|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 27, 2019 20:30:47 GMT -6
Definitely get that tubes matter, (I'm a guitar player after all), so I'll give the tube switch a try in the Mk II T.C cap mic ASAP. I wouldn't mind just the slightest pinch of more low end while keeping the transparency and lack of sibilance. I think Josh may have meant those tubes sounded similar enough as to be negligible, but since it's here, I'll give it a try just in case. *** Update: I just checked on the tubes, the Heiserman mic has a Telefunken 806S, I don't see an "EF" but it could be around the side I can't see until I pull it out. The T.C cap mic has the Siemens EF86 (260).
Now I'm getting even more curious. Can't wait to try switching them tomorrow or Monday. How is the noise floor between the two? A T-Funk 806 is an expensive tube.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 27, 2019 20:50:02 GMT -6
I didn't notice anything unusual, and I think they seemed identical, but I wasn't paying close attention to that aspect, I was listening for tonal differences. I do remember thinking it sounds quieter than some of my other mics, which was a surprise.
Damoongo, was there a difference in sound between the regular version of the Tele 806 and the 806S?
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jul 27, 2019 21:16:57 GMT -6
I have to agree with a lot of what has been said. The tube in this circuit is a big part of its sound.
That said, I liked microphone 1 better.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 27, 2019 21:18:01 GMT -6
#2. Pretty much all the way. Of course, I'd want to hear it with the top lifted a bit on the acoustic...and absolutely not on your voice. #2 was wonderful there. The acoustic it was a little muted like, well--any vintage mic I've ever used...but, #1's top had some weird stuff in it--whether it was the mic capturing some odd room flutters or adding it's own swishy stuff--I wouldn't know. It might even follow the tube, but there's something odd in the highs of #1....where number 2 sounded natural, if a little muted up top (but also-this is mp3 which is ALWAYS muted up top).
2.3 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 27, 2019 21:52:40 GMT -6
Thanks Popmann. The files at Soundcloud were all WAV files, not Mp3's.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 27, 2019 21:53:55 GMT -6
I'll take some photos of the Tele 806S when I switch it out. I'm leaning towards Mic 1 also Vincent. More time spent with preamp choices, gain levels and compression will help me dial in the fine details.
So far in my research online, the 806S tube has been called the "premium version" but it's a complicated topic to get accurate info on.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 27, 2019 21:58:28 GMT -6
Well we all know who to summon when we want the scoop... bowie
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 27, 2019 22:08:55 GMT -6
#2. Pretty much all the way. Of course, I'd want to hear it with the top lifted a bit on the acoustic...and absolutely not on your voice.. I haven't listened yet, but this describes to a "T" every vintage 67 I've used that hasn't been modded to open up the top end. Lovely mids, and a HF that needs to be opened up with EQ for any sort of modern sound. The beauty of the mic is how it takes the EQ so gracefully, without having to be bright up top to fit a modern mix. I think some people these days are looking for the perfect sound of Song A on Voice B in the midst of the mix. When that happens to perfection, lots of times the mic is too bright for a different voice or guitar or other use. I like the vintage stock 67's for that very reason. A simple HF boost and voila! Finished. In terms of raw material, I'd much rather have to boost the HF of a mic than try to get rid of HF with a cut or filter.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 27, 2019 22:12:37 GMT -6
Funny Ragan, I just sent Bowie an email !
Drbill, I'm looking forward to your impressions of the sound of each mic.
I'm anxious to try the Tele 806S in the Tim Campbell mic now. This way I'll know where the mic really is at. It has to wait until Monday though.. ugh..
Just for reference, THIS is the vocal sound I'm looking for:
This was my former benchmark, a black U67 on voice and and a C-24 on acoustic simultaneously.
