Toroidal output transformer in the microphone.

[vmanj]

And once again i must ask - what's the problem? When has it NOT been a case of "let the buyer beware", when not buying the original item?

The fact is that it is in inexpensive clones that the seller claims that the toroidal output transformer is a wonderful salvation and the key to the “magic” sound..
Instead of saying that this is not a “clone” at all, but simply his “author’s” budget solution..
And why in this case do they use the “magic” numbers 47, 67, etc..

 

[Khron]

... Because marketing, and because money?

It's still not 100000000% clear to me why you would expect complete technical (and ethical) accuracy from people who want to take as much money from you as they can / as you let them.

... And then there's confirmation bias / buyer's remorse, and all those other psychological things...

 

[vmanj]

... And then there's confirmation bias / buyer's remorse, and all those other psychological things...

Well, yes, this is in “ancient times”...
But now you can find a lot of information on the Internet... and don’t let yourself be deceived..
I don't understand how this can still work in our time?

 

[Khron]

I don't understand how this can still work in our time?

https://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2015/11/11/do-people-want-to-be-fooled/
And i'm sure there are many other such articles out there. Humans are weird...

 

[vmanj]

 

[Recording Engineer]

This may be an expensive and innovative microphone, but these advantages can only be shown by the popularity, sales and demand for this microphone.

This line of thinking makes me think the “cheap clone” marketing departments have you where they want you. If that’s all it takes, there’s a whole heap of crap gear out there for you.

By the way, I’ve used that microphone enough times to know what’s what.

 

[Matt Nolan]

This may be an expensive and innovative microphone, but these advantages can only be shown by the popularity, sales and demand for this microphone.

Judging quality by measuring sales is a strange approach. Burgers outsell prime steak by orders of magnitude, for example.

 

[k brown]

Judging quality by measuring sales is a strange approach. Burgers outsell prime steak by orders of magnitude, for example.

Shhhh - or McDonalds will start selling steak, and we just don't want to go there . . .

 

[soapfoot]

At this relatively early stage in the internet era, one of the more insidious traps is the fallacy that a layperson can “do their own research” and uncover (e.g.) “this one secret truth that clone mic manufacturers don’t want you to know about”

Real life is nuanced and complicated, and sometimes it’s actually more instructive to just listen to the mic and see if it sounds good to you

I don’t really need to parse the hidden motives and agendas of a manufacturer to assess whether or not a tool will be useful in my work, you know?

 

[vmanj]

This line of thinking makes me think the “cheap clone” marketing departments have you where they want you. If that’s all it takes, there’s a whole heap of crap gear out there for you.

It is unlikely.
Now there are different options for “marketing” available, there is freedom to choose them, so why choose the option of a cheap “clone”?

By the way, I’ve used that microphone enough times to know what’s what.

I see, so you had the opportunity to compare the outdated “classic” microphone models 47,67,87,251,800 and this innovative microphone.

If so, please tell me whether the end result has noticeable sound “advantages” or not?

 

[vmanj]

I don’t know how to record and produce “top” sound, so the name of the microphone in this process is an “unknown variable” for me..
These are just my assumptions and I cannot say anything with confidence.
However, I was only talking about the fact that some manufacturers are trying to call something that is not a “clone”, thereby deceiving the buyer.

 

[soapfoot]

I can certainly empathize with the pitfalls of trying to find affordable quality

The same old principles generally will serve well: if something sounds too good to be true it likely is, and while you generally get what you pay for, sometimes you’re paying for a name and luxury cachet. Good values do exist!

But an expert like some of those who have replied on this thread will generally have more insight than an end user about the specific technologies used.

 

[vmanj]

Quite possible.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I see, so you had the opportunity to compare the outdated “classic” microphone models 47,67,87,251,800 and this innovative microphone.

If so, please tell me whether the end result has noticeable sound “advantages” or not?

Side-by-side, next to each other for comparison, no. Used them all for 30-years on all kinds of sources, in various studios, on any given day, yes; plus at least 100 other mics, be them cheap or very-expensive “clones” or “inspired-by-X” or their own “innovative designs” of various degrees.

They work for me and make my job easier, or they don’t. Some are worth it to me and different-enough from each other for me, some not.

One thing I do know… A mic having a certain type of part or not tells me absolutely nothing. Anyone with reason would agree.

As for the specific mic you asked me about, I absolutely love it! Personally, I’d offer the studio I’ve used it at, twice the price its value before I bought an original 47. However, the studio is in my town, so I can rent out the studio whenever I’d like for much cheaper. Plus, maybe one day I can make a “Peg-less-us” mic. I have the tube and Samar manufactured toroidal transformer for it already. Maybe one day, Mark will get to making me the choke. If only he’d stop making wonderful mics that people buy, he’d have some time!

Won’t have the original capsule though! And that right there is what killed the manufacture of the original. It was bound to be from the get-go, because it all rested on Tony there. I understand why they took that chance though!

 

[terry setter]

...not to mention the 12AY7 tube is not the best choice for a microphone.

Marik, I'd love to hear your thoughts as to what is not so good about the 12AY7/6072A when being used in a microphone. Plate resistance? Internal capacitance? Mu? Transconductance, size, PRICE...?

 

[Marik]

Marik, I'd love to hear your thoughts as to what is not so good about the 12AY7/6072A when being used in a microphone. Plate resistance? Internal capacitance? Mu? Transconductance, size, PRICE...?

Terry,

The plate resistance, mu, and transconductance are closely connected to each other and yes, those are exactly where I see a problem. Let's see--at 250V plate voltage, 3ma current the 12AY7 has (according to data sheet):
mu 44
Plate resistnace 25kΩ
Transconductance 1750 umhos

For comparison 12AT7 with much higher transconductance has higher mu and more than twice lower plate resistance:
mu 60
Plate resistance 10.9kΩ
Transconductance 5500 umhos

The triode connected EF86 is already:

mu 28
Plate resistance 2.2kΩ (!!!)

There is no transconductance rating (it is possible to calculate it from mu and plate resistance), but you can clearly see in a glance it is much higher than any of above tubes.

Obviously, for some 120V at 0.5ma current usual for microphone operation (for reliablitly and low noise) the plate resistance will go way up, and the mu and transconductance will get lower, as a result.

Let's see what's up with the transformers. For 200Ω output for a flat response and without complications of fancy winding it is customary to make the ratio no more than 12:1. The 12AY7 even as it is gives us exactly 200Ω at the textbook conditions, (again, at 250v and 3ma), so with 120V and .5mA it is much worse and already requires quite a bit higher transformer ratio for optimal result.

The 12AT7 looks much better and the EF86 is just perfect, with required transformer ratio of only 6.5:1, which allows to optimize transformer and circuit pretty easily. Also, the lower required ratio compensates for lower mu. There are quite a few other tubes more, or less falling into that ballpark.

But again, as I mentioned above the microphone is a system and the tubes are forgiving creatures, so in the case of 251/C12, etc. it happened to work fine despite the deficiencies.

Best, M

P.S. Sorry, I just got back in town and will answer your another message ASAP.