Most excellent. I've been studying microphones, capsules, circuit design, mechanics design and transformers for 12 years, and was able to complete the sentences before they were finished. This is extremely accurate information in all regards.
Same here... Here's a free tip for you all with locker full of chinese mics that sound harsh. Add a passive noch filter inside the mic between pins XLR PINS 2-3 to tame the 10-11KHz of the output. What actually makes the mics sound ever worse is preamp distortion. You set the lavels and when ever there is 10-12KHz information peak it will distort, making it even harsh sounding. You can't remove that post with EQ.
Ohh nice info. I wasn't aware of these differences. Maybe one of you sound-nerds (i mean that as a compliment :) can help me with a question: I am working with a team of scientist and biologist together to record infrasound of Elephants to locate and protect them (not only from poaching). Long story short: Which capsules or mics are most sensitive for very low frequencies. Specially 5Hz - 30Hz which is the sound that elephants make to communicate over long distances (more than 1KM). Our aim is to install a network of mics in the jungle. That's why we don't want to use 5000USD mics. Anything you can recommend under 50USD? For now we use a Panasonic WM61A which already is quite good for the price of 6USD. But i am sure there is something better out there :) Any ideas? Thanks already in advance for any help we get. More info (also about the WM61A) can be found here: www.researchgate.net/publication/320596116_Eloc_Locating_Wild_Elephants_Using_Low-Cost_Infrasonic_Detectors
@@edsteve - I think that what you're going to find is that the low frequency response is not determined by the capsule size, but more of how the circuit is designed, or how the parts are incorporated. The one thing that differs among capsule sizes is sensitivity. Larger capsules are more sensitive, especially when you start dealing with membranes in the 3-4 micron range. 6 microns is standard. (One micron is about 1/50th the thickness of a human hair). 6 micron diaphragms are a studio standard because they add some heft to the sound. Small diaphragm mics are more accurate and handle transients better. It's going to be difficult to boil down the right combination of qualities, but I think I can help you a bit since you've already used the WM61A. Transients really aren't affected in the sub-audio range. However, that doesn't mean you need to be thinking large diaphragm. Confusing, I know. Cost wise the only mic I know that lists a frequency response lower than 20Hz is the Behringer ECM8000, which you can find at Sweetwater for about $30. It's low end it listed at 15Hz (however most measurement mics typically go down to 3Hz), it's omnidirectional and has a near ruler flat frequency response, and is used as a calibration mic. I think it even uses the WM61A as it capsule (maybe). It's possible that the frequency goes lower, but they rate microphones for human hearing. The only issue I know of is the self noise is a bit high. I hope that's useful. You could at least afford to get one to see if it goes as low as you need. I sure would like to help the elephants. They're special and wonderful creatures who have been abused by humans when they deserve our protection. I also hate poachers!
@@Fos3tex Cool. Thanks a lot. That's exactly the info i was looking for and brings us one step closer. It also clarified my question if a bigger diaphragm would be better or not. I will definitely buy the ECM8000 and compare it with our DIY version. Elephants will thank you. Poachers will hate you :) Thanks again
Microtech Gefell still produce and use the M7 capsule with PVC membrane in some microphones like M71s, UMT70, M92.1s, UM92.1 etc... Those mics sound really good too. Very well balanced across the entire frequency range. I have many other mics but the Gefell ones are special for me.
Thanks a lot for this clear and detail lecture. I´ve managed to assemble microphone based on MP-V57 PCB Kit from Microphone-Parts and K67 capsule and it sounds great. Very good tool for my VO projects.
Most sources treat the nuts and bolts of mic and how they work as some sort of "black magic". This series seems to be cutting thru that and laying out the information for a real understanding. This could get into deeper theory and math and science but might just go over the heads of alot of users. Besides, "trade secrets" probably start showing.
fascinating and informative presentation! can anyone tell me what mic the presenter is using? i've seen other youtubers using similar (or identical) mouthpiece mics with that little orange ball - and they all sound so buttery, just like this guy - but i havent really been able to pin down a make and model..
