Mic Parts dot Com Small Diaphragm Condensers

[mparts]

Several of the comments posted about my products and my company in this thread are misleading or just incorrect, so I am compelled to respond. I'm not a frequent forum user, so I apologize to all the regulars who might feel like I'm speaking out of line. I mean no disrespect.

For those who don't know me, I built RecordingHacks.com (microphone database), and currently design and voice all the microphones for MicParts.com and Roswell Pro Audio.

I never said the capsules are bad,

Whether you think they're good or bad is irrelevant to my reply. What I was addressing is this characterization of my capsules' response:

The MP capsules have a peak around 8-10 KHz and a dip around 5-6 KHz.

That description is inaccurate. See the attached files. One shows frequency sweeps for five randomly selected MXL branded SDC Cardioid capsules. (We have a bag of these, pulled from various MXL mics over the years.) Another attached file shows a direct comparison of one of those to one of the MicParts SDC capsules.

My capsules were designed to be compatible with MXL head amps, which means we use the same diameter and threading -- but my SDC capsules differ significantly from MXL's in design, construction, and sound. If you have a sweep that shows "a peak around 8-10kHz and a dip around 5-6kHz" for my capsule, please send me the graph, with the capsule's serial number. Make sure the capsule has 'micparts' engraved inside, because if not, then you're testing someone else's product.

To repeat what I posted earlier that appears to have been lost in the followups: none of my Cardioid capsules sounds like what Ruud describes, and in the unlikely event that one did, it would fail QC. We test every capsule, and compare each one to the 'gold master' to ensure consistency.

As to the comments that other brands of capsules have a flatter response -- sure, that might be true. We were not trying to build a ruler-flat capsule. Rather, we were trying to build something that sounds good. (Although for those keeping score, the MicParts SDC capsule is within 1dB of flat, out to 9kHz.)

1/3 of an octave can be sufficient, but is often used to cover up the lack in either manufacturing or measuring process.

"Often used" by who? If you have specific examples in mind, please share.

My experience is that manufacturers would more likely just skip the testing altogether, and copy a graph from some other mic, or hand-draw something that looks good. Both of those are easier than going to the trouble and expense of testing something.

Further, the contention that 1/3-octave smoothing is inherently inadequate or misleading is, in my opinion, incorrect, about which more below.

1/3 of an octave can be sufficient, but is often used to cover up the lack in either manufacturing or measuring process. Not saying Matt does this, but the presented graph isn't proof of anything.

Taken in context, your contention ("the graph isn't proof of anything") seems to be that smoothing would make an MXL SDC capsule (big dip at 5k, big hump at 10k) look the same as mine. I swept several of each today on the same rig to disprove the point. The files are attached, see particularly the one that shows one of my capsules and one of MXL's.

The characteristics of the MXL capsule that were so accurately described by RuudNL are easily and obviously visible in these 1/3-octave smoothed graphs. The difference in the graphs is significant. The difference in sound is also significant.

So let's talk more about the apparent evils of smoothing.

I've attached a KM84 sweep, with the 1/3 octave smoothing superimposed on the unsmoothed result. The smoothed line just makes it easier to see the trend. If the capsule's response deviated in a way that you'd hear, the smoothed line would show it. Said another way, I disagree that audible sonic problems are masked by a smoothed curve.

It seems to be worth asking whether any manufacturers pass this standard? That is, does any mic maker publish raw, unsmoothed sweep data for their products? I have not seen any.

I'd bet that most published frequency graphs use *at least* 1/3 octave smoothing. For example, see the Shure or Neumann websites -- two companies that absolutely do great engineering and comprehensive testing, and would be very capable of publishing raw sweep data if they wished. But they don't.

Is that done with intent to deceive? I don't believe so. I believe that those ultra-smoothed graphs are used because they're good enough to communicate the general shape of the mic's response.


I took advantage of my morning in the lab to test several other SDCs that had been mentioned here -- including the MK-012 and 3U CM100. These were all measured on the same rig, within a couple minutes of each other, with precisely matched test conditions. I own only one CM100, and at least two of the other mics listed here. For everything other than the CM100, I swept at least two of them to make sure the response was not anomalous.

The measurement distance is 10 inches, which is why most of these mics have a lift in the bass; that is due to proximity effect. Any speaker or room anomalies are theoretically compensated for by the calibration process.

 

[k brown]

The 'published' graphs for Octava mics are smoothed, but the printed readouts that are supplied with each mic are not.

Why does it say '+9dB' after MK-012? - no part of the graph shows +9dB.

 

[kingkorg]

This covers the questions i had about your measurements. Thanks for the detailed reply.

 

[ostrol]

Still no non-smoothed response of the MP2882 though?

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

The 'published' graphs for Octava mics are smoothed, but the printed readouts that are supplied with each mic are not.

Why does it say '+9dB' after MK-012? - no part of the graph shows +9dB.

It's because the highest point in the low end is 5 dB, there's a 1 dB dip, then a 3 dB boost at 7K. The proximity effect isn't being taken into account. Most of my MK-012s are flatter than the advertised plots.

