New CK12 capsule measurements

[neowalla]

is it me or is the brass not all the way mixed or something? something is up with the alloy here. maybe the plastic is high-heat and stressed the brass? I've never directly done an edge terminated backplate, so I'm not sure how the plastic pouring process works exactly or how it might stress the plate.

Probably just oxidation on the brass. Also a lot of pretty heavy scratches.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

All of the mics in the test have unique sonic qualities so "best" is a subjective rather than an objective observation as it depends on context and personal taste.

That's exactly what I meant; it is context-dependant and subject to personal taste, so there is no clear "winner".

 

[OPR]

That's exactly what I meant; it is context-dependant and subject to personal taste, so there is no clear "winner".

There isn't ment to be a "winner" The reason I posted is because Paul Cheeba asked for some samples of my ck12 which shows the extended bass response. In the video the other mics (67/48) act as a point of reference for those familiar with them.

 

[paulcheeba]

It doesn’t help when people read stuff like this:
When I decided to revisit the Telefunken ELA-M 251, I checked out several available copies of the original AKG CK12 capsule until I found one that I was happy with,” Royer explained.

The Chinese-made capsule is faithful to the original CK-12 used in the Telefunken ELA-M 251; it is three microns thick, and Royer has noted that he is pleased with the quality consistency. “The Chinese factories that are manufacturing copies of Neumann and AKG capsules have, in several cases, redesigned them somewhat to simplify the manufacturing process,” he said.

 

[Gus]

The above post reminded me of a German? website that reviewed the MA1000. The review had pictures of the internals and capsule IIRC.
I can't seem to find the web site or remember the name I think the website name started with Bon
This same site had inside picture of other microphones.

 

[Kwinn]

The above post reminded me of a German? website that reviewed the MA1000. The review had pictures of the internals and capsule IIRC.
I can't seem to find the web site or remember the name I think the website name started with Bon
This same site had inside picture of other microphones.

https://www.bonedo.de/artikel/mojave-audio-ma-1000-signature-series-test/

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

It doesn’t help when people read stuff like this:
When I decided to revisit the Telefunken ELA-M 251, I checked out several available copies of the original AKG CK12 capsule until I found one that I was happy with,” Royer explained.

The Chinese-made capsule is faithful to the original CK-12 used in the Telefunken ELA-M 251; it is three microns thick, and Royer has noted that he is pleased with the quality consistency. “The Chinese factories that are manufacturing copies of Neumann and AKG capsules have, in several cases, redesigned them somewhat to simplify the manufacturing process,” he said.

Not that I was planning to, but looks like I'm never buying a Royer mic.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

ECO's (Engineering Change Orders), often initiated by desire to improve productivity, are quite common in the industry.
Whatever the folklore says, production methods at Neumann have considerably changed under the Sennheiser guidance.
The real debate is not about authenticity, it's maintaining performance in such circumstances.
There is no doubt that AKG, under Harman's authority and now Samsung's, have utterly failed in this regard.
My understanding is that David Royer claims that reproducing a vintage object, but not strictly cloning it, can be a valid proposition, seems reasonable to me.

 

[paulcheeba]

Corporate companies can’t be trusted.

 

[MicMaven]

t reproducing a vintage object, but not strictly cloning it, can be a valid proposition, seems reasonable to me.

Well, maybe not. It sorta depends on what the manufacturer claims it is. A clone is genetically identical to the original. If a purported "replica" differs from, or is not entirely faithful to the original in result, it should not be touted as a replica or clone. While the manufacturer might alter and, perhaps, streamline the manufacturing process, it must produce an exact replica. Otherwise, it should clearly indicate it is merely "based on" or constitutes a "modern equivalent" or apply a similar description to indicate it is a close approximation, but not an exact replica or clone of the original product.

To almost coin a phrase: If it really ain't the same, then it really ain't the same. James

 

[Khron]

So a device that completely replicates the behaviour of another one, without being a 1:1 mechanical copy (but perhaps a 0.9:1), does not constitute a "clone"?

I guess it depends where one wants to draw the line..(?)

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Well, maybe not. It sorta depends on what the manufacturer claims it is. A clone is genetically identical to the original. If a purported "replica" differs from, or is not entirely faithful to the original in result, it should not be touted as a replica or clone. While the manufacturer might alter and, perhaps, streamline the manufacturing process, it must produce an exact replica. Otherwise, it should clearly indicate it is merely "based on" or constitutes a "modern equivalent" or apply a similar description to indicate it is a close approximation, but not an exact replica or clone of the original product.

To almost coin a phrase: If it really ain't the same, then it really ain't the same. James

Please read again my post. I talked about a "valid proposition", not an exact replica. That's what David Royer's words carried.
And we are talking about industrial products, which, along their lifetime, may have had several variations.
This is not like a unique work of art, where a fake is a fake.

