the specs oriented engineering. Groove Tubes comes to mind, as well as the before mentioned Bock. On the other hand it could be said that these guys actually know what they're doing, regardless of lacking the formal education and the big companie's r&d muscle.
It's clear that that's not always the case, but some people selling stuff that some people like, marketing it with BS and making a living out of it doesn't seem totally wrong to me. Especially when the BS is not itentional, but more a product of enthusiasism combined with lack of knowledge, rather than intention to decieve people. Calling the BS is also totally fine, respectable actually because it saves peoples hard earned money.
The other video is wonderful IMO. I think he should start to sell the soda can elam
Until now i had just iFet out of all @bockaudio mics on my bench. That mic is worth every peny, and is a prime example how things should be done. In every sense. Even though couple of usual "tricks" were used in this mic, and it was actually faulty, not due to user's error, i would still give 10/10 mark to that mic.
I have to suspect that the BS is usually quite intentional. Maybe not at the outset, when people are getting into things they don't really understand and getting in over their heads, but by the time they're established and have a varied product line, I'll bet they know better. Somewhere along the line, someone explained to them how their uncontrolled methodology was wrong and their products were mis-designed and/or oversold, and their vaunted premium parts don't matter to the extent they say they do, or in the ways they say they do... and how they should get real, competent engineers to design actually better stuff, or lower their prices because their stuff isn't special enough to justify their premium prices.
Instead they chose to continue to hype mediocre products, and basically rip people off, because it beats finding an actually useful way to make a living. IMO that's understandable, given human nature, but it's really not OK.
(And of course I'm not talking about all boutique manufacturers. Some of them obviously work hard to justify their prices with actually premium products. Others pretty clearly don't.)
pasarski
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 412
Well, yeah, might be intentional. I tend to trust people little too much sometimes.
amplexus
Well-known member
Does Vanguard really fall into the “boutique” category?
Price wise they are actually very accessible and they do sound very good, and internally the build quality and component quality is very good also. I’ve been inside a couple (including my own V44s) and it’s just a good solidly built mic for the price, marketing aside. I don’t know that a $1200, very good sounding stereo FET mic filled with garden variety WIMAs is something I’d call boutique even if they do the silly marketing videos about it.
Contrast that against a 10k modern “Telefunken” that feels like nothing but hype when you open it up….
Price wise they are actually very accessible and they do sound very good, and internally the build quality and component quality is very good also. I’ve been inside a couple (including my own V44s) and it’s just a good solidly built mic for the price, marketing aside. I don’t know that a $1200, very good sounding stereo FET mic filled with garden variety WIMAs is something I’d call boutique even if they do the silly marketing videos about it.
Contrast that against a 10k modern “Telefunken” that feels like nothing but hype when you open it up….
I still can't figure out why "Telefunken" wasn't shamed out of business when they first hit the scene selling a $230 Nady mic for $1400. I know this is ancient history, but I haven't forgotten. I guess the name they purchased still means too much for people to let them go.
When someone buys magic beans that are shown to be from the supermarket, there are two ways to react. You can either admit that you were conned and take the hit to your wallet and ego, or you can double-down and look for reasons why the beans are indeed still magic despite being from aisle 3. The former makes you a sucker while the latter puts you in the category of the elite who can sense magic that ordinary people can't.
When someone buys magic beans that are shown to be from the supermarket, there are two ways to react. You can either admit that you were conned and take the hit to your wallet and ego, or you can double-down and look for reasons why the beans are indeed still magic despite being from aisle 3. The former makes you a sucker while the latter puts you in the category of the elite who can sense magic that ordinary people can't.
amplexus
Well-known member
TBH that surprised me too- that was so early on in their venture, and it was widely spread in the community, and it was SO egregious, it should have sunk them. I don't recall they ever officially explained it or apologized, they just released the M16 "mk2" which was supposed to be a completely revised design.
And now seemingly everyone has forgotten and all the 'fancy' studios want to fork over $10k+++ for poorly built PTP mics with a dozen parts, generic offshore power supplies and spotty QC just to have that shiny Telefunken logo in front of a singer's face.
I certainly haven't forgotten and nothing I've seen in the half dozen modern ones I've been in suggests they're not still grifting everyone.
Vanguard might be in the same kinda marketing trap- but at the end of the day they're building solid mics that perform well for a reasonable price and aren't just rebranded offshore units with a few mods.
Tim Campbell
Well-known member
Well their top of the line stereo mic is 9000 USD at vintage king
Lack of knowledge, and it's really hard to convince people otherwise when large brand as Telefunken claims something.
I've been caught up in all sorts of discussions providing every possible proof of foul play by many manufacturers, and most of the time it is nearly impossible to convince people otherwise if they have previous biases and convictions.
Barry Hufker
Well-known member
From the vintage king site:
“Vanguard Audio Labs did not set out to make a “clone”, “homage”, or “tribute” to one of the most hallowed stereo microphones of all time. Rather, they used the basic circuit topology and improved upon it in as many ways as they could…”
They may not have set out to make one but they essentially did, just making their idea of an “improved” AKG C24…
“Vanguard Audio Labs did not set out to make a “clone”, “homage”, or “tribute” to one of the most hallowed stereo microphones of all time. Rather, they used the basic circuit topology and improved upon it in as many ways as they could…”
They may not have set out to make one but they essentially did, just making their idea of an “improved” AKG C24…
Similar threads
