Microphone Test Sessions

[chunger]

I went into the studio yesterday in an attempt to generate some useful test data for various microphone builds and kit development.  When the dust settled, I had failed to accomplish about half of the tests I wanted to do, but did come out with an initial set of useful comparison sound clips for people trying to make decisions about component choices.

I decided to collect and organize the results on my blog as editing and laying out the information on a forum thread would be a bit clumsy.

Vocal Test session 1:

http://studio939.blogspot.com/2014/11/vocal-microphone-and-capsule-testing.html

- U87 clones (Peluso P-K87i, 1st generation Eric Heiserman HK87)
- U67 clone preliminary test (MK67 kit, Eric Heiserman HK67 current version, Amperex EF86)
- U47 clone (MK47 kit, Thiersch Blue Line, Beesneez M7, Eric Heiserman HK47)
- C12 clone (Tim Campbell CT12, Matador kit)

I am hoping this will be a long-term testing endeavor and hope to generate more samples of various other test variables in future test sessions in a way that can be directly compared to the 1st samples.

 

[micaddict]

OK, this is what it's all about, so I'm game.

Disclaimer: I recently had a hearing accident, so I'm a little less confident than I used to be. I really trusted my ears before that happened.

This is my preliminary impression (after single passes with headphones only).

I'l start with the U47 clone.
Heiserman capsule. I assume this is his hybrid K47 (dual backplate). Of the three this one is the brightest, most open, most modern sounding. In this case that also makes it a little more essy. BTW to me (!) the term essy is not the same as sibilant. The latter would be distorted or smeared (again, in my nomenclature or terminology). That's not the case here; the esses sound pretty clean, so they could easliy be taken care of.
The BeesNeez sounded the most midrangey to me. Well, lows are hard to judge on a female voice, but in any case the trebles roll off sooner than the other two. On the pro side, esses are tamed and it seems to me this one will take EQ nicely.
The Thiersch is the smoothest. Despite its thicker (PVC) membrane, it's more open than the BeesNeez. And it's rounder than the Heiserman. It thickens the sound at the moments where the voice gets a little thin and edgy.

The C12 clone (with Campbell capsule) sounds the brightest and most open of the lot. No surprises here. For some female voices it could come out on top. For this voice it wouldn't be my pick (see my remark @ theU47 with the blue line Thiersch).

The U67 (with Heiserman capsule) sounds smooth, with tamed esses. Some would call this smeared, but it's a typical U67 treat that, although not being the fastest and most precise, somehow tends to be easy on the ears. However, I do hear a less clean sound altogether which I had not expected. I own an original U67 and I think this clone somehow has more distortion.

For this particular voice, I'd pick the U47 with the Thiersch capsule.



BTW, beforehand (in another thread), I think you said or suggested one of the capsules would likely disappoint or something to that extent. Could you reveal which one that is and why.
Edit: on the blogspot page I just read something about a broken Heiserman CK12. Was that it?



Henk

 

[micaddict]

Oops, I forgot the 87!

 

[micaddict]

OK, on to the two U87 clones. Seems I'm the only one here anyway, so why hurry.

Of the two U87 clones, on this vocalist, I much prefer the brass body one, with the Heiserman capsule, over the one with the Peluso capsule.  It's rounder, meatier, more fleshy and organic and much less edgy.

The third is a real U87, but with a Peluso capsule. I like this one better than the clone with the Peluso capsule.
Still, I prefer the clone with the Heiserman capsule.

 

[chunger]

The Beesneez capsule was the one in the test that we felt disappointed. . . it just didn't "dance" and did not have openness, transparency, or width that all of the other microphones exhibited.  Very difficult if not impossible to get that back via EQ after tracking.  The singer also did not think that it allowed her to articulate nuances of voice very well compared to the others.  Now certainly if you are very averse to treble transients and "esses", it would be the least obtrusive.

To me, none of the microphones exhibited problematic esses even though we were micing close and the singer was not particularly holding back.  The main reason the Heiserman was such a treat was the vocal always sat right in on top of the mix without being at very high volume, and you could hear all of the little inflections.  It was also quite full-bodied and while a little more bite than the Thiersch which has an exceptional richness, still plenty smooth.  The singer liked that. 

The Heiserman HK12 capsule was one I was very looking forward to hear in this test. . . initial impressions were very, very good.  We will have to circle back to it.