 

[Khron]

And we are talking about industrial products, which, along their lifetime, may have had several variations.
This is not like a unique work of art, where a fake is a fake.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

(Granted though, this "new CK12" falls short of that last part, at least for now..?)

 

[MicMaven]

So a device that completely replicates the behaviour of another one, without being a 1:1 mechanical copy (but perhaps a 0.9:1), does not constitute a "clone"?

I guess it depends where one wants to draw the line..(?)

Gee ... um ... yeah, I think so. And yet, you raise an important point in rebuttal. I think "clone" means a replica of the original item - in both its physical and other (in this case audible) effects. I think it is at least logically possible something can have the same resulting effect, without being the same item. And yet, it IS difficult to separate effect from what causes it. Nevertheless, I think a clone is an exact replica - merely be definition. Something different that produces a like effect is ... well ... still different. James

 

[MicMaven]

Please read again my post. I talked about a "valid proposition", not an exact replica. That's what David Royer's words carried.
And we are talking about industrial products, which, along their lifetime, may have had several variations.

Ahem ... um ... er ...

To (hopefully) clarify my previous post, I did not intend to contradict your point about being a "valid proposition" (which I take to by roughly synonymous with "viable product) - I was merely attempting to distinguish what is truly a clone of an original product from what may be a similar, yet different, product that is inspired by the original and which, therefore, produces as similar or equivalent result.

I did not intend to contradict your basic proposition; I merely to distinguish between a clone and something similar that is product based upon the original. (Hoping this does not muddy the waters even worse !) James

 

[MicMaven]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Um, - not always. I disagree with this particular take as it does not constitute a reliable rule. For example, as a well known counterexample, Epiphone builds several guitar models to the same dimensions and (mostly) same specifications as their Gibson counterparts. Nevertheless, most guitar players I know say they are not actually equal and do not produce equivalent results in fact - i.e., they do not sound and play the same.

Thus, looking, sounding, and walking like a duck does not always mean it is a duck. N'est ce pas? James

 

[Khron]

Gee ... um ... yeah, I think so. And yet, you raise an important point in rebuttal. I think "clone" means a replica of the original item - in both its physical and other (in this case audible) effects. I think it is at least logically possible something can have the same resulting effect, without being the same item. And yet, it IS difficult to separate effect from what causes it. Nevertheless, I think a clone is an exact replica - merely be definition. Something different that produces a like effect is ... well ... still different. James

Um, - not always. I disagree with this particular take as it does not constitute a reliable rule. For example, as a well known counterexample, Epiphone builds several guitar models to the same dimensions and (mostly) same specifications as their Gibson counterparts. Nevertheless, most guitar players I know say they are not actually equal and do not produce equivalent results in fact - i.e., they do not sound and play the same.

Thus, looking, sounding, and walking like a duck does not always mean it is a duck. N'est ce pas? James

I guess that just depends where one decides to draw the line between what a clone is or isn't

How many of those Epiphones have identical pickups to their corresponding Gibson counterparts? And how much of that distinction is informed by confirmation bias, and/or just production tolerances?
(Heard plenty of stories, admittedly anecdotal, where Epiphone QC / fit & finish was actually better than Gibsons)

Simply knowing one's an Epiphone vs a Gibson will, in probably the vast majority of cases, instill ego-driven(?) prejudice... Won't it?

 

[MicMaven]

I guess that just depends where one decides to draw the line between what a clone is or isn't

Yep - I agree it does. It is definitely a slippery slope sort of thing.

Briefly, however, I have owned both Gibsons and Epiphones and my Epi ES-335 was good, but not as good as its Gibson counterpart. Close - and certainly better value for the price! But, not entirely the same playing and sound experience. As for pickups, it matters a lot whether they are approximate copies of Gibson pickups, or actual copies, or even actual Gibson pickups - as to whether they sound alike, or close enough to accept. (Personally, I prefer my Martin acoustic, and nothing sounds or plays like IT -not even other Martins.)

Ahem ... at this point, can I get a pass and step aside, so as not to derail the conversation? I do not want to overstay my welcome. James

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Ahem ... at this point, can I get a pass and step aside, so as not to derail the conversation? I do not want to overstay my welcome. James

OT is generally welcome here.

 

[Tim Campbell]

Well in keeping with your analogy MicMaven whether it is an Epiphone brand, an Ibanez, a Gibson no one disputes that it is a Les Paul. It fits all the criteria of what constitutes a Les Paul. No one would disagree that it is not original if it is not Gibson branded.

The Les Paul analogy fits here also in that Gibson made so many models and changes to the Les Paul that what constitutes a Les Paul is subjective.