Low Cost Small Condenser Options

Well it's all good people... everybody can do what they want with their money. The Oktava MK012a started out as "the little mic that could"... but in the very very very beginning... Oktava didn't exercise much discipline in the internal components... so some people got a good mic, and some didn't... but even those who got a good mic got a different mic then the consistent stock MK012a of the past 3+ years.

If you were able to buy your Oktava at Guitar Center then it's been at least 3+ years since you bought them... and they're STILL most likely the "current" version... but MIGHT not be...

I still say a picture is worth a thousand words. I've been into audio since I was 14 years old... and any adjectives like "special sauce" really turn me off... I don't want my mic treated with special sauce... I want it to have 1% Vishay resistors, the 2SK170 FET, and something other then electrolytic capacitors... if he could fit 'em in... film caps perhaps? We're talking about 5 total components that are even replaceable. 2 caps, 2 resistors, and an FET.

From what I've seen (and am showing with proof of pictures) is that ALL of those components have been improved... and according to Dorsey... if you see the newer capacitors "don't bother" changing them out... well... now we ALSO have upgraded resistors and FET. So what's left? How much difference is the proper (best) FET over the already-upgraded FET? Then it's two resistors... which again, have already been upgraded from what they were before... but are most certainly NOT Vishay. (economics)

I still think the FET could possibly be replaced (this is why I said I may have to talk to Paul about getting a latest gen MK012a to see what's inside)... and if the resistors are replaced with Vishay... then I maybe would do that also... but otherwise... I fear the special sauce may be in a person's head.

A picture of the improved mic's guts would be great. That way you're not investing in science, not sauce.

Also... as I'm sure Mike knows... it is CRUCIAL that the board has the [urethane?] coating carefully removed... and then reapplied... so that the mic doesn't get noisy in humid conditions. My point is that to chemically strip off the coating... change out, I'm guessing, the FET and two resistors (hopefully Vishay), and then re-seal the board... I want the difference to be heard readily.

Finally... if Mike will post a picture of the guts... or email a picture that I can post... so that we can show why this mod is a good idea... I will send him the remainder of various Vishay resistors that I bought to do the Dorsey mod (as well as resistors that I used in attenuation cables)... as a gift of thanks for his trouble. (probably over $100 worth of Vishay resistors)

I also want to say that I don't think $89 is unreasonable to charge for this service (if Mike does at least what I list above)... and if he DOES do that... then I'd consider having him do it. The point isn't that I think he's taking advantage of anybody... the point is that if you bought an Oktava MK012a within the past 3 years I don't think you'll get much out of modding it... and there isn't much left to mod anyway.
 
Last edited:
I thought the last Dorsey had ok'd 3 of the 8 capacitors still recommending 2 be changed; and more so,that they were responsible for part of the handling noise. Is that correct?

And the FET, a few (expensive) resistors, and optionally a bipolar transistor.

Also, Dorsey commented that the circuit board is fragile. Overall, it makes Mike's costs look very reasonable. However, his modifications to the large diaphragm mics where he makes basket changes seem more critical.

Interestingly, Oktava offers an AC-powerd vacuum tube pre-amp for the MK012 now (expensive though) and a pair of new (late 2006) medium and large diaphraghm capsules for the MK012. Mike mods those capsules. The MK104 looks interesting.

So far, all of the clips I've heard on line have tended to be rather hammered MP3s. Even the Flac-encoded ones seem trucated at 10khz. There was one or two ogg's that went near 20khz; they were all ok but not as rich as the KM184s. However, that may be more MKH40 and Schoeps like.
 
Mat, your surprising me. I'm not here to convince you of anything. You sugested that Oktava Mod might be a scam, I've dealt with you and I've dealt with Michael and I defended him the same as I would defend you if some one accused you of running a scam. If you really want to know what is in the mod ASK him.
http://www.oktavamod.com/

He says it's based on the premium upgrade to the 219, I quoted below what he describes as the premium upgrade to that mic.