 

[micaddict]

When you heard the BeesNeez and were disappointed, did you contact Ben?

 

[kcatthedog]

Hmm, I don't have a problem with chung telling us about the session especially as we can completely ignore his perspective and simply listen to the clips and decide for ourselves if we so choose.

seems pretty straight up to state a perspective and include the clips as we can decide for ourselves and or disagree.

 

[trans4funks1]

IMHO, the I-wasn't-there-when-it-was-actually-happening listening tests are useless for evaluation and dubious as entertainment.

I don't want to dismiss the work put into the testing but I will share my honest opinion about it too.

I am not voicing this opinion to encourage a disagreement about vending parts and service. I am too new here to fully understand the history of the forum but as a disclosure I am both a customer of Studio 939 as well as other vendors here. I very much appreciate the availability of products and helpful info from the people with small business interests while I also appreciate the help offered by people who only wish to share knowledge freely.

I remember reading a thread  elsewhere with many of the top designers in the microphone business discussing the value of publishing samples for microphone listening tests. The consensus seemed to be that none of the designers felt there was any merit in the practice while some of the designers seemed aware that their customers eagerly desired the opportunity to listen to such tests.

I was glad to learn that my personal opinion was shared by many of the most prominent high end microphone designers and I continue to think that the only way to judge a good mic is to use it first hand for a while with a variety of musicians and to learn exactly what it does and does not do well.

 

[Tim Campbell]

I think the test of my capsule sounds a little anemic. I didn't conduct this test. If I had, I would only post sound files that best serve my interests.

 

[kidvybes]

Since this thread is being posted by the seller of these kits shouldn't it be posted in the white market?

...same could be said about your "My CK12" thread, no?...

 

[Tim Campbell]

I have removed my thread ...

 

[kcatthedog]

Perhaps we see the point differently?  As I understood this threadwas about demonstrating a bunch of different caps diy's might be considering for mike kits they had probably already decided on ?

Its great to talk about trying out $1,000's of dollars of mikes, but that isn't reality for all.

I have built the c12 with a TC cap: thank you Tim: it is excellent. i have also built the mk-u47 with the Thiersch.

I appreciate having the chance to listen to different gear in a controlled  and reasonably similar context .

With utmost respect, I think the point of this thread is to discuss the sound clips, caps and then the mikes. I think expanding the scope of the conversation beyond  that serves other purposes. i will leave it to others to consider the merits of that.

 

[chunger]

This test and the point to sharing studio clips in this manner is a best-effort attempt to share my behind-the-scenes development and verification process for some clones and kits. . . commentary, successes, failures,  and decision-making "dialog" provided.  Is it not the point of this forum to show and share an informative and entertaining view of all aspects of audio gear design, construction, and testing?

Every highly successful designer that I know seems to be fiercely opinionated and have a distinct style and preference that they press towards.  I make a strong effort to share and present my findings and process to the best of my abilities in an "open source" manner, and I feel this is the hallmark characteristic of the DIY community.

This test and others like it are my attempts to provide the type of raw information I would personally like to have when making decisions about $1000+ microphone builds.  I would love to have a matrix of relevant audio clips isolating various component options to shape the microphone towards the sound that I need or desire.  Even if imperfect, the alternative is pretty much a shot in the dark.  I can and do read dozens of posts from people who have used various components I am interested in, but in the end, listening to a relevant audio clip answers many questions for me with much greater clarity, and I suspect this is the case for other builders as well.

In the absence of what I feel to be organized, comparable audio samples, I decided to try my best to create some. . . and to establish a system and process by which to add continuously to the audio database so that the development process is well documented. . . and encourage other people who have better production capabilities to do the same (or better) and illustrate points of design.

Certainly people can disagree with the conclusions or test methods or the very premise of the entire exercise!  As much of this stuff is subjective, it is nice to hear dissenting opinion and people who highlight aspects of the sound that I did not notice. . . and maybe I should.  For people who do not agree with the entire premise, participation is certainly not mandatory if it is neither informative nor entertaining to you.

 

[Tim Campbell]

Chunger, if your intent is to post raw data why comment? The negative posts about Ben's capsule can only hurt his business and the praise of Eric's work can only help his. Am I next?

