Real Mic from a Chinese Toy

[Guest]

[quote author="Wavebourn"]Tomorrow I will experiment with a magical clay (linoleum in a coffee mill) [/quote]

Failed: my wife don't want me to use a coffee mill for a linoleum (we brought some great coffee from Kaua'i).
Ok, the experiment is postponed, so I am going to glue linoleum strips as usual: sand both sides of a strip and glue it using epoxy glue.

 

[Guest]

Here is the first draft of a new version. Comments/suggestions? HPF values are taken from U67 without modifications. R11 is a trimmer, the minimal value will be obtained, then replaced by a resistor.

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Wavebourn"]I dunno, but MXL's is indeed Shoep's toy with couple of additional whistles'n bells.[/quote]

Hi Wavebourn,

Just wondering why you consistently call the Schoeps-circuit a toy.
I like the CFP-topology as well and it could probably be better suited,
but would that make the Schoeps-topology a toy ?

I'm not commenting, just curious to your opinion of where the Schoeps circuit goofs.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Guest]

I've answered already many times; emitter followers powered by a tiny current from phantom power working on low frequency dependent impedance... And a hi-freq oscillator inside of a very sensitive device to bring a voltage up... It reminds me Chinese toys I used to see in Ross and Marshalls.

People who studied Electronics well understand me without any further explanations, because it is obvious for any more-less educated person.

PS: I still did not implement that sneaky feedback on frequencies below 40 Hz because decided that it would be a sin to use large diaphragm microphones so close to any mouth, including belonging to persons with most famous names...

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Wavebourn"]I've answered already many times; emitter followers powered by a tiny current from phantom power working on low frequency dependent impedance... [/quote]
Sorry if I didn't catch that before. But do we really have a problem here ?
Those PNPs seem to run at some 1 ... 1.4mA, while not that hefty it can at least deliver some signal swing.
It could be argued though that the original Schoeps circuit is from a time that mics in-which-a-circuit-like-this-is-tend-to-be-used didn't face such loud sources as they may these days. Dunno from which year it came, but I'm with you that for larger signals there could be problems (if at least that one was among your objections to this circuit :wink: )

And a hi-freq oscillator inside of a very sensitive device to bring a voltage up... It reminds me Chinese toys I used to see in Ross and Marshalls.

Surprised me as well to find circuits like that in a mic, but as it seems they get away with it. Maybe the osc-freq. and its influences are noticable or at least measurable. And the fact that respected companies like Schoeps come up with things like this doesn't necessarily mean that it's not without drawbacks, but lots of people would be quite ignorant if these circuits really had problems in practice (either from the osc. and/or EF-problems). Sure, better ways exist and your circuit looks nice, but that doesn't mean the rest is toy-stuff.

People who studied Electronics well understand me without any further explanations, because it is obvious for any more-less educated person.

I've come to know you here as a man with strong opinions. This time it seems to result in a bit ridiculing people that don't see the pile of problems arising from low-current EF-usage right away. I don't think that's a good thing. At least I myself wouldn't put it like that, but we are different persons.

Best regards,

Peter

 

[Guest]

[quote author="clintrubber"] And the fact that respected companies like Schoeps come up with things like this doesn't necessarily mean that it's not without drawbacks, [/quote]

I think it is the main point: respected companies
As CJ recently wrote, "Take some schematic and copy from it". It is the example what happens when somebody tries to copy without understanding...

Anyway, my conclusion was, capsules inside of that MXL's mics are usable, they sound decently, light equalization helps to remove a peak on highs, a wine bottle helps to reshape grills, as the result there are no any signs of "Chinese harshness" that people believe is the result of bad capsules. It is not, it is result of poor electronics design.

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Wavebourn"][quote author="clintrubber"] And the fact that respected companies like Schoeps come up with things like this doesn't necessarily mean that it's not without drawbacks, [/quote]

I think it is the main point: respected companies
As CJ recently wrote, "Take some schematic and copy from it". It is the example what happens when somebody tries to copy without understanding...[/quote]
It's the direction the beancounters want to drive the techies in...