"We're not learning how to design capsules here" Well damn! Anyone got any resources for that? Its the one thing i can't seem to find a solid resource on.
Hello! I need Your advice, please. Got myself a not expensive T. Bone Retro Tube II mic, which got a really bad problems with self-noise too, but it's not the case. Previously I thought, that I can deal with a sensitivity inperfections in high frequences by EQ'ing it, but I was wrong. Just in case it's my first mic and I targeting on Neuman's '47 clones, but for now I only can afford that. So my question is if I change a capsule (it has a K67 in it) in this mic I, probably, need to change pretty much everything around to make it sound as it should or changing the capsule to more "lowered" (K47) unit can be a quick solution? Also I'm thinking to upgrade a tube to a Electro Harmonix or something You can advice, maybe, but not sure it worth it. but anyways. It's a standard 12AX7 tube in there everywhere, right? The mic has a stock long 10 meter 7-pin cable from a power supply, which I can upgrade to a shorter one's (3-4 meter, beter quality), but I think it may be even more highs if I do it. Because I tried a 10 meter Sommer manufactured XLR cable and 3 meter DIY Sommer Club and 10-meter one sound's better, because it lowered sibiliants. The shorter one's bring a harsh and more mouth clicks that deal with. So I just investigating if there is something to tweak. I think You have an experience. Thank You!
my rode nt1-a capsule is defect and how kind need capsule I buy? and which cheap microphones same with rode nt1-a capsule because I can't find capsule for rode nt1-a and I thought maybe I can buy used microphones capsules and move capsule to rode nt1-a ..anyone have idea help please??
I think a k47 capsule will work in the nt1a. Look up nt1a microphone mods for more info. I know that you can mod an nt2a with a k12 or k47 capsule, but the nt1a is different.
All mic capsules are not the same! There are many cheap capsules on Ebay and Alibaba. I would not recommend buying those. We have tested dozens of those capsules and seen wildly varying quality levels. If you want a high-quality capsule that includes mounts, installation support, and a warranty, see my products at MicParts.com . Be aware that unscrupulous sellers and scammers have taken the MicParts capsule names (e.g. RK-12, RK-47, RK-87) in an effort to deceive their customers. The RK series capsules have a great reputation because we make a high quality product, with a decade's worth of history in the industry and 10,000+ satisfied customers. We sell them exclusively via MicParts.com and the MicParts store on Ebay. Any other "RK" capsules sold via Alibaba, Reverb, Ebay, etc., is a counterfeit capsule that lacks the sound, the reputation, support, mounts, etc. Buyer beware. If you're not interested in DIY, and just want to buy a microphone that has a great capsule (and fantastic components, with optimized circuit designs), see the Roswell Pro Audio product line. We design those mics, and we do all the soldering / assembly / testing / tuning in house.
If you removed gold from the diaphragm, it could affect the mic's sound and output level. If you don't hear any difference, then I think that means you got lucky. Gold does not adhere to Mylar very well, so it never makes sense to wipe the diaphragm of a condenser capsule.
You don't need a "capsule." You need a complete microphone. It's misguided to think that the circuit and physical housing (body/grille) are irrelevant. It is true that many cheap mics have bright capsules that are incorrectly handled by their circuits; those sorts of mics tend to exaggerate sibilance and mouth sounds, so you'd want to stay away from those. You would probably want to start with a mic that has a more or less flat frequency response, like the Roswell Mini K87 or Delphos II, to ensure that you're not boosting high frequencies. Then experiment with positioning. Closer mic placements create proximity effect, which boosts the lows of your voice. Also try mounting the mic upside down with the grille at forehead height, tipped backwards to point at your mouth from above. This position helps the mic avoid plosives, and helps capture chest resonance, which can make thin voices sound richer.
Sorry for the noobie question but I just bought a peluso 2247 with an updated m7 capsule - it just came with it as the other user upgraded it - what exactly should I expect to hear with the upgrade compared to without it !?