What's a PE upgrade?

My Premium Electronics upgrade modifies the circuit topology and replaces 100% of the PC board components (transformer excluded - its terrific) with best-in-class components that required years of bench and listening tests to identify. These include Black Gate and other specialty Mylar, Silver Mica and polypropylene capacitors, low-noise metal film resistors and a modern, lower-noise, faster transient performance version of the same FET type used in the original Neumann FET microphones.

You'll hear highly detailed sound free from noise and top end edginess.

Each FET is personally auditioned for best sound and lowest noise twice - once during installation (after biasing for minimum distortion using a real time spectrum analyzer), then again after a three-day burn in period.

Evidence Audio LYRIC IGL conductors are used in the critical capsule-to-FET path to deliver better fundamental / harmonic time alignment for punchier sound with more impact.
Click to expand...

He has written about the mods before and his site used to be more like what your talking about, I'm assuming he got too many "yaya you use xxx resistors but what does it sound like?" questions so he made it more "user friendly". For every electronics knowledgeable customer that owns an Oktava there must be at least 1000 that "ah just think it rocks, man". I was ripping apart and modifying tape decks (things like finding the erase head tube and yanking it so you can over dub etc.) around the same time you were, though probably a decade or two before you were). So I here what your saying. But if you really are interested it's not hard to use google.

And there is also this Tape-Op interview.
http://www.michaeljolyeditions.com/mje-tapeop.pdf
 
Noiz2 said:
Mat, your surprising me. I'm not here to convince you of anything. You sugested that Oktava Mod might be a scam, I've dealt with you and I've dealt with Michael and I defended him the same as I would defend you if some one accused you of running a scam. If you really want to know what is in the mod ASK him.
http://www.oktavamod.com/

He says it's based on the premium upgrade to the 219, I quoted below what he describes as the premium upgrade to that mic.



He has written about the mods before and his site used to be more like what your talking about, I'm assuming he got too many "yaya you use xxx resistors but what does it sound like?" questions so he made it more "user friendly". For every electronics knowledgeable customer that owns an Oktava there must be at least 1000 that "ah just think it rocks, man". I was ripping apart and modifying tape decks (things like finding the erase head tube and yanking it so you can over dub etc.) around the same time you were, though probably a decade or two before you were). So I here what your saying. But if you really are interested it's not hard to use google.

And there is also this Tape-Op interview.
http://www.michaeljolyeditions.com/mje-tapeop.pdf
Click to expand...


Maybe I should have sat this one out :beer:

I apologize for implying that Mike is scamming people... that was not my intention.

If you look back through my previous posts (including the time of the post/edit) you'll see that even before you said this that I said $89 to mod a mic is NOT a bad deal... I meant that I'd be surprised if this is necessary for the normal video user... and I tried to elaborate to say that I'd be surprised if anybody could hear the difference. I've got clips of the Oktava up against a Schoeps MK41... I posted them a long time ago on my old site... but I still have them... and while I can hear the difference, you'll see what I mean... for video dialog the Oktava isn't exactly "easy" to pick from the Schoeps. You have to listen pretty seriously.

The spirit of my discussion is rooted in what the Oktava was... but seems to be moving away from... which is to say a wonderful option for the money. The raving enthusiasm that I seeded on this board was due to the cost : performance ratio. As the Oktava pushes closer to options such as AT4053... or the BlueLine AKG... the rising MSRP is chipping away at my passion... revealing my scientific analysis. To me $100 difference in one mic or another becomes a no-brainer if the more expensive mic is arguably better on any level... let alone several.

If Mike is replacing everything on the Oktava then $89 is REALLY cheap... I wouldn't perform this service at that price even if I WERE only replacing the FET and 2 resistors. The stripping and recoating process is significant, etc. etc.