I took advantage of my morning in the lab to test several other SDCs that had been mentioned here -- including the MK-012 and 3U CM100. These were all measured on the same rig, within a couple minutes of each other, with precisely matched test conditions. I own only one CM100, and at least two of the other mics listed here. For everything other than the CM100, I swept at least two of them to make sure the response was not anomalous.

The measurement distance is 10 inches, which is why most of these mics have a lift in the bass; that is due to proximity effect. Any speaker or room anomalies are theoretically compensated for by the calibration process.

Now the 3U Audio CM100 and Oktava MK-012 sweeps, are those for the cardioid capsules? The MK-012 set a couple of us are recommending at this price is the hypercardioid, which is flatter. I'm not gonna argue about smoothing since I don't do my own measurements, but those other mics are being recommended because they're only a bit more expensive than your SDC capsules, not because they're flatter than your capsule.

Out of curiosity, are there any non-vented bodies that your capsules are known to work with?

 

[Spiritworks]

FWIW, I built the Mic Parts 84Snare version, which we like very much for it's intended duties. Whether or not it acts like an original 84 in any way, shape or form is irrelevant to us. It does what we want it to do.

 

[molke]

The measurement distance is 10 inches, which is why most of these mics have a lift in the bass; that is due to proximity effect. Any speaker or room anomalies are theoretically compensated for by the calibration process.

Thank you for the detailed response.

Do you by any chance have off-axis measurements (90° and 180°) of your capsule (possibly KM84 as well for comparison)? Here, I would prefer a larger distance (1m) and don’t care much about accuracy for lower frequencies (third-octave smoothing is fine for me). Polar pattern diagram at different frequencies would also do.

 

[MicMaven]

The wobbles at the bottom give the sound a bit of 'flab'.

... "flab" ... I like this expression. ;-) James

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

Since the thread is about a DIY kit that almost cost $400, if you're spending that much for what's basically a Schoeps "copy", you might also look at B9 Audio mics. Granted they're $700 USD, but they're supposed to be really really similar to a Schoeps. They look really similar too, and if the specs are accurate you could probably call it an accurate clone. Allegedly the Schoeps capsules even work on the B9 body.

 

[mlufis74]

I know this has probably been asked a million times, but is it worth looking at Microphone-Parts.com small diaphragm condensers?

Does anyone here have any direct experience with them?

I bought a S-25 for my brother and we were more than pleased with the result.

Either connected directly to the audio interface (Presonus Quantum 2) or paired with a nice preamp (Golden Age Pre73 mk3) the result is always a delight.

It gives it best with acoustic guitar (nylon and steel string), vocals, piano (grand piano) and drum mono overhead.

It is also very good with guitar cabinet (2x12 Celestion GT12H) if you give 5 - 10 cm between the loudspeaker and the microphone.

You have to be neat and careful when soldering the parts, but there is no big challenge to build the kit.

I would recommend to watch the website tutorials for proper guidance.

Enjoy your microphone and cheers from Canada.

 

[k brown]

S-25 is an LDC.

 

[velo]

FWIW, I built the Mic Parts 84Snare version, which we like very much for it's intended duties. Whether or not it acts like an original 84 in any way, shape or form is irrelevant to us. It does what we want it to do.

I built an SDC-84 too and have been very pleased with the results.

 

[RuudNL]

FWIW: The 3U SDC microphone capsules are great, at a much lower price!

 

[mrgrooves666]

FWIW: The 3U SDC microphone capsules are great, at a much lower price!

Indeed. Dunno about mic parts, I haven't tried those, but I just recieved a pair of 3U's cardioids that went straight into my banzai 84 pair kits to replace the failed maiku SD attempt. With 3U's now the mics sound very nice indeed, put a big smile on my face on acoustic. Makes me want to try the rest of them 3U capsules.
I have a pair of the Roxxdon mics that I bought with the intent to convert them to Piotr's tube SDC project but haven't found the time. The roxxdons capsules are actually better than the maiku's. They sound much similar to 3U's than maiku's, with the 3U being a little flatter/smoother at the top, and more robust in the low-low mids, the roxxdons having a little sharp top. Its like 3U's perfected/refined the design to the max... What I find weird, is that Roxxdon are very similar in construction to Maiku's, in that they are not vented like 3U's and the backplate looks very similar if not the same, yet they sound more similar to 3U's than to Maiku's. So its not only the vents here at play...?

 

[EarthTone]

Do the 3U capsules fit the MXL bodies? I built a few Micparts SDC kits. Curious to try 3U’s capsules on them. Wonder how they sound different. Anyone have any opinions on that? Worth it?

For anyone thinking you can build a “Schoeps” for $400, you cannot. I have a pair of the real ones, mk4 capsules. They don’t even sound like they are from the same planet as the Micparts kits. On the other hand the Micparts result sounds good and I use them all the time on non-critical micing tasks like hihat or as an extra close-mount-h-clamped mic on acoustic bass etc. I like the km84 clones better than the transformer-less version. They’re very usable. I plan to replace the transformers with Moby’s soon.