Re-use, just glue some already existing blocks together (and spend more time debugging than it would have cost to do were they allowed to design it properly in the first place). It's tempting but risky.... like you said, things need to be understood before re-used (/copied).

Anyway, my conclusion was, capsules inside of that MXL's mics are usable, they sound decently, light equalization helps to remove a peak on highs, a wine bottle helps to reshape grills, as the result there are no any signs of "Chinese harshness" that people believe is the result of bad capsules. It is not, it is result of poor electronics design.

I guess your point is also proven by the info from Chris (Emperor-TK): he made a quick'n'dirty combination of the MCA SP-1 capsule and the electronics of a KM84 and considered the results quite comparably to the 'complete' KM84. :shock:
Hmm, interesting, not changing a few caps in these SP-1s but giving them new guts altogether ! :wink:

Probably not the most suited place to ask this (confusing threads), but what's actually the influence on sound of the ring around the medium-sized capsule ?

Regards,

Peter

 

[Guest]

[quote author="clintrubber"]

Probably not the most suited place to ask this (confusing threads), but what's actually the influence on sound of the ring around the medium-sized capsule ?
[/quote]

Theoretically it should change directivity pattern on highs and add kind of comb filter effect. Practically, I guess it helps technologically.

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Wavebourn"][quote author="clintrubber"]

Probably not the most suited place to ask this (confusing threads), but what's actually the influence on sound of the ring around the medium-sized capsule ?
[/quote]

Theoretically it should change directivity pattern on highs and add kind of comb filter effect. Practically, I guess it helps technologically.[/quote]
Thanks Wavebourn,

I got the 'theoretically' part, but didn't understand the 'practically' part.
Can understand it has a 'marketing' part as well, as in: people looking at what 's inside the mesh and seeing some large round thing and then it'll be OK for most of them.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Guest]

Let's remove the ring and experiment. :thumb:

 

[Marik]

[quote author="Wavebourn"]
Anyway, my conclusion was, capsules inside of that MXL's mics are usable, they sound decently. [/quote]

Well, I'd respectfully disagree here. IMO, the MXL capsule is not very exciting one, to start with. There are some much better Chinese capsules out there, which will not need EQ, and could be had for quite cheap.
Also, to me the use of that ring jobbie is pretty questionable. The capsule is not a SD anymore, but not a LD either... I have no idea what the designers had in mind making that "creation".

 

[Guest]

[quote author="Marik"][quote author="Wavebourn"]
Anyway, my conclusion was, capsules inside of that MXL's mics are usable, they sound decently. [/quote]

Well, I'd respectfully disagree here. IMO, the MXL capsule is not very exciting one, to start with. There are some much better Chinese capsules out there, which will not need EQ, and could be had for quite cheap.
Also, to me the use of that ring jobbie is pretty questionable. The capsule is not a SD anymore, but not a LD either... I have no idea what the designers had in mind making that "creation".[/quote]

Dear Marik;
I'd respectfully agree here: China today is one of the best manufacturers of everything, so better and even much better capsules exist. As well as much better complete microphones. Some of them need EQ, some of them don't need EQ, but some of them designed in U.S.A. using approach of "borrowing" sound horrible not because of "made in China", but because of "Designed by ignorant borrowers".

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Marik"]IMO, the MXL capsule is not very exciting one, to start with. There are some much better Chinese capsules out there, which will not need EQ, and could be had for quite cheap.[/quote]
Hi Marik, willing to share which mic-models these appear in ?

[quote author="Marik"][Also, to me the use of that ring jobbie is pretty questionable. The capsule is not a SD anymore, but not a LD either... I have no idea what the designers had in mind making that "creation".[/quote]
The most obvious one is to make it look 'serious', but maybe it's not as simple as that...

Thanks,

Peter

 

[Guest]

[quote author="clintrubber"][quote author="Marik"]IMO, the MXL capsule is not very exciting one, to start with. There are some much better Chinese capsules out there, which will not need EQ, and could be had for quite cheap.[/quote]
Hi Marik, willing to share which mic-models these appear in ?

