MBHO CK12 Capsule--KA1000N and KA1100?
- Thread starter C12VR
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
The capsule I have is brighter variant, just the way I like it. Modern sounding, mix ready, i just cut lows and vocals just shine without being sibilant. However since Tim can tune it anyway you like it, and more tamed ones seem to be more popular, I decided to remove the measurement of mine simply because I don't want people to judge the capsule purely based on this measurement.
There is something immeasurable about CK12 capsules. Simply because the fact that frequency response says so little about the sound of this particular model.
With a lot of capsules you can simply apply EQ curve that matches two very different models and if they measure the same, they will sound indistinguishable from each other.
However this is not true for CK12 capsules. If you match the responses of say k67 to CK12 at 30cm distance they will most likely sound very close. However if you test them at 50cm distance using the same equalization they will suddenly sound very different.
My best guess the reason for this is the unique way CK12 is constructed, and how it renders 3D space sound field into simple mono signal. This is very well described in Shure document which shows differences between onesided capsules of thinner profile vs thicker dual side capsules and how they render 3D sound field differently even if the frequency response is identical.
This is also the reason why CK12 can be very bright without being sibilant. Or tuned to sound dark, but still not "harsh" when HF is boosted with an eq. Hence the phrase "it takes eq very well".
Just got the MBHO and installed it into a poctop c12. It sounds good, but the trouble is that the polar patterns don't seem to line up. Every position acts like an omni except that what is wired to be the "backside" is a few dB louder". I confirmed this with a 1k test tone played at the same distance of about six inches away from the capsule. The PSU is putting out voltages for the polarization that seem correct, adjusting for meter loading, I'm using the connection scheme attached here, except that the MBHO makes the connection between the backplates at the capsule, i.e., they share a single wire. Since they get connected at the high impedance pins on the PCB anyway, I don't think this would matter. What am I doing wrong?
Last edited:
I am over the moon. I have used Flea 47's,49,12's and FET47's and even compared to my old Neumann M249 they are simply better.Never any issues nor RFI (I bought an ela m 251 from another company that was made shoddily n RFI that was dreadful).I found 2 days ago that Ivan n the lads at Flea have a new Ela M251 and my old brilliant friend Andreas Grosser helped w wiring making this unreal gorgeous mic better n Quieter than the Telefunken/AKG ELA M251.Ordered it.My mic locker is complete.And for live shows 3 DPA d:facto 4018's n 3 Neumann KMS 105's along w some old 58's,57's n 3 Josephson's.Flea mics are as good as it gets.Luckily I got most before the price increases but the price for my new Flea Ela M 251 is well below other 251 clone attempts.Ivan at Flea has always been lovely to my Son n myself & I have to thank he n the rest at Flexible Microphones for building my favourite vocal mic of all time.Flea M49 is a close 2nd their U47 n 12's are perfection.A brilliant way to start 2023.Cheers
Attachments
I know FR's not the whole picture, and all these graphs are very smoothed, but the observable trends are still significant. I did some more research, and realized that there are in fact many different versions of the CK12, the most commonly known types being the earlier shallow dish and later deep dish (referring to the depth of the recess in the screwed-in tuning disk). The earlier version has a noticeably flatter response in the presence around 4k-8k in comparison to the later type. This partly explains the difference between the early C12 FR plots that show a flat midrange and the Telefunken 251 plots that clearly show a large boost in the presence as well as the treble bump at 10k. I have complained perhaps unfairly about the Austrian Audio capsule, but I stand by the assertion that they should be clearer about what exactly they have done, which is to recreate the last version of the capsule found in the c12a and early 414. This is evident from both their target response curves and the fact that their little "whitepaper" type article on the CK12 clearly shows a 414 capsule with the telltale red enamel on the plastic rings and the 414 mounting yoke. And interestingly, though I can't say for certain given I haven't tried one, from the youtube clips it doesn't seem to have very much proximity effect. Is it possible this was designed-out or reduced in the amplifier?