Easy answer -- without the capsule, the mic wouldn't work at all. ;-) Pedantic answer: the K47 and M7 capsules sound different; the M7 tends to be flatter in the upper mids, although the final frequency curve of any capsule is influenced to some degree by the acoustic environment, e.g. volume of the grille, mesh construction, etc. Without having heard the mic, and without knowing which M7 capsule it has (there are not many out there, but some of them are funky), I can only speculate that the mic has a flatter frequency response now, in the 3-7kHz range, than it did originally.
i personally think "yes". we could "emulate/imitate" certain mics (tone) with just some eq work, but we can't "emulate/imitate" some properties or parameters like transient response, proximity effects, etc (if there's too much difference in the capsule construction)
how is a microphone that doesnt have a flat response any good, it changes that actual sound, shouldnt it just capture the sound as accurately as possible? if you want a "bright bump" or more bass just eq it
Microphones with a neutral/flat response and accurate/transparent capture do have applications in the studio... but your assumption that those are the only "good" microphones disagrees with the entire history of recorded music. Make a list of the best-known, most revered microphones of all time; you'll find that none of them have a flat response, nor were they intended to capture sound as accurately as possible. I might go farther and argue that large-diaphragm condensers utterly fail that test by design, because even if the on-axis response is flat, the off-axis response won't be. The reality is that the sonic characteristics of a microphone that encourage listeners to feel emotion and tap their feet tend not to be closely correlated with a mic's "accuracy."
You are partly correct. The photo shows a capsule modeled after the CK-12, but the one in the photo is obviously not from AKG. I suppose the title image is misleading; it should have said "AKG style." The presentation slide about capsules notes that these are recreation capsules rather than AKG/Neumann/Gefell originals. But that's largely irrelevant to the point of the talk, so IMO the distinction is pedantic. I'm not sure how to respond to the claim that this is a "chinese edge terminated K67." The K67 is not edge terminated. The backplate drilling pattern of this capsule is not the K67's. And the frequency response is not a K67's.
You are partly correct, partly incorrect. It is similar to the K67 in the blind and through hole patterns, with the exception of the center where a K67 would have the post. All those holes really do is dampen the diaphragm and cause a delay network to provide the polar patterns. AKG's network and depth of backplates was more complicated. Being edge terminated has more of an effect that you realize. Think of it as a drum head with your finger in the center, then play it. Even though this is much smaller, it has a huge impact on the overall response of the diaphragm. The "air" you hear on a CK12 is actually a ringing in the high frequency range. When you use a center termination you change the frequencies where that ringing happens. Even though the AKG CK12 and this version are different mechanically, they share more in response than they differ.
And after market "replica" cartridges, "Sounds like Neumann....." etc. Not sure where their carts are made, not sure how good they really are, etc. Because if they were just as good, Neuman AKG et al would go out of business. And besides all users can do is compare by ear, not having access to a big dollar test chamber and an expert.
Most excellent. I've been studying microphones, capsules, circuit design, mechanics design and transformers for 12 years, and was able to complete the sentences before they were finished. This is extremely accurate information in all regards.
I want to get into all those topics, how should I?
Same here... Here's a free tip for you all with locker full of chinese mics that sound harsh. Add a passive noch filter inside the mic between pins XLR PINS 2-3 to tame the 10-11KHz of the output. What actually makes the mics sound ever worse is preamp distortion. You set the lavels and when ever there is 10-12KHz information peak it will distort, making it even harsh sounding. You can't remove that post with EQ.
Ohh nice info. I wasn't aware of these differences. Maybe one of you sound-nerds (i mean that as a compliment :) can help me with a question:
I am working with a team of scientist and biologist together to record infrasound of Elephants to locate and protect them (not only from poaching).
Long story short: Which capsules or mics are most sensitive for very low frequencies. Specially 5Hz - 30Hz which is the sound that elephants make to communicate over long distances (more than 1KM).
Our aim is to install a network of mics in the jungle. That's why we don't want to use 5000USD mics. Anything you can recommend under 50USD?
For now we use a Panasonic WM61A which already is quite good for the price of 6USD. But i am sure there is something better out there :)
Any ideas?
Thanks already in advance for any help we get.
More info (also about the WM61A) can be found here: www.researchgate.net/publication/320596116_Eloc_Locating_Wild_Elephants_Using_Low-Cost_Infrasonic_Detectors
@@edsteve - I think that what you're going to find is that the low frequency response is not determined by the capsule size, but more of how the circuit is designed, or how the parts are incorporated.
The one thing that differs among capsule sizes is sensitivity. Larger capsules are more sensitive, especially when you start dealing with membranes in the 3-4 micron range. 6 microns is standard. (One micron is about 1/50th the thickness of a human hair). 6 micron diaphragms are a studio standard because they add some heft to the sound. Small diaphragm mics are more accurate and handle transients better. It's going to be difficult to boil down the right combination of qualities, but I think I can help you a bit since you've already used the WM61A. Transients really aren't affected in the sub-audio range. However, that doesn't mean you need to be thinking large diaphragm. Confusing, I know.
Cost wise the only mic I know that lists a frequency response lower than 20Hz is the Behringer ECM8000, which you can find at Sweetwater for about $30. It's low end it listed at 15Hz (however most measurement mics typically go down to 3Hz), it's omnidirectional and has a near ruler flat frequency response, and is used as a calibration mic. I think it even uses the WM61A as it capsule (maybe). It's possible that the frequency goes lower, but they rate microphones for human hearing. The only issue I know of is the self noise is a bit high.
I hope that's useful. You could at least afford to get one to see if it goes as low as you need. I sure would like to help the elephants. They're special and wonderful creatures who have been abused by humans when they deserve our protection. I also hate poachers!
@@Fos3tex Cool. Thanks a lot. That's exactly the info i was looking for and brings us one step closer. It also clarified my question if a bigger diaphragm would be better or not. I will definitely buy the ECM8000 and compare it with our DIY version. Elephants will thank you. Poachers will hate you :)
Thanks again
On the edge of my seat waiting to know about the M7 capsule
wish this was longer
Precise information delivered in clear speech. Thanks a lot. 👍💪🏻👏🏼
Jim Lill in Nashville recently put out a video showing that the screw arrangement (# of) affects that capsule’s sound/response.
If this was available when I was teaching, I would have used it.
Microtech Gefell still produce and use the M7 capsule with PVC membrane in some microphones like M71s, UMT70, M92.1s, UM92.1 etc...
Those mics sound really good too. Very well balanced across the entire frequency range. I have many other mics but the Gefell ones are special for me.
I would love to hear the full thing. Did he talk about the M7 at all?
Excellent presentation!
Thanks a lot for this clear and detail lecture. I´ve managed to assemble microphone based on MP-V57 PCB Kit from Microphone-Parts and K67 capsule and it sounds great. Very good tool for my VO projects.
Agreed..."clear and detailed lecture" Thanks Mr. McGlynn
Excellent lecture!
Such a great video, thank you!
Brilliant explanation!
What a great info session on capsules!!
CK12 sounds amazing
Most sources treat the nuts and bolts of mic and how they work as some sort of "black magic". This series seems to be cutting thru that and laying out the information for a real understanding. This could get into deeper theory and math and science but might just go over the heads of alot of users. Besides, "trade secrets" probably start showing.
I would love to see this complete talk. Where can I get access to it?
Thanks!
Extremely informative
How many microns are your CK-12 capsules? 6 microns Mylar?
fascinating and informative presentation!
can anyone tell me what mic the presenter is using?
i've seen other youtubers using similar (or identical) mouthpiece mics with that little orange ball - and they all sound so buttery, just like this guy - but i havent really been able to pin down a make and model..
"We're not learning how to design capsules here"
Well damn! Anyone got any resources for that? Its the one thing i can't seem to find a solid resource on.
Hello! I need Your advice, please. Got myself a not expensive T. Bone Retro Tube II mic, which got a really bad problems with self-noise too, but it's not the case. Previously I thought, that I can deal with a sensitivity inperfections in high frequences by EQ'ing it, but I was wrong. Just in case it's my first mic and I targeting on Neuman's '47 clones, but for now I only can afford that. So my question is if I change a capsule (it has a K67 in it) in this mic I, probably, need to change pretty much everything around to make it sound as it should or changing the capsule to more "lowered" (K47) unit can be a quick solution? Also I'm thinking to upgrade a tube to a Electro Harmonix or something You can advice, maybe, but not sure it worth it. but anyways. It's a standard 12AX7 tube in there everywhere, right? The mic has a stock long 10 meter 7-pin cable from a power supply, which I can upgrade to a shorter one's (3-4 meter, beter quality), but I think it may be even more highs if I do it. Because I tried a 10 meter Sommer manufactured XLR cable and 3 meter DIY Sommer Club and 10-meter one sound's better, because it lowered sibiliants. The shorter one's bring a harsh and more mouth clicks that deal with. So I just investigating if there is something to tweak. I think You have an experience. Thank You!
Very Valuable Video
I Have Some Old Russian Mic Diafr..
my rode nt1-a capsule is defect and how kind need capsule I buy? and which cheap microphones same with rode nt1-a capsule because I can't find capsule for rode nt1-a and I thought maybe I can buy used microphones capsules and move capsule to rode nt1-a ..anyone have idea help please??
I think a k47 capsule will work in the nt1a. Look up nt1a microphone mods for more info. I know that you can mod an nt2a with a k12 or k47 capsule, but the nt1a is different.
Hello, these capsules are sold loose and are inexpensive, is there a microphone that includes them?
All mic capsules are not the same! There are many cheap capsules on Ebay and Alibaba. I would not recommend buying those. We have tested dozens of those capsules and seen wildly varying quality levels. If you want a high-quality capsule that includes mounts, installation support, and a warranty, see my products at MicParts.com . Be aware that unscrupulous sellers and scammers have taken the MicParts capsule names (e.g. RK-12, RK-47, RK-87) in an effort to deceive their customers. The RK series capsules have a great reputation because we make a high quality product, with a decade's worth of history in the industry and 10,000+ satisfied customers. We sell them exclusively via MicParts.com and the MicParts store on Ebay. Any other "RK" capsules sold via Alibaba, Reverb, Ebay, etc., is a counterfeit capsule that lacks the sound, the reputation, support, mounts, etc. Buyer beware. If you're not interested in DIY, and just want to buy a microphone that has a great capsule (and fantastic components, with optimized circuit designs), see the Roswell Pro Audio product line. We design those mics, and we do all the soldering / assembly / testing / tuning in house.
Please review the At2020 I feel like its a fake mic. It might be electret
I have a question í have mxl 4000 wich my capsule mesed up but í have an mxl v87 can inswitch the capsules Would it make a diferents
I rubbed off some of the gold in the front of the coil the mic still works what damage did I do?
I did the same ... I got mad whooly noises on my at4040 now
If you removed gold from the diaphragm, it could affect the mic's sound and output level. If you don't hear any difference, then I think that means you got lucky. Gold does not adhere to Mylar very well, so it never makes sense to wipe the diaphragm of a condenser capsule.
What capsule do I need to make my voice to sound deeper?
You don't need a "capsule." You need a complete microphone. It's misguided to think that the circuit and physical housing (body/grille) are irrelevant. It is true that many cheap mics have bright capsules that are incorrectly handled by their circuits; those sorts of mics tend to exaggerate sibilance and mouth sounds, so you'd want to stay away from those.
You would probably want to start with a mic that has a more or less flat frequency response, like the Roswell Mini K87 or Delphos II, to ensure that you're not boosting high frequencies. Then experiment with positioning. Closer mic placements create proximity effect, which boosts the lows of your voice. Also try mounting the mic upside down with the grille at forehead height, tipped backwards to point at your mouth from above. This position helps the mic avoid plosives, and helps capture chest resonance, which can make thin voices sound richer.
Sorry for the noobie question but I just bought a peluso 2247 with an updated m7 capsule - it just came with it as the other user upgraded it - what exactly should I expect to hear with the upgrade compared to without it !?
Easy answer -- without the capsule, the mic wouldn't work at all. ;-)
Pedantic answer: the K47 and M7 capsules sound different; the M7 tends to be flatter in the upper mids, although the final frequency curve of any capsule is influenced to some degree by the acoustic environment, e.g. volume of the grille, mesh construction, etc. Without having heard the mic, and without knowing which M7 capsule it has (there are not many out there, but some of them are funky), I can only speculate that the mic has a flatter frequency response now, in the 3-7kHz range, than it did originally.
@@RoswellProAudio it's a beeznees m7 capsule - oh man it doesn't sound like an upgrade the way you say it lol
@@ryancohenmusic Try it out. You might love it. My reply was not at all intended to suggest that your mic is bad.
Now, I want to throw some brass on my lathe/mill, and sputter mylar with some gold, see if I can make my own mic. Thank you for the explaination.
try it :-)
Great presentation. So, we could effectively “emulate” certain mics if we EQ and Preamp accordingly around those frequencies, correct?
i personally think "yes".
we could "emulate/imitate" certain mics (tone) with just some eq work, but we can't "emulate/imitate" some properties or parameters like transient response, proximity effects, etc (if there's too much difference in the capsule construction)
how is a microphone that doesnt have a flat response any good, it changes that actual sound, shouldnt it just capture the sound as accurately as possible? if you want a "bright bump" or more bass just eq it
Microphones with a neutral/flat response and accurate/transparent capture do have applications in the studio... but your assumption that those are the only "good" microphones disagrees with the entire history of recorded music. Make a list of the best-known, most revered microphones of all time; you'll find that none of them have a flat response, nor were they intended to capture sound as accurately as possible. I might go farther and argue that large-diaphragm condensers utterly fail that test by design, because even if the on-axis response is flat, the off-axis response won't be. The reality is that the sonic characteristics of a microphone that encourage listeners to feel emotion and tap their feet tend not to be closely correlated with a mic's "accuracy."
That is not CK12 capsule, its a chinese edge terminated k67. Has nothing to do with CK12.
You are partly correct. The photo shows a capsule modeled after the CK-12, but the one in the photo is obviously not from AKG. I suppose the title image is misleading; it should have said "AKG style." The presentation slide about capsules notes that these are recreation capsules rather than AKG/Neumann/Gefell originals. But that's largely irrelevant to the point of the talk, so IMO the distinction is pedantic.
I'm not sure how to respond to the claim that this is a "chinese edge terminated K67." The K67 is not edge terminated. The backplate drilling pattern of this capsule is not the K67's. And the frequency response is not a K67's.
You are partly correct, partly incorrect. It is similar to the K67 in the blind and through hole patterns, with the exception of the center where a K67 would have the post. All those holes really do is dampen the diaphragm and cause a delay network to provide the polar patterns. AKG's network and depth of backplates was more complicated. Being edge terminated has more of an effect that you realize. Think of it as a drum head with your finger in the center, then play it. Even though this is much smaller, it has a huge impact on the overall response of the diaphragm. The "air" you hear on a CK12 is actually a ringing in the high frequency range. When you use a center termination you change the frequencies where that ringing happens. Even though the AKG CK12 and this version are different mechanically, they share more in response than they differ.
Here is the hole thing:
ruclips.net/video/kp0x-wTdox8/видео.htmlm30s
And after market "replica" cartridges, "Sounds like Neumann....." etc. Not sure where their carts are made, not sure how good they really are, etc. Because if they were just as good, Neuman AKG et al would go out of business. And besides all users can do is compare by ear, not having access to a big dollar test chamber and an expert.