I'm sure Mike's a cool guy offering a good service to those who can really benefit... We have discussions on here where a guy's got an HV20 and everybody tells him to get a Schoeps... or guys that come on and INSIST that their Azden mic isn't much worse then a 4073a... etc. etc.

This Oktava discussion is melding two camps... and I've been defending the value and performance of the stock Oktava... for "regular guys"... but hey it's cool... like I said, I guess I jumped the gun on this one.

If it were my money I'd have to hear one of the modded MK012a vs. the AKG se300b w/ ck93 cap... (virtually the same cost). $350 vs. $386.
 
From Mike Joy:

Mike Joy in correspondence said:
My work is significantly different from the "plug and play" article Scott Dorsey published for hobbyist back in 2002. He used readily available parts that would not require electronic trimming. I use parts that must be individually biased. Current revision '012s are better than years ago but Oktava is still using polarized electrolytic coupling caps and I firmly believe the capsule-to-FET cap I use is far smoother sounding than the current production part. But for your use - sound for video, a current revisions stock mic would be fine is you want to save a few bucks. best, M
Click to expand...
 
MattinSTL said:
Maybe I should have sat this one out :beer:

I apologize for implying that Mike is scamming people... that was not my intention.

If you look back through my previous posts (including the time of the post/edit) you'll see that even before you said this that I said $89 to mod a mic is NOT a bad deal... I meant that I'd be surprised if this is necessary for the normal video user... and I tried to elaborate to say that I'd be surprised if anybody could hear the difference.
Click to expand...

Well, I may have latched on to a comment a bit out of context. I pretty much agree with you and actually so does Michael. I haven't had any of my mic's moded yet because of $ and I didn't want to send in my working mics, so that means buying a second set. For a number of reasons it's starting to make sense to have a second set any way so I've been talking to Mike again. I think the mods for say the 219 are more obvious in there need. But that mod has more to do with mechanical changes in many ways than just the electronics. I will probably have a pair moded by the end of the year (he's booked till May already) and once I do I will do some comparisons. BUT I am not the typical video user, I'm not recording dialog usually. I'm recording FX and some chamber music, and a little improvement might be significant. At under $200 to find out I think it's probably worth the risk (for me). I don't think any normal user especially doing production recording would benefit much from upgrading any of the late generation Oktava's.
Cheers
SK
 
This probably should get a new post, but I've noticed the best sound microphones seem to makes these columns on the spectal analysis. The top one are drums recorded on a Blumlein pair ribbon microphone. The second is a home modified (not Oktava Mod) Mk0-012. The unmodded looked similar but not as bright on the leading edge...it was a small but audible difference. The third is a woman singing on a Oktava Mod Mk-104 large diaphragm mic; it is very similar to a Gefell M930. The last is a Peluso CEMC6 small diaphragm, also a drum track.

Based on what I've heard the better sounds are more complete columns with highest intesity toward the leading edge of the column. However, that is very preliminary.
1239686025.png
 
Dude - seriously.

The best sound is something you can only tell by listening, not looking at images.

I'm not sure what your point is here with these... different mics on diferent sound sources... but you seem hung up on finding any way to determine how good a mic sounds OTHER THAN by listening. This is like judging how good food tastes by looking at the picture on the frozen-microwave-dinner box.

It IS good to try and understand why mics sound like they do, and how their characteristics might make them more or less applicable to different situations. But nothing replaces listening.
 
Hey dude :)

...it is impossible for anyone without a budget to buy each mic to do any sort of reasonable ears on test. And comparisons of different mics recorded at different times with different amps, acoustics, sound sources, cables, settings, and software are all apples and oranges. Listening to mics from clips and ad hoc tests is like watching video on uncalibrated monitors.

The pictures can show you details you think you hear. You can then focus on it to actually hear it. You can make A/B comparisons on sections that look different to see how they sound different.

Having listened to quite a few now, I can reasonably say that a cylindrical shape with the intensity toward the leading edge sounds best. That the best sounds continue to high frequencies and maintain clarity at low frequencies. And that it holds for acoustic guitar, drums, and vocals.

What I have is 10-20 hours invested in understanding something that didn't have a clear answer. An investment over around $1000, maybe more. And something that will be a core part of the different work I'll do over a multi-year period.

By posting I'm trying to find others who can see what they hear in the results and elaborate on them. Maybe there are other factors that need to be investigated; for example, nothing I've done reports on handling noise.
 
You don't need to buy 'em to try 'em. Many mic sellers will loan you mics, or you can get together with other recordists to do a comparison. I know I've dragged out a bunch of mics on various occasions for big comparison tests to help people make purchase decisions.

As you gain experience, and especially if you work frequently with a "favorite" mic or two, you'll be able to quickly compare other mics to your favorites and evaluate.

But all this has to do with hearing.

Some of the world's most revered mics look "problematic" on spec sheets or spectral analysis. Some mics that look great on these sound pretty awful on many sources. It's just not a clear relationship between what sounds good and what specs good, or analyzes as "accurate." The ear and perceptual system are very complicated, and not at all fully understood. How mics "hear" is very different. How that looks through (varying) spectral analysis algorithms might be interesting, but certainly doesn't give a reasonable idea of how "good" a mic sounds.

The better path for you is to get any mic and start using it. Once you know it inside and out, and know how to wring the best possible sound out of it, grab another mic and see if you can do better. At this point in your life, the differences made by improving your skills and hearing will be much greater than any improvement of one mic over another.

Just my 2 cents! What you're doing is good - finding out all you can, learning, etc. But just be aware of the tendency some people have of looking to others, to specs, to reviews, etc., rather than relying on their own ears. In your hands, any mic will sound different than it does in anyone else's hands. So, develop your hands, and see what mic they match with.
 
At most you would find a few of the more popular mics. For example, no one here has any of the mics that would have been considered: OktavaMod Mk-012 (few even seem to have a vanilla Mk-012), Peluso CEMC6 (the likely winner), or even a Rode NT55 (although B&H would have that). The Sound Room would have the stock Oktavas.

The pictures show you details of what you are hearing that you can't discern correctly. The equivalent to using a waveform monitor to set your exposure. Listening to several clips over similar sounds AND looking at the spectral graphs lets you determine if the difference is the mic, the amp, the cable, the compression., the speakers or headset..or at least make an educated guess.
 
If I were buying a mic today I would want to know the mic's measurements on these key areas, in this order; frequency response with +/- db variation, polar pattern for a minimum of 3 spanned frequencies and preferably 6+, SN, and self noise.

After those details were addressed... I'd be further inclined towards one mic over another based on extras, again, in this order of importance; switchable sensitivity, switchable bass cut, and modularity of the system.

Then after that... I would look at the overall construction of the microphone. The expected durability and reliability based on both that construction, and any pros or cons that I could google from users with experience (if I were unable to speak/email the users directly).

All of the above begins based on only one thing though... FIRST I have to know that the mic sounds good in comparison to other mics in the price-range.

I think my previous little point got buried... that an AKG SE300b with ck93 (hyper-cardioid) capsule is $386... and one of the modded MK012a is $350... so again, based on my above criteria... I would need to hear a good comparison of both mics... and if I were unable to do that and I had to take a chance... then using my list I'd have to bet on the AKG.

This is why I said a picture is worth a thousand words... while yes, listening is the way we determine how good something sounds, even in the highest-end audio world... everybody knows to look for particular tubes, resistors, transformers, capacitors, op-amps... everybody knows the recipe for good sound... or at least the ingredients.

This is the main reason that I would love to see the guts of the mod. I'm going to send an email to Mike today. People only remember the end of these threads... few read the whole thread... and if we can end this on a high-note with a picture that really sells this mod then I guarantee Mike will find this was worth his trouble.
 
> Mike,
>
> We're having a good discussion about your modded MK012a over at DVXuser. A
> member said that you replace a high percentage of the components of the
> MK012a. I'm hoping that you may find interest in posting a picture, or I'd
> be happy to post one on your behalf.
>
> If you look at my history I've been a strong advocate for the little
> Oktava. At one time people on that board just thought matt = oktava. So if
> you would consider taking a moment out of your day at your convenience of
> course... any time, not "today" specifically, I think it would help prove
> the value in these mods visually (and help you sell more mics I'm
> certain.)
>
> I'm hoping that you'll consider this worthwhile... and to top it off. If
> you would consider it... I will send you my left-over Vishay 1% resistors!
> While it's not a big box, there's probably something like $50-100 worth of
> them left... it's a mix and match bag... with each value labeled... some
> bags have a bunch, some have only 1... but I'll send them to you as a
> good-will gesture for your time and trouble to provide a pic, and if you
> like, a short story about the choice of replaced components.
>
> Best,
>
> -Matt


Hi Matt, thanks for writing.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to decline your invitations to post
pictures at DVXuser.

Because of past infringement on my intellectual property I have, in many
cases, stopped providing detailed descriptions and photos of my proprietary
work. Instead I have chosen speak about OktavaMod benefits as this is
really what my prospects are interested in knowing about. The level of
detail you request really only benefits my competition and DIYers.

Demand has always been high for my mod'd '012s and remains high - even in
this slow economy.

So I do thank you for the invitation but hope you can appreciate the
competitive landscape I operate in.

best, Michael
 
This is a thoughtful and reasonable reply.

From a business standpoint I can hardly blame the guy... so... next logical step would be some kind of scientific test... or at the very least, a "sound-off" performed by an unbiased source.

I will post my own clip of the stock Oktava vs. Schoeps shortly.
 
DavidNJ said:
At most you would find a few of the more popular mics. For example, no one here has any of the mics that would have been considered
Click to expand...

Are you kiddin'? In New Jersey?

Just start a topic here at 'User: "Let's Get Together For A Mic Comparison/Shootout in the NYC Area" and see what happens.


BTW... while I appreciate Mike's concerns... if it only costs a competitor $89 to buy a mod and find out what's been done, I don't think there's much risk in publishing the pictures. But indeed, that's his business decision... however, it would have been nice to see him offer up a mic or two for a comparison test...
 
This makes sense. When you first started asking about details I went to his site because I remember his giving a very detailed description of what was changed and why. I was a bit surprised by the less detailed more "press room" descriptions that are now there.

And Matt, I would also agree with you that going in blind I would opt for the AKG. For me it make a bit more sense to go the other way since I already have stock Oktava's and like them very much. So in my case I would have to actually find and borrow the AKG AND decide I liked it better than the stock Oktava. Assuming that I liked the AKG better than the stock Oktava and also assuming that the mod would make a modest improvement in the Oktava, I would go with the AKG. I'm not sure getting a mod makes any sense unless A) you have a recording studio and a big mic cabinet and you want to start off with the best Oktava just because... Or B) you already have Oktava's and like them enough to want more in the locker for backup, other uses etc, and are willing to spend some $ to see if the "improved" version gets you any perceivable benefit.
 
ullanta said:
But indeed, that's his business decision... however, it would have been nice to see him offer up a mic or two for a comparison test...
Click to expand...

True but he doesn't really sell mics. There are some you can order but I believe these are simple moded after purchase. His business is making modifications to other peoples mics.

I also kind of agree on the doesn't make that much sense observation. There isn't that much margin on a thing like this so what is his competition? People selling kits on eBay? well he will get the repair work after someone takes their 75watt soldering iron to the insides. I certainly wouldn't send my mic's off to someone I didn't know on eBay. Part of the reason I didn't have my 219 moded years ago when he started out was the "who is this guy" factor. I have had enough dealings with him and he has a solid enough reputation among professionals that I wouldn't have a problem sending him my mics now. But because of the way he works, you buy the mod and pay 50% they schedule a day for the mod, you send it in with the other 50% and they send it back, it (for me) requires that I have two sets so I am not down during the mod, I've never managed to do it. The mods are scheduled way in advance so for a freelance it's almost impossible to set a date three four months out that you KNOW you won't need the mics.
 
David, on this I completely disagree. The spectrograms etc are interesting After the fact. If you look at some graph and looking so means "better" (now there is a term with no real meaning) then your poisoned. You will never be able to have an unbiased listen. IF your doing research then maybe the see it and see if you can hear it model makes sense, though even there your breaking the fundamental law of good research by starting with what you want to find and then looking for it. But for real world users it's the wrong way to go. For one thing it assumes there is a "best". Anyone with any experience in sound knows this is a fallacy. The "best" microphone depends on what, how and where you are recording. The "best" mic for Mick Jagger is not the "best" mic for Diana Krall, and neither would be the best for recording production dialog outdoors. That's why there are LOT's of mic's used by LOTs of professionals for LOTs of different situations. Go to a decent recording studio and look at the mic cabinet. It's not filled with mistakes while they were looking for Mr. right. It's filled with lost of good/great mics that all have an ideal use. Even production recordists, who in general carry many fewer mics, tend to have a pretty wide collection.

The pictures don't really tell you much. They show some indication of frequency response or maybe transfer function. But what does that tell you? If you want to accurately record white noise in a controlled environment, maybe it's useful. If I want to record a train by on a windy day.....

Cheers
SK



DavidNJ said:
The pictures show you details of what you are hearing that you can't discern correctly. The equivalent to using a waveform monitor to set your exposure. Listening to several clips over similar sounds AND looking at the spectral graphs lets you determine if the difference is the mic, the amp, the cable, the compression., the speakers or headset..or at least make an educated guess.
Click to expand...
 
I think we will disagree. If you watch the spectral analysis while listening to the mics you can clearly hear what the mics shows. Yes, each mic has different characteristics that cause them to work better in different circumstances. However, that seems to be more the case of large condenser and ribbon mics. With a few exceptions, the differences in the small condensers seem to be the quality of the mic rather than the quality of the way they capture the sound.

That said, I ended up buying the Peluso pair. There are limited clips of the Mike Joly modified Oktava's and John Peluso's CEMC6's. The Peluso's are 10% more with the same capsules, but that includes 2 shock mounts and the mics have a 0/10/20db pad switch and flat/75hz/150hz low cut filter switch where the Oktava has a screw in 10db pad and an expensive optional low cut filter. Subjectively, I thought the clips of the CEMC6 sounded a little better. However, given the compression used and the limited number of samples available I would have to say they are equal within the margin of error.
 
OK I'll agree to disagree. Maybe it would help if you described what you consider "better". If these graphs are showing me "the quality of the mic" what is that? Does the graph indicate how sturdy the case is, how smooth the response is, whether anyone did a quality check or burnin on the mic, RF rejection??? I'm very curious what "quality" a spectrogram of a random recording shows about quality. I mean if it hisses like a mother but has sharp columns is it a noisy "quality" mic. If a pin breaks off after two uses was it a badly made "quality" mic? The freq response of small condensers vary quite a bit. A lot of cheaper ones have some nasty high mid peaks, some have a LOT of low end. That makes them suitable for different voices. Assuming that the spectrographs would be different which is the "quality" one?

I hope the mics work out for you. I mean that. Probably sound silly but when folks go back and forth saying something like that can come off as some kind of cut. I don't know the mics and I hope they exceed your expectations. The Oktavas did for me. I wanted better and got much better.

Cheers
SK


DavidNJ said:
I... With a few exceptions, the differences in the small condensers seem to be the quality of the mic rather than the quality of the way they capture the sound.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top