Neumann M49 Clone : Build Thread Puck Style (TLM49 Conversion To M49 b-c)

[Purplenoise]

Hey guys. I am changing my d49 to p2p so I will be recycling parts and keep the same psu. I am a little confused about the two grounds..pins 3 and 7. Should I just use one of them to the mic and star ground everything from that? Thanks

 

[soliloqueen]

Warning, Neumann has started trying to trademark just the numbers. This is super shady and likely won't hold/last, but be careful how you talk about these/sell these/export these/making these into a product in the meantime. yikes.

 

[soliloqueen]

and now we know why...

 

[rock soderstrom]

I am Neumann supporter and I hope they will be able to produce fantastic microphones for a long time.

I think it is a stupid idea to claim a trademark for the number 49 in a music production context. I totally understand their care for their brand and trademarks. M49 and all their other mic names belong to them, no doubt, but just the numbers belong to nobody.

That reminds me on the german Telekom and their stupid attempt to trademark the colour magenta.

 

[dmp]

People completely misunderstand what a trademark is. It is in no way "for the number 49"
It is a very specific representation, font, etc... of that content for a specific business activity.
I'm not saying a company wouldn't try to overuse the protections of a trademark, however, but it would not be legally enforceable to beyond the specific representation for the specific business.

"A common misconception is that having a trademark means you legally own a particular word or phrase and can prevent others from using it. However, you don’t have rights to the word or phrase in general, only to how that word or phrase is used with your specific goods or services."

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark

 

[soliloqueen]

People completely misunderstand what a trademark is. It is in no way "for the number 49"
It is a very specific representation, font, etc... of that content for a specific business activity.
I'm not saying a company wouldn't try to overuse the protections of a trademark, however, but it would not be legally enforceable to beyond the specific representation for the specific business.

"A common misconception is that having a trademark means you legally own a particular word or phrase and can prevent others from using it. However, you don’t have rights to the word or phrase in general, only to how that word or phrase is used with your specific goods or services."

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark

this is a standard character word mark, rather than a design mark. standard character marks do work that way. you can actually, genuinely just trademark a set of characters for an entire business sector in the US and have it apply to any context or font. it usually doesn't hold up in court for SC word marks this simple, so you are technically right. but as they've been doing with the headbasket thing for years (which is also not really a valid trademark), neumann prefers to threaten to sue people instead and hope nobody calls them on it. an invalid trademark where you have to pay legal fees to prove it = a de-facto valid trademark if you're a small competitor.

 

[dmp]

this is a standard character word mark, rather than a design mark. standard character marks do work that way. you can actually, genuinely just trademark a set of characters for an entire business sector in the US and have it apply to any context or font. it usually doesn't hold up in court for SC word marks this simple, so you are technically right. but as they've been doing with the headbasket thing for years (which is also not really a valid trademark), neumann prefers to threaten to sue people instead and hope nobody calls them on it. an invalid trademark where you have to pay legal fees to prove it = a de-facto valid trademark if you're a small competitor.

OK, you're right about the standard character mark:
" standard character format. This format provides the broadest protection because it protects the words themselves and is not limited to a particular font style, size, or color. "
The protection is pretty limited however as described here: Trademark scope of protection
"You can’t register a word, phrase, symbol, or design as a trademark without specifically identifying the goods or services being used."

So I reiterate, it is in no way "for the number 49"
If you want to use the number 49 for basically any good OTHER THAN A MICROPHONE is unrestricted (or related products, stands, cables, etc). However, for people to think they can call a microphone a 49 without it having any infringement on Neumann is kind of strange...

The ability for big companies to quash people with lawsuits is a different subject than the actual legal protection (but related).

 

[soliloqueen]

OK, you're right about the standard character mark:
" standard character format. This format provides the broadest protection because it protects the words themselves and is not limited to a particular font style, size, or color. "
The protection is pretty limited however as described here: Trademark scope of protection
"You can’t register a word, phrase, symbol, or design as a trademark without specifically identifying the goods or services being used."

So I reiterate, it is in no way "for the number 49"
If you want to use the number 49 for basically any good OTHER THAN A MICROPHONE is unrestricted (or related products, stands, cables, etc). However, for people to think they can call a microphone a 49 without it having any infringement on Neumann is kind of strange...

