Topic: Anyone familiar with the Neumann KM-88?

[PH]

If I recall correctly, though, in the message you quote I was talking then about an eBay ad in which someone had made a whole thing about how the capsule of a microphone they were selling had been "reskinned to Neumann specifications." I was suggesting that people not put too much faith in that claim, since Neumann has no specifications for doing any such thing. They don't even do it themselves, let alone encourage third parties to do it. And since that ad was placed by a well-known international dealer in used Neumann microphones, it's for darn sure that they knew this.

Not even close, in the post I quoted you from.......you were trying to correct (scold) me for saying the exact same thing you just said, calling it "bogus" no less. You made several incorrect assumtions about my post, both then and now. Then you repeated the very thing I said a year earlier that you pointed out was bogus at the time.

I couldn't resist pointing out the irony here.


 

[DSatz]

nashphil, I'm very sorry if that's what I did. I detected an edge to your previous posting and was wondering what that was about. Now I have a clearer idea! I'm too tired right now to follow this up and find the messages you're referring to, so I'll just take your word for it. You'd have every right to my apology in that case; I know that I'm capable of misjudging what people mean to say.

There are two things that I've been saying about "reskinning" that may seem like a contradiction, but to me they're distinct. One is primarily technical and the other is primarily ethical. The technical point is that the particular material used for a condenser microphone's diaphragm isn't of primary importance, either in theory or in my own experience, as long as it can be integrated into the design of the capsule in question. The material makes some difference of course, but the overall acoustical design of the capsule itself is far more important to the audible and measureable results.

The ethical point is that in the marketplace of audio goods and services, things are sometimes said to impress people who are ill-informed, and I'm critical of that. Examples would include some eBay seller's claims of having "matched pairs" of vintage microphones that in fact were never sold as matched pairs by their manufacturer in the first place--and that are so old that even if they had been matched pairs to begin with, they wouldn't be any more.

Another example of that is the ads run by a particular U.K.-based reseller of "vintage" Neumann microphones who often sells his wares with capsules in them that have been "reconditioned" by an unnamed "specialist" who allegedly reskins them to "Neumann's specifications"--although Neumann has no specifications whatsoever for an operation that they neither perform themselves nor recommend that others perform. The claim is simply a fabrication and I have no doubt at all that the seller knows this.

But that's not to say that I've actually listened to these capsules and think that they sound bad or inappropriate for their type. It's the marketing approach--appropriating certain terms that have a real meaning when that meaning isn't actually being lived up to--that I'm complaining about.

I certainly have nothing personal against you. I don't have the slightest idea who you are and frankly, don't tend to remember people's posting names on this board, so a lot of the time I don't know to whom I've written before and to whom I haven't; that's the sad truth.

--best regards

[PH]

Fair enough, no hard feelings. I appreciate your knowledge.