For people who do not agree with the entire premise, participation is certainly not mandatory if it is neither informative nor entertaining to you.

How would members here feel if Ben or I started posting sound files of our capsules compared to Eric's along with criticism?
As I said earlier, if I were to do this I would only post audio where my capsule sounded superior and the listener would learn nothing from the experience but might fall prey to a marketing trick.

 

[kcatthedog]

Again I guess we see this differently;  all these clips are a 1 day with 1 singer thing; it doesn't mean that one might use any one of the mikes/caps with another person/session and on another and not have acceptable results.

I read these with a grain of salt; like a fine wine tasting; what if all the wines are good and people are just commenting  (honestly) on what struck them.

I spent only a few weeks looking for info re: cap for 47 and found a different owners happy with a small group of different caps.  I concluded different horses for different courses not good and bad; same with these clips at least for me.

 

[Tim Campbell]

Kcatthedog you have nothing to lose from this. Please ask Ben how he sees it.

 

[trans4funks1]

For people who do not agree with the entire premise, participation is certainly not mandatory if it is neither informative nor entertaining to you.

With respect, I would like to elaborate that, IMHO, these sorts of presentations are likely to foster misinformed opinions and as a form of entertainment they may leave the listener with a false sense of reality.

I did not comment simply because I find the presentation to be "neither informative nor entertaining ", I commented because in my personal opinion I find these sorts of presentations seem to undermine the presumed goal of learning what these mics can do.

As  a reminder, I am speaking of my valuation of the sound file presentation, while acknowledging the value of the first hand experience that was accrued by those who performed the tests.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.

 

[gyraf]

I agree, trans4funks1.

Trying to convey how a microphone "innately" sounds, by the means of recorded sound files, is a daunting task at best. There are so many uncontrollable parameters that will contribute hugely to the sound. I think of it as trying to describe a color nuance by means of a jpg image on an unknown screen.

On top of that - if you also at the same time are given an indication of what you should hear/expect from the recording (bright, dark etc.), you're running a real risk of ruining the evaluation altogether. (note, I'm NOT saying direct and willful manipulation!)

I'm sure there is a good reason why real professional microphones were never marketed by sound examples. It's simply too hard to control setup tightly enough to make any sense.

The only real test is in one's own setup imo.

If remote evaluation was desperately needed, I'd go for a classic full-orchestra recording in omnidirectional. Yes, I know this doesn't reveal proximity characteristics, but imo tells you more about the mic characteristics than anything else.

Jakob E.

 

[kcatthedog]

Hi Tim,

I understand your concern but the fact of the matter is we are in a consumer world.  if someone releases a product they should expect that it will be subject to constructive criticism.  You seem to be arguing in favour of not having frank disclosure about a product and or the the tester was deliberately biased ?

Both are questionable from my perspective.

I would much prefer Ben to chime in and rip chung's test process apart 0 sorry chung I work as an analyst so that is of course fair  ball) , or tell us how  the best way to test  his cap is;  what ever, but I would prefer open and constructive dialog.

I don't for a moment reconsider my view of Ben's typical product quality based on this one test.  He has a solid and well deserved reputation for quality and this one test doesn't change that at all.  ( I tried to buy his psu for 2 months but built my own instead)

I think we all got skin in this game . 

The fact of the matter is there is natural variation  in everything and there will certainly be so in mikes and caps made by different processes. Anyone of these caps could have be an outlier in their particular production process and we the user would not know that ; we would just hear differences.

I think that is why we all end up with Mike  lockers.  If I was in the market for a made mike,  I would by one of Ben's  mike's in a moment.  All you guys are the real deal; period, yet dealing with the quality manufacture of  an ephemeral product; sonics !

hand's up who does that perfectly  from everyone's perspective everytime ?

I do a lot of open mikes and I learned one thing, everybody hears the same song differently, so I just concentrate on performing it the best I can; in that moment; that's all I can control.

 

[reginator]

Hi Chunger, thanks for posting the test results. I was mostly curious about how each capsule sounded in the MK47 as compared to an actual U47 with VF14 tube but didn't realize that a U47 wouldn't be used as the benchmark for the tests.

Each capsule in the test sounds quite different from each other with the BeesNeez M7 (same capsule I'm using) exhibiting the most difference. Based on the test results does anyone know which capsule sounds closest to an actual U47?