This is me on a vintage U67 through an SSL 9000, no EQ or compression, just some reverb. Turn this one up a bit.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/mic-shootout-1-u67
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jul 27, 2019 22:25:41 GMT -6
#2. Pretty much all the way. Of course, I'd want to hear it with the top lifted a bit on the acoustic...and absolutely not on your voice.. I haven't listened yet, but this describes to a "T" every vintage 67 I've used that hasn't been modded to open up the top end. Lovely mids, and a HF that needs to be opened up with EQ for any sort of modern sound. The beauty of the mic is how it takes the EQ so gracefully, without having to be bright up top to fit a modern mix. I think some people these days are looking for the perfect sound of Song A on Voice B in the midst of the mix. When that happens to perfection, lots of times the mic is too bright for a different voice or guitar or other use. I like the vintage stock 67's for that very reason. A simple HF boost and voila! Finished. In terms of raw material, I'd much rather have to boost the HF of a mic than try to get rid of HF with a cut or filter. YES
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 27, 2019 22:29:18 GMT -6
Drbill, I'm looking forward to your impressions of the sound of each mic.. Martin - I just listened. I didn't do an exhaustive study, but both mics sound good to me. I suppose without downloading into my DAW it's kinda hard.... (like always...) Mic 1 has a HF gloss to it that makes it seem initially like the best choice. But without living with both awhile, I'd be worried to actually make that discernment - because Mic 2 definitely has more of the traditional vintage (non-modded) U67 voicing than Mic 1. But it seems a little lifeless in certain sections. Hard to know what introducing a nice EQ into the equation would do. It could catapult Mic 2 up and over the top. Hard to say. I'd live with em awhile if you can. Try different pre's, patterns, voices (if possible), and mostly - EQ. I don't think that for most people a stock U67 in a modern production (that doesn't sound rolled-off 1960's-sh) without EQ will fly. That's the reason so many had the HF opened up. Good luck!!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 27, 2019 22:37:53 GMT -6
Thanks drill, appreciate your thoughts on it and your ears. I agree, after I switch tubes, just so I know, i'll then do some more work with each one. I know from experience that sometimes it takes a while to notice a flaw, but after that, you can't hear anything else.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jul 27, 2019 22:38:08 GMT -6
I prefer Mic #1 on acoustic guitar. Mic #2 seems a little cloudy. (Still, Mic #1 is a little zippier here than I might prefer.) But I like Mic #2 better on your voice, Martin John Butler . The difference between the two doesn't strike me as being quite as big on your voice as on your guitar, for whatever reason, but I still prefer Mic #2. On the line, " can find us again...", I keep getting afraid the top end is about to get too edgy on Mic #1, and you don't really have an edgy voice, so I'm a little afraid it might be too much for some singers. Thanks for doing this! Looking forward to hearing the tube swap.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 27, 2019 22:42:19 GMT -6
I'm kind of thinking the same way Mark, that's why I'm hoping the tube switch might give Mic 1 a little more in the low end and tame the top by a very small amount. Also, I do need a little more time with each as drill suggested. The tube might be an important factor in Mic 2's sound, so we'll see asap.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jul 27, 2019 22:42:58 GMT -6
Drbill, I'm looking forward to your impressions of the sound of each mic.. [...] Mic 1 has a HF gloss to it that makes it seem initially like the best choice. But without living with both awhile, I'd be worried to actually make that discernment - because Mic 2 definitely has more of the traditional vintage (non-modded) U67 voicing than Mic 1. But it seems a little lifeless in certain sections. Hard to know what introducing a nice EQ into the equation would do. It could catapult Mic 2 up and over the top. Hard to say. I hear this the same way as you, drbill.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 27, 2019 22:44:39 GMT -6
Martin - LOVE that townsend track. Loved the original too. That sounds like a vintage non modded U67 to me. Beautiful open top, but ZERO hint of harshness. And I mean ZERO. IMO it could actually stand being a touch brighter, but for a rock track with a vintage feel like that one, really almost perfect. Personally, I would have EQ'd in more top for that song if I had mixed it. On the Lovett track - Man, you'd never know those were the same mic that Townsend used, and in reality, I'd be willing to bet they are not. Lovett's 67 has had the HF opened WAY up or has a ton of EQ on it. It's great for a modern sound, but I personally wouldn't want to START with a mic that bright on that voice. IMO, it's right on the edge of being too much. Beautiful recording though. And since it's mastered and released, the mastering could be quite a bit of what I'm referring to. Would love to hear the mixed UNMastered version - or the raw vocal track. On your track - this one is closer in voicing to the Townsend track than the Lovett track. It's sitting very well with your voice, delivery, and song. If I were you, I would have tried to buy that mic that very day. You may never find another that sits right like that one does. Sitting alone in a stripped down situation, it sounds great, and with a touch of EQ, you could use it to cut thru anything - even get it into Lovett zone. Good choice. I can see why you're looking for that sound. It suits you.... Unfortunately IMO...... With the brief overviews we had to listen to, neither mic 1 nor mