The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Stellar cm-6 : best budget tube mic!
Old 18th January 2011
  #301
Moderator
 
Blast9's Avatar
regularly checking in here...

Please keep it informative and civil in the spirit of the low end... (which it generally is, but...)

These conversations often veer into "geekslutz" territory, rather than "low end theory"
Old 18th January 2011
  #302
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Hey Blast9 - I'm really trying to be civil, informative and stay on-topic. But yes I'm an engineer. However, I do try to discuss things in ways that are understandable to the general public and point out how technical issues have a bearing on audible sound. If you or the other mods think I'm missing of these marks please let me know.
Old 18th January 2011
  #303
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
I'm assuming a K67 type capsule, but I'm waiting for confirmation on that point.
OK, so all of this is posturing?

Honestly, if the mic sounds good, well then the components must be working in a fashion that translates good results. Regardless of your interpretation of its topology.

As a company, I believe that you have an obligation to not insinuate any negative attributes to any other company's products. I know that may be hard to do, and you may feel like something is poorly designed and feel the need to tell the world, but it is in fact, against GS rules.

So as the owner of Oktavamod, you are under a different set of rules here.

Fair or not.
Old 18th January 2011
  #304
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

...the most pertinant and useful information regarding the topic of this thread can best be offered by those who are currently using the CM-6...posting of soundfiles, or general thoughts/reviews from those who have actual experience with the product is most valuable and helpful...

...those looking for an accurate technical/topological analysis of the CM-6 should read this post, from a mic tech who actually has been testing the mic and reporting his evaluation:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6232592-post339.html
Old 18th January 2011
  #305
Moderator
 
Blast9's Avatar
Hey Michael... To be clear - I was referring to the mic modding threads.

I acknowledge there are many very insightful posts from the technically informed guys who hang out here, and I certainly don't want to delete any posts unless I have to. I am all for lively discussion so long as it is informative and respectful
Old 18th January 2011
  #306
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast9 View Post
Hey Michael... To be clear - I was referring to the mic modding threads.

I acknowledge there are many very insightful posts from the technically informed guys who hang out here, and I certainly don't want to delete any posts unless I have to. I am all for lively discussion so long as it is informative and respectful
Thanks for the clarification. But while you're here - take a look at post number 303 above. Look how these topics get derailed. Here's a guy accusing me of something I didn't do ('posturing', 'insinuate negative attributes' ) - and not adding any on-topic value to this thread.

The constant insinuation and innuendo served up by anonymous users is a regular complaint here - and that is a form of incivility and off-topic personal attack not supposed to occur.
Old 18th January 2011
  #307
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
Thanks for the clarification. But while you're here - take a look at post number 303 above. Look how these topics get derailed. Here's a guy accusing me of something I didn't do ('insinuate negative attributes' ) - and not adding any on-topic value to this thread.
...you might do well to take a tip from respected microphone engineer Dave Thomas, who while also representing another product line, displayed class and dignity when posting in a thread regarding another manufacturer's product...go back and read post 26 for yourself:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6151085-post26.html
Old 18th January 2011
  #308
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
Thanks for the clarification. But while you're here - take a look at post number 303 above. Look how these topics get derailed. Here's a guy accusing me of something I didn't do ('posturing', 'insinuate negative attributes' ) - and not adding any on-topic value to this thread.

The constant insinuation and innuendo served up by anonymous users is a regular complaint here - and that is a form of incivility and off-topic personal attack not supposed to occur.
Michael,

I'm merely pointing out that you are one company implicitly criticizing another company's product, which is against GS rules.

Furthermore, you have admitted to having no idea what kind of capsule is in this microphone, yet insist on denigrating the topology.

I said all of this, as I say it now, in a civil, and yes, anonymous manner.
Old 18th January 2011
  #309
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Well, I'll respectfully disagree. What I'm trying to do is get clarification of the mic's topology.

I'm 99.9% sure it uses a K67-type capsule and just need a clear picture or verbal confirmation.

Then I go on to present a history of the K67 capsule (with expert citations btw) and its intended use. In my book that is pure, factual, historic information backed up by citation. Information that may be illuminating for current and future readers of this thread.

I then describe, again, my own well-known preference not to have a peak in the sibilance range.

I am not implying or stating the CM6 is not designed correctly - but if it in fact uses a K67-type capsule and flat response circuit - regardless of how it sounds - this is not the topology Neumann intended or used in its K67 equipped mics, the U 67 and U 87. This is fact - not implication, not innuendo, not slagging off a product.

Is it too much to ask a re-brander to provide technical details about a product? Capsule type, capsule response, amplifier type and response, system response? When we talk about Neumann being the pinnacle of quality, they exemplified this by publishing detailed specs about their products and by being accessible for technical inquiries - either directly or through their authorized and trained agents. Because back in the day, recording engineers were actually engineers - practitioners of a craft for whom such detail was important to their understanding of, and use of, their tools.
Old 18th January 2011
  #310
Gear Maniac
 

Stellar cm-6 : best budget tube mic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly
Hey Blast9 - I'm really trying to be civil, informative and stay on-topic. But yes I'm an engineer. However, I do try to discuss things in ways that are understandable to the general public and point out how technical issues have a bearing on audible sound. If you or the other mods think I'm missing of these marks please let me know.

Hey why not just hit the buy it now button, and get a CM-6 listen for yourself then express your feeling on the mic. All we care about is does the mic sound as good as everyone claim. Everything else is just a waste of our time and does not help anyone here in the low end theory. Please take all else to the high end theory you maybe more helpfull there. Wish you Best of luck.
Old 18th January 2011
  #311
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Geez. I try to keep it civil, informative and on topic and I get responses like this. So the only way I can express myself here is on your terms? Buy a mic then I can talk? Or take a hike over to the High End and talk there? A similar CM6 thread was deleted from the High End because it was inappropriate btw.

You know, people don't treat each other this way in real life - where faces and names are known.
Old 18th January 2011
  #312
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
The value of a microphone is the sound it transduces - not what it looks like. On the outside or the inside.
I agree completely!!!
Old 18th January 2011
  #313
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

Talking

I'm going to offer my experiences with the CM6 in the plainest terms possible for all to enjoy and to mull over.

The CM6 employs several pieces of technology that I have come to enjoy in my experiences with microphones:

1) A good capsule (K67 type, good bass, mids are appropriate, high end is not overblown.

2) An EF86 tube. A tube type rarely employed and yet one I thoroughly enjoy. It has an immediate hifi sound to it, good amounts of "give," on the action side of things and appreciates the use of a BV8 ratio output transformer (when the mic is configured as a plate follower).

3) Big transformer. BV8 ratio to be exact, the core of the transformer is a good sized unit, seems to have alot of girth in the low mids and lows. The tone is warm and it is indeed colored.

The circuit does not employ a filtering network. The microphone sounds dark by contrast to the public memory of unfiltered K67 coupled microphones from China.

When JJ Audio began its first attempt at modding the CM6, we started first with a commonly employed method: we changed the capsule. We used a JJT67 and expected the mic to be much brighter. Instead the mic retained a similar top end character that was present in the stock microphone and gained a different midrange and low end presence. This is when we realized it was the transformer doing all the filtering in the microphone.

We then exchanged the CM6s transformer for a Cinemag CM2461 and noted the following, the mic now indeed needed filtering and the high end was very different. We added a simple filtering circuit to roll off some of the top end in the CM6 at this point.

The CM6s stock capsule was then placed in a JJ Audio Daisy microphone (that employed the same circuit at this point) and the capsule sounded VERY different. The top end was more forward than the JJT67 HOWEVER, the capsule sounded good like this (as well as the original configuration in the CM6).

Both mics (CM6 - stock and modded) were excellent sounding tools.

My thoughts on the transformer tone versus the use of capacitors to filter are as follows:

I actually dig the concept of the transformer doing the high end attenuation. Its a cool way to utilize a dumb device like a transformer to equate tone. K-I-S-S gotta love it.

I wouldn't call one way right or wrong, simply different methods to accomplish similar aims. Walk versus run you get where you are going, each method makes sense to me.

And while I work for a competitor, I still can stand back and respect the efforts of Peter at Stellar to not only implement this platform, but also do it across cultural and industrial barriers.

I have seen the EF86/BV8 type transformer usually employed in much more expensive products and it is actually damn exciting for a factory in China to deliver a product like this regardless of the vendor. Mainly because the platform employed IMPLIES an unavoidable shift forward into different components as well as different implementations. Imagine a sweet CK12 capsule in a circuit like this?

This was why I ventured the entire concept of modding or upgrading components in this mic. Not because I think its inferior or leaves something to be desired. No by the contrary, it literally is an AWESOME platform that you could leave stock FOREVER or you can actually make this mic grow without any major plastic surgery lol. I mean you have to recognize that to get a mic to the point that Stellar starts you at requires the work of a skilled technician. You can't just open a tube mic, change a capacitor and Voila plate follower. You can't just open a tube mic and put in an EF86 and expect it to work. Peter has made this your reality upon purchase.

I wish you all the best and hope that the conversation remains friendly and on topic. The CM6 mic is good folks. Real good.

Peace
Illumination
Old 18th January 2011
  #314
Lives for gear
 
Marik's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post

Then I go on to present a history of the K67 capsule (with expert citations btw) and its intended use.
Michael,

Not that I care, but for more balanced historical picture just wanted to bring to attention the fact, there were a few Neumann models (and are darn good mics), which used a KK67 capsule with no de-emphasis circuit, so in this respect the "intended use" can be stretched and really depends on the circuit implementation context.

Best, M
Old 18th January 2011
  #315
Lives for gear
 
Haz-Mat-Strat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
Well, I'll respectfully disagree. What I'm trying to do is get clarification of the mic's topology.

I'm 99.9% sure it uses a K67-type capsule and just need a clear picture or verbal confirmation.

Then I go on to present a history of the K67 capsule (with expert citations btw) and its intended use. In my book that is pure, factual, historic information backed up by citation. Information that may be illuminating for current and future readers of this thread.

I then describe, again, my own well-known preference not to have a peak in the sibilance range.

I am not implying or stating the CM6 is not designed correctly - but if it in fact uses a K67-type capsule and flat response circuit - regardless of how it sounds - this is not the topology Neumann intended or used in its K67 equipped mics, the U 67 and U 87. This is fact - not implication, not innuendo, not slagging off a product.
Michael I will respectfully disagree with your premis that all K67 style capsules cannot be used in an unfiltered circuit.

I am 100% sure it is a K67 style capsule in an unfiltered circuit. I am also 100% sure it is not a sibilant mic and it does not have a hyped 8k top end. Look at the chart Kidvibes posted. The capsule does not have the same high end as the real K67. The transformer also plays a part in taming the top end.

We extensively tested this mic and compared it to many mics that I had in my shop and found the mic to exhibit a smooth top end. I changed the stock capsule to a JJ-T67 (this capsule has the same response as the K67) . I changed the transformer to a Cinemag NiCo and the top end changed dramatically. The mic was then in need of circuit modification to bring down the high frequencies. I then tuned the circuit to the capsule and the high end was where it needed to be.

Capsule technology and tuning has change since Neumann first developed the K67 capsule.

I spoke to Larry at ADK a while back about his capsules and he was telling me about how they "tune" the capsules for the circuit. They have three different tunings of their GK47 capsule. Two tunings for their C12 style capsules. Their mic capsules are tuned to get the proper response in the microphone.

"GK-67d has the early 60's vibe. Almost imperceptibly Mellow. Scoops nasal, sibilance issues in a subtle way."

I have used the CM6 capsule extensively in some builds and find it to be a good sounding capsule. The tuning on this capsule is similar to the ADK TT capsule in that the top end is not as exaggerated as the real K67. This capsule is much smoother in a unfiltered circuit.

Michael you yourself have a K47 capsule that is "tuned" differently than a Neumann K47. It has a 3 micron membrane, extended top end and lowered proximity effect. All different than the Neumann. All of this is to your specs.



Old 18th January 2011
  #316
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
Geez. I try to keep it civil, informative and on topic and I get responses like this. So the only way I can express myself here is on your terms? Buy a mic then I can talk? Or take a hike over to the High End and talk there? A similar CM6 thread was deleted from the High End because it was inappropriate btw.

You know, people don't treat each other this way in real life - where faces and names are known.

With all due respect MJ how have you been helpful or civil to this thread? People that have purchase the CM-6 have all express nothing but great reviews of the microphone, yet you insist on painting a negative picture of the CM-6. All I ask is can you please keep things on topic and stop getting the threads shut down. We all clearly see your agenda here. If you want to express your opinion of the CM-6 it would have more merit if you had one to review. Did you not ready Dave Thomas seal of approval on the CM-6?
Now can we please get back on topic please!!!!!!!!
Old 18th January 2011
  #317
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Thank you Langston and Jim...

...for providing technical reviews of the CM6. This is bound to be helpful for inquisitive recordists who like to understand how a mic performs the way it does. btw - I can't find the CM6 frequency response graphs Jim refers to, could someone post a link?

Yes, the final arbiter is sound performance - as I've been quoted as saying. But that should not deter intellectual inquiry as a valid process in itself or its functional value - understanding the tools we use.
Old 18th January 2011
  #318
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
Well, I'll respectfully disagree. What I'm trying to do is get clarification of the mic's topology.

I'm 99.9% sure it uses a K67-type capsule and just need a clear picture or verbal confirmation.

Then I go on to present a history of the K67 capsule (with expert citations btw) and its intended use. In my book that is pure, factual, historic information backed up by citation. Information that may be illuminating for current and future readers of this thread.

I then describe, again, my own well-known preference not to have a peak in the sibilance range.

I am not implying or stating the CM6 is not designed correctly - but if it in fact uses a K67-type capsule and flat response circuit - regardless of how it sounds - this is not the topology Neumann intended or used in its K67 equipped mics, the U 67 and U 87. This is fact - not implication, not innuendo, not slagging off a product.

Is it too much to ask a re-brander to provide technical details about a product? Capsule type, capsule response, amplifier type and response, system response? When we talk about Neumann being the pinnacle of quality, they exemplified this by publishing detailed specs about their products and by being accessible for technical inquiries - either directly or through their authorized and trained agents. Because back in the day, recording engineers were actually engineers - practitioners of a craft for whom such detail was important to their understanding of, and use of, their tools.
Michael, If the Capsule in the CM-6 is the same K67 capsule that Advanced Audio uses in there CM67 mic (and I am almost certain it is), John Peluso and Verner Ruvalds who was a physicist for Neumann in the late 40's designed it. It is a very nice sounding capsule without having to attenuate any of the high frequencies. I was skeptical until I tried the capsule myself on a mic mod I did on an ADK TC tube mic. I tried the capsule with a cathode follower circuit (6072a 5-star GE) as well as in couple of different plate follower configurations and had no sibilance problems in any of the circuits I experimented with. Is it a like a K47 capsule.....absolutely not. It is a great sounding capsule and I really like it a lot.

David Blackmon
Old 18th January 2011
  #319
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddler59 View Post
Michael, If the Capsule in the CM-6 is the same K67 capsule that Advanced Audio uses in there CM67 mic (and I am almost certain it is), John Peluso and Verner Ruvalds who was a physicist for Neumann in the late 40's designed it. It is a very nice sounding capsule without having to attenuate any of the high frequencies. I was skeptical until I tried the capsule myself on a mic mod I did on an ADK TC tube mic. I tried the capsule with a cathode follower circuit (6072a 5-star GE) as well as in couple of different plate follower configurations and had no sibilance problems in any of the circuits I experimented with. Is it a like a K47 capsule.....absolutely not. It is a great sounding capsule and I really like it a lot.

David Blackmon
Hey David, thanks for the detailed report - really valuable info and insights.
Old 18th January 2011
  #320
Lives for gear
 
Haz-Mat-Strat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
Thank you Langston and Jim...

...for providing technical reviews of the CM6. This is bound to be helpful for inquisitive recordists who like to understand how a mic performs the way it does. btw - I can't find the CM6 frequency response graphs Jim refers to, could someone post a link?

Yes, the final arbiter is sound performance - as I've been quoted as saying. But that should not deter intellectual inquiry as a valid process in itself or its functional value - understanding the tools we use.

Link for chart.


https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6118846-post4.html
Old 19th January 2011
  #321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
Is it too much to ask a re-brander to provide technical details about a product? Capsule type, capsule response, amplifier type and response, system response?
Please see point 2 on our posting guidelines for manufacturers

Gearslutz.com - FAQ: vBulletin FAQ
Old 19th January 2011
  #322
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haz-Mat-Strat View Post
Thanks. This graph shows the CM6 has a peak centered around 8kHz. One can clearly see the average spectral distribution of the voice sample is peaked up about 6-8dB around 8kHz and does not follow the general distribution of HF energy below and above 8kHz. I'll admit this test was not done with flat pink or white noise. But an averaged sample of a speaking voice would normally show a smooth declination of HF energy above 1kHz with no discernible HF peaks - unless the recording system imparts such a spectral peak.

In case anyone is wondering why I'm familiar with program material spectral content - when I worked for David Blackmer (founder of dbx Inc. and Earthwork mics) one of my jobs was to design multi-band, analog, compression / expansion noise reduction systems. Part of the research for this work was to analyze many sources of program material (male and female speech, various types of music) so that we would know how to design the band filters feeding the RMS detectors and where to split the audio bands feeding the VCAs. With the exception of quasi-noise sources like cymbals, almost all natural sound sources, including human voices, have a smoothly declining HF spectral content curve. Most program material is mid-range based and the harmonic energy arising from the fundamental tones declines smoothly as the partial number increases. Yeah, if you say "esss esss esss" over and over you'll see some uncharacteristic HF energy. But the sample provided shows a strong formant centered between 47Hz and 101Hz and second formant area around 500Hz. So the 8kHz peak would not normally be present.

Actually its quite interesting to compare the long term spectral average of a classical orchestra to any pop music of your choice. The classical orchestra shows the expected declination of HF energy while pop music exhibits pronounced bass and treble peaks that were introduced through a combination of microphone selection, mic position and equalization. I'm not saying it sounds bad - it sounds "pop". In fact, EMI Abbey Road had "classical" and "pop" EQ settings on their consoles to quickly mold the the program material.

But I'll repeat - a long term average spectral response of the male speaking voice does not show a peak-anomaly at 8kHz, so my conclusion is the 8kHz peak shown in the graph below was introduced by the CM6 mic.

Oh, my apologies in advance if this is too much mic geek speak for folks who only want to know "does the mic sound good?". But this shows one way I was trained to observe, inquire and communicate technical details of audio systems - a small example of what has allowed me to carve out a career in audio product design engineering in general and microphone analysis and design in particular.

Hopefully this will provide some insight into how microphones can be evaluated and quantified - beyond just verbal reports.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
Please see point 2 on our posting guidelines for manufacturers

Gearslutz.com - FAQ: vBulletin FAQ
Thanks for that Jules. But I haven't done any of this stuff: "2) Trashing of other manufacturers products or rival dealers product range is unwelcome by dealers & manufacturers. This includes suggestions not to buy, that products are poorly made etc".

If you want to pull a quote from me and show me how I've stepped over the line I'll apologize and be more careful. But I believe a careful read of this thread will show I was trying to get information, provided information and never trashed another manufacturer's product.
Attached Thumbnails
Stellar cm-6 : best budget tube mic!-cm6-frequency-response-speaking-voice-source.jpg  
Old 19th January 2011
  #323
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

...and for those of you more interested in how the CM-6 performs in the real world, check out GS member tonygunz's review of the CM-6 posted today, here:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6234928-post12.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonygunz View Post
Just to put my 2 cents in, I recently purchased the cm6. Just to clarify a few things, I have no ties with the manufacturer, have never really spoke with anyone on this site in regards to this mic (as you can tell i only recently started posting here), and do not know anyone who either praises or dislikes this microphone. I do not know all of the tech jargon or even all of the internal parts of a microphone....BUT what I do know is a good sounding microphone when I hear it. AND THIS IS ONE. I do not have a big budget mic collection, or really the amount of mics I would consider to be a "collection". I do have a couple mics now and have owned dozens of project to decent mics over the past decade(from mxl's, sm57 and 58, at4047, blue dragonfly and blueberry, bock 195, tlm 102 just to name a couple). I'm typically a person who is always wanting to try different things, and usually do so by selling what I have at the time to acquire something better or different. However, I have worked in many studios with all the big named mics and I am not exaggerating when I say that you can get just as good of results with this mic as you can with any of those big named mics. And it is not like you will need to do tons of eq'ing or processing to get there either. If you have proper acoustic treatment in the room you are recording in, a good preamp, and a good source, you can get just as beautiful results as practically any mic AT ANY PRICE POINT. I respect the opinions of the folks that post here, some have extensive knowlege on everything dealing with mics etc. and others who may not know all of the tech side but have a good ear. And I consider myself the latter. My first use I plugged it into my isa one and off the bat sounded amazing. I didn't have my hopes set high for one second about this mic. I read a few reviews on here but like most reviews I read, I take it with a grain of salt. But I figured I'd give it a shot. At 350 i didn't find it to be much of a risk. At worst, if I didn't like it I would simply send it back for a refund. This baby is staying put. I haven't opened it up to looked at the components for the same reason I don't open a book thats written in chinese and try to read it, I don't have much of a clue what I'm looking at (of course I know what a capsule is but you get what I'm saying). Some may look at that and discredit my opinion but I do know the sound that I'm looking for. If you cannot get an awesome sound out of this mic, chances are you will not be able to get an awesome sound out of a U87, U47, etc either. It just has that "it" factor that I think most of us are looking for and at such a low price I think its a no brainer. I know I kinda rambled on a little here but I am usually a big believer in "you get what you pay for" but in this case I think that goes out the window. I feel everyone is entitle to their opinion and this is mine.
...sounds like tonygunz doesn't really care about, "long term average spectral response of the male speaking voice"...
Old 19th January 2011
  #324
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post

I worry about details like proper capsule / circuit matching so my clients don't have to - so they just enjoy the results of my research.

The bottom line for me is timbre-balance - in my opinion, a microphone should not have a peak in the sibilance range - period.... But a non-deemphazed 8kHz peak, right in the sibilance range, has no business being in a mic. This is why Neumann used HF de-emphasis in their K67 equipped mics - to obtain a pleasing and "correct" timbre-balance.
So, you go out of your way to explain (via the spectral graph) that the Stellar cm-6 has a 8kHz peak, after saying earlier that this type of peak has 'no business being in a mic.' And is 'not pleasing or correct.'

It all adds up to an Oktavamod long-winded denigration of the Stellar cm-6, and as Jules has pointed out already, against GS rules. Long-winded muti-post tech-talk based put-downs are still put-downs. It doesn't take an engineer to see that.
Old 19th January 2011
  #325
Lives for gear
 
uncle duncan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
So, you go out of your way to explain (via the spectral graph) that the Stellar cm-6 has a 8kHz peak, after saying earlier that this type of peak has 'no business being in a mic.' And is 'not pleasing or correct.'....
In Micheal's defense, his anti-8k tech-rant was in the context of recording classical music. As we well know, the most popular - or must used - Neumann mic is the U87, which does have a peak at 8k (actually, the official graph shows a peak at 8k - 10k.)

What can we learn from MJ's anti-8k tech-rant? We can learn that the U87, (and by association, the CM-6,) might be a poor choice for recording classical music. What we can also learn is that if one needed a cheap alternative to a U87, the CM-6 might be perfect for that application - precisely because it does have a little push at 8k that would color the source with a "pop sound" sensibility.
Old 19th January 2011
  #326
Lives for gear
 
Audio Child's Avatar
 

Someone in here is craving for attention and is very cunning about there attributes to this thread!

sought of like a fart that just lingers!
Old 19th January 2011
  #327
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle duncan View Post
In Micheal's defense, his anti-8k tech-rant was in the context of recording classical music. As we well know, the most popular - or must used - Neumann mic is the U87, which does have a peak at 8k (actually, the official graph shows a peak at 8k - 10k.)

What can we learn from MJ's anti-8k tech-rant? We can learn that the U87, (and by association, the CM-6,) might be a poor choice for recording classical music. What we can also learn is that if one needed a cheap alternative to a U87, the CM-6 might be perfect for that application - precisely because it does have a little push at 8k that would color the source with a "pop sound" sensibility.
The point was that Michael is Oktavamod, and as such he has absolutely no business according to GS rules, making judgements about another company's product, even if he does so via long-winded multiple posts. In one post on this very thread he says that a 8khz peak has no business being in a microphone, and then he goes on in another post to point out that the Stellar has an 8khz peak. Um...1+1=?

Now, as individuals, we may denigrate products into the ground. But one company may not pass judgements upon another's product. At least not here.

Tons of well respected, great sounding mics have presence peaks in this region. Even the venerable u47 has a pretty good mound in this area.

Just go to recording hacks and spend some time comparing frequency graphs. It's interesting, but I tell you first hand, that what you see on a chart only tells a small part of the story.
Old 19th January 2011
  #328
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
but I tell you first hand, that what you see on a chart only tells a small part of the story.
Finally, something useful on this thread.... thumbsupthumbsup
Old 19th January 2011
  #329
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidvybes View Post
...and for those of you more interested in how the CM-6 performs in the real world, check out GS member tonygunz's review of the CM-6 posted today, here:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6234928-post12.html



...sounds like tonygunz doesn't really care about, "long term average spectral response of the male speaking voice"...
Exactly. All I care about is the sound the mic can produce. I do understand that there are technical ways of analyzing a microphone but I go for the more utilitarian and real world ways of finding out whether something is good or not. Thats not to knock any of the other members here because I'm quite sure there are a reason why they use graphs and what not but I just go strictly for the sound, thats it. As I said I've used many of the big boys in many different studios and the sound you can get out of this is right up there with them. I don't really promote products but so far I am more than pleased with the cm6. Kudos to the guy that makes these. Whether your funds are tight or if you have some money to burn on another mic I would suggest giving it a shot. I'm not sure what his return policy is but I know through paypal you can return items for refund if you are unsatisfied. But I say all that to say this, don't take my word for it, try it, if you like it keep it, if not send it back. I don't think I'll be getting rid of mine though lol.
Old 19th January 2011
  #330
Gear Addict
 
EV676's Avatar
My last post on the subject was on page 6 of this now 11 page thread!

So now after a couple of weeks all I can say is that for $350 plus shipping I'm perfectly happy with the CM-6. It sounds good, it isn't noisy, I don't plan to modify it. I have some nice LDC's and SDC's, dynamics and a ribbon. I didn't have a tube mic and for a reasonable cost I have one now.

In my world which is audio for local TV more than it is music recording the CM-6 gives me another paintbrush to use. As long as what the mic delivers to me is consistent on a day to day basis, then I have no complaint.

I have no problem with modifications and upgrades. In fact I'm now waiting for a mod-upgrade project to be finished. Not every piece of gear needs it though.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
busker / So Much Gear, So Little Time
37
kidvybes / Product Alerts older than 2 months
82
nervirasme / Low End Theory
28
John N / Low End Theory
54

Forum Jump
Forum Jump