The ability for big companies to quash people with lawsuits is a different subject than the actual legal protection (but related).

i don't understand your logic here. it is indeed "for the number 49," in relation to microphones. it being limited to just being for microphones doesn't make it not a trademark for the number 49. if i get a cup of coffee, is it not actually a cup of coffee because it isn't every cup of coffee that's ever been poured? i think we're missing on language here, not ideas. it doesn't matter if the scope is for one specific product, a genre of products, an entire industry etc, it's still a trademark for the number 49, just within those bounds. the bounds of the trademark don't alter what the trademark depicts.

 

[dmp]

i think we're missing on language here, not ideas. it doesn't matter if the scope is for one specific product, a genre of products, an entire industry etc, it's still a trademark for the number 49, just within those bounds.

I think I do agree with you - I was just seeing the language in some of the posts above as being way more open ended indicating the trademark was more extensive than it is.
You clearly understood it was the numbers in application to the specific product of a microphone. I thought others might take the statement: "Warning, Neumann has started trying to trademark just the numbers." literally.
Just like you say: it is ONLY "in relation to microphones"

Sorry for the veer and I will be done now as I don't think there's any more I could say to clarify the point I was trying to make.

 

[soliloqueen]

I think I do agree with you - I was just seeing the language in some of the posts above as being way more open ended indicating the trademark was more extensive than it is.
You clearly understood it was the numbers in application to the specific product of a microphone. I thought others might take the statement: "Warning, Neumann has started trying to trademark just the numbers." literally.
Just like you say: it is ONLY "in relation to microphones"

Sorry for the veer and I will be done now as I don't think there's any more I could say to clarify the point I was trying to make.

yes, but my friend, we are on a forum for building audio equipment, in a subforum about building microphones, in thread about cloning the neumann M49

let's get back on topic!

 

[GeorgeToledo]

Neumann didn’t design the M49, NWDR did while Neumann got the rights to make it. The k47/49 was developed by IRT for the M49, and IRT also held the original patent.

It has also long surprised me how much leverage Neumann has had with the U67/U87 headbasket, because it seems derivative of the M49 headbasket that they didn’t actually design.

I wonder if Neumann is really wise to go so far into this. It really reminds me of Gibson going down similar legal routes and losing. And how companies/people they did business with did prior work (Bigsby), but everyone there now seems to not know.

 

[Gus]

An example
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-drops-pentium-brand,1832-2.html
look at a Bigsby headstock

And then there is this
https://www.gearnews.com/did-gibson-steal-the-les-paul-design/

 

[GeorgeToledo]

I’m glad you posted the Appleton because that was in the back of my mind as well…just muddied the parallel I was attempting to make

 

[Ericbazaar]

NWDR B-M49 (B stands for "British Zone")

 

[Ericbazaar]

 

[GeorgeToledo]

The early M49 Neumann made were chrome finish. Do you have a picture of the backside where the Neumann label would be? When these have come up, Neumann states that they made these, and I have seen two different units like this with Neumann plates and serial number on them. The first five or ten units or so were chrome.

The earliest were shipped to Bayerischer Rundfunk, which is maybe where you’re getting the B from? Even the early NWDR blueprints have no “BM-49” designation, just M49, M50.

The NWDR made M49 I have seen was with a black body and I think somewhat different inner construction, iirc. But I guess it could have been painted over chrome, now that I’m thinking more, who knows.

I’m not necessarily saying B really doesn’t stand for “British” or that these early chrome units weren’t NWDR made, just saying there are competing narratives and info out there. I’d be curious to read something that expands upon this claim.

 

[gbruler]

I Want to try and build this one for a long time now, I can't find out on this thread if a TLM49 would be a good option for this?
Other option is buying a Flea body which is almost the same price as a TLM49, but it's the only good quality body I've found this far for this mic.
Any suggestions would be very appreciated, thanks!

 

[GeorgeToledo]

Oliver Archut said he had to grind out the inside of a TLM to make it work.

I have had a TLM49 open before but I don’t remember what shaping in there was the issue. (I didn’t have it in mind to put an M49 in there at the time!)

 

[klem]

I Want to try and build this one for a long time now, I can't find out on this thread if a TLM49 would be a good option for this?
Other option is buying a Flea body which is almost the same price as a TLM49, but it's the only good quality body I've found this far for this mic.
Any suggestions would be very appreciated, thanks!

I haven't purchased them yet as it's been OOS for a while, but are you aware of Chunger's CU49?

 

[Recording Engineer]

Or Beesneez’s M49/M50 inspired body?