[/quote]

I second that!

If you are afraid of raising prices please PM me and Peter!

My surgeon table is clean and empty now, so I'm ready for a new pair of microphones.

Meanwhile, I've found my "Liquid Holy Grail of damping", I made it from components available in Ace Hardware. :green: :thumb:

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Wavebourn"][quote author="clintrubber"][quote author="Marik"]IMO, the MXL capsule is not very exciting one, to start with. There are some much better Chinese capsules out there, which will not need EQ, and could be had for quite cheap.[/quote]
Hi Marik, willing to share which mic-models these appear in ?

[/quote]

I second that!

If you are afraid of raising prices please PM me and Peter![/quote]
Yep, was hesitant to ask because of exactly that :wink:

BTW, after G.A.S., anyone heard about G.M.S. ?

http://bouncetodisk.com/blog/category/microphones/

Regards,

Peter

 

[burdij]

The Alctron 34mm U67-style capsule is quite good, I have found. It is the one that is used in mikes like the CAD GXL3000.

 

[Guest]

[quote author="burdij"]The Alctron 34mm U67-style capsule is quite good, I have found. It is the one that is used in mikes like the CAD GXL3000.

[/quote]

Needs EQ as well, a bit more complex: when patterns are switched frequency response is different...

 

[Marik]

[quote author="Wavebourn"] some of them designed in U.S.A. using approach of "borrowing" sound horrible not because of "made in China", but because of "Designed by ignorant borrowers".[/quote]

Indeed, "borrowing design" is a stupid idea. Any microphone is a complex of different parts which should compliment each other. The idea of "let's take nose from A, eyes from B, chin from C, ears from D, etc. and make a "perfect person" does not work here.
I have to admit that although I am not a fond of Schoeps mics, I still used them twice. I have to say, no any other mic could give me what I wanted in those situations. Like it or not, I still cannot deny Schoeps is a very clever and well designed mic, where the capsule and circuit compliment each other and work together perfectly.

[quote author="clintrubber"]
Hi Marik, willing to share which mic-models these appear in ?[/quote]

For SD my favorites are from Studio Projects C4.
For LD I like 797 34mm, esp. after modifications, although even stock ones are very fine.

[quote author="Wavebourn"]

Needs EQ as well, a bit more complex: when patterns are switched frequency response is different...[/quote]

Yes, every pattern has its own characteristic frequency response as a function of diferent polar pattern, proximity efect, etc.
I am not sure why would you EQ them in the mic itself, when in any case, any recording will be EQed during mastering stage. It seems you'd just introduce additional distortions, while it would not take care of the problem, anyway.

 

[Guest]

[quote author="Marik"]
I am not sure why would you EQ them in the mic itself, when in any case, any recording will be EQed during mastering stage. It seems you'd just introduce additional distortions, while it would not take care of the problem, anyway.[/quote]

Any signal path distorts. And there is a big difference, when to EQ: before distortions added, or after.

Now teach me please how to EQ intermodulations during mastering stage, I'm drooling waiting for your answer...

PS: SERGEY ZADVORNY just has been announced as a

FIRST PRIZE WINNER IN 2008 BARRY ALEXANDER INTERNATIONAL VOCAL COMPETITION IN NEW YORK. (speaking of that "Baritone" you've criticized before...)

 

[Martin B. Kantola]

Not all recordings are equalised as much as one might expect. If you have a good sound from the microphone itself there's no reason to try to improve it. But on the other hand I'm not to happy with a thought of having a lot of EQ built into a microphone either. There might be two kinds of EQ, corrective and creative. The first type can hopefully be avoided most of the times and the second only makes art in the right hands and proportions. It's like spices and food...

Will read the whole thread again, but Wavebourn, what do you think is wrong with the Schoeps circuit? (sorry if the question has been asked...) EDIT: If you can, please reply in terms of how it affects sound (which is far easier for me to understand) Mikes are for listening to, yes?

Martin