With regard to the MBHO I now realize I may have erred in assuming the KA1000 and KA1100 are the same capsule. It is possible they use different tunings, even different construction, though unlikely. Their FR plots are different enough to give me pause; the deviation is more than is usual for pattern changes. Could also be that they switched the plots by mistake, given that the omnidirectional plot somehow measures more sub-bass (3-4db?!) than the cardioid. I also initially messed up reading the FR plot because I have shite eyesight and the graphs are tiny. the KA1000 looks a bit like the deep dish version (brighter) and the KA1100 looks like the good old C12 capsule we know and love. I messaged MBHO. I will report if they respond. Would explain why I'm not so fond of the KA1000 so far.
sorry for the info dump, but it may come in handy for people given that Tim Campbell is inaccessible rn and the other options are a little spurious. I can't wait for 3u to come up with their version. I hope Soliloqueen makes a version as well.
With regard to the MBHO I now realize I may have erred in assuming the KA1000 and KA1100 are the same capsule. It is possible they use different tunings, even different construction, though unlikely. Their FR plots are different enough to give me pause; the deviation is more than is usual for pattern changes. Could also be that they switched the plots by mistake, given that the omnidirectional plot somehow measures more sub-bass (3-4db?!) than the cardioid. I also initially messed up reading the FR plot because I have shite eyesight and the graphs are tiny. the KA1000 looks a bit like the deep dish version (brighter) and the KA1100 looks like the good old C12 capsule we know and love. I messaged MBHO. I will report if they respond. Would explain why I'm not so fond of the KA1000 so far.
sorry for the info dump, but it may come in handy for people given that Tim Campbell is inaccessible rn and the other options are a little spurious. I can't wait for 3u to come up with their version. I hope Soliloqueen makes a version as well.
Last edited:
This explains a lot, also in regards to several very different sounding recreations coming from various manufacturers. Thanks!
My biggest wonder regarding the modern recreations is whether they achieve the same parameters as the original CK12, namely the off-axis rejection @180 and proximity effect. Nobody has explained precisely what determines these, and from listening to samples it seems like each capsule has a different degree of proximity effect, and even the center frequency of this effect may be different, which is something nobody seems to talk about. Like how a Shure beta 58 supercardioid bumps at about 200hz, and a typical cardioid 57/58 boosts at 100hz, the Ck12 seems to bump much lower, at 50-60hz.
Damn if I spent as much time practicing as I did thinking about useless stuff like this I might be good at something by now!
Here's a nice GDIY thread with some details on the capsule revisions:
https://groupdiy.com/threads/akg-ck12-capsule-revisions.60896/
Last edited:
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
These two sentences seemingly contradict each other. Omni naturally extends lower than cardioid, so that deviation is exactly what I’d usually expect from a pattern change.
It should also be mentioned again, regarding vintage AKG capsules, deep or shallow dish, even when brand new, in general, responses were still pretty wide amongst them.
It’ll be interesting if MBHO responds. I’m still under the impression they are the same capsule, until I hear otherwise.
Icantthinkofaname
Well-known member
It's a shame nobody is interested in doing it. I get it though, simplify enough and it can be easily mass-produced. Even if prices stay as-is the Chinese companies interested in cloning it just need to get their hands on a few to copy it.
Actually I'm almost surprised Telefunken didn't do something like that for their Alchemy series mics instead of using AYM capsules. But then they'd have to invest money into manufacturing the capsules instead of using $30 Chinese capsules and basically printing money since they also sell those AYM capsules with Telefunken branding.
Last edited:
My bad. I actually didn't know that. I should have been more clear though--it's not just extension, but a boost. I assumed that it was proximity effect, given it's about 3-4db up at 60hz with a wide boost. I saw an identical effect in the Fox Audio test of the Tim Campbell capsule, which measures the same boost in cardioid from a meter away. This is speculation, but I think worthy of suspicion; I'm not sure omnidirectional extension explains the boost--shouldn't be any proximity effect.
Attachments
There is some confusion here. Both cardioid and omni have that bump there, and it doesn't have anything to do with proximity effect. It is due to the caonstructuon of the capsule and diaphragm tension. Of course, in cardioid you get PE once you start getting closer to the diaphragm. CK12 is not true omni, it0ù's two cardioids summed together, and as such you will actually get some PE even in omni mode. Both cardioid and omni capsules can go down to 30hz no problem, it's just that omni can go down to 1hz without any roll off.
That is not really accurate representation of Tim's capsule, FOX audio asked for a custom tuned capsule that would look like old AKG graphs. Not sure how smart that approach is, you would need to have same measurement system as AKG back in the day to make the comparison. It is also 1/3 octave smoothed. Tbh, he could have just drawn that curve by hand. It's just aproximation. Not to bash on his work, all of his articles are really great, and informative. Just pointing to some important details.
Audio Test Kitchen is a great place where you can see several versions of this capsule measured under same conditions. The only issue i have is weird graph aspect ratio.
That is not really accurate representation of Tim's capsule, FOX audio asked for a custom tuned capsule that would look like old AKG graphs. Not sure how smart that approach is, you would need to have same measurement system as AKG back in the day to make the comparison. It is also 1/3 octave smoothed. Tbh, he could have just drawn that curve by hand. It's just aproximation. Not to bash on his work, all of his articles are really great, and informative. Just pointing to some important details.
Audio Test Kitchen is a great place where you can see several versions of this capsule measured under same conditions. The only issue i have is weird graph aspect ratio.
Looking at this MBHO k1000n, not sure what kind of setup they used for measurement, but rear rejection and polar pattern graphs look terribly wrong, and nothing like original which should have significantly better rejection. This thing looks almost as omni, maybe one step from omni towards cardioid.
Attachments
so now we have a chart describing exactly what one user pointed out. maybe the capsule is just designed to be this way for some reason
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
kingkong, you’re right… It’s like a k50 pattern, but large-diaphragm, interesting!
soliloqueen, maybe you’re right!
soliloqueen, maybe you’re right!
Hi
I just came across that thread and it inspired me to measure the polar pattern of my MBHO ck12 like capsule I ordered from them around 15 years ago. It is build in one of those Max Kircher Brass Bodies he sold in 2007 with an Elam Circuit, a Haufe T14 and a ecc81.
The measuring setup is not really calibrated and the bass is not properly represented due to close proximity to the tweeter and midrange speaker. I find the 90 degree response strange and the 180 degree response a little disappointing at 6k.
What do you think?
I can attest that it reacts different to the room and proximity than my M71 from Gefell and the U87 from Neumann and it has beauty that really shines on certain sources and distances.
I just came across that thread and it inspired me to measure the polar pattern of my MBHO ck12 like capsule I ordered from them around 15 years ago. It is build in one of those Max Kircher Brass Bodies he sold in 2007 with an Elam Circuit, a Haufe T14 and a ecc81.
The measuring setup is not really calibrated and the bass is not properly represented due to close proximity to the tweeter and midrange speaker. I find the 90 degree response strange and the 180 degree response a little disappointing at 6k.
What do you think?
I can attest that it reacts different to the room and proximity than my M71 from Gefell and the U87 from Neumann and it has beauty that really shines on certain sources and distances.
Attachments
180° at close proximity can be deceiving, as it will vary with distance. These graphs make more sense than published ones. It wouldn't be the first time officially published specs don't fit factual ones. Even if you're MBHO. Which is disappointing. I recently received wrong calibration data from Beyerdynamic for their measurement mic, even though they allegedly have the database with all serials.
Don't worry about that 180° 6k peak, it has to be present at some high frequency in every 1st order cardioid. It goes away at 135° where cardioids have best rejection at HF.
I once bought a cheap measurement mic from t-Bone (Thomann) and it came with an individually printed measurement protocol (at least it looked like one),I was delighted until I compared it with a Line CM3, which is a proven flat microphone. It turned out that the print was totally off (ca. 4dB at 10kHz). Anybody constructing a speaker with that mic would have ended with a pretty dull speaker, which happened to me until I noticed the problem.
Tim Campbell
Well-known member
Your measurement of the MBHO capsule looks correct. They have a bump in the mids which really makes them deviate from an AKG.
That capsule was originally designed to only be polarized to 48v.
That capsule was originally designed to only be polarized to 48v.
Last edited:
I don't know about the polar pattern graph, but the first one appears to be the omidirectional plot and the cardioid side-by-side. that would be terribly inaccurate for a 180deg. plot.
Tim Campbell
Well-known member
Well that capsule is cardioid only so I think the graph must be a very poor representation of 0 degrees compared to 180 degrees. They are both wildly inaccurate if you look at hop.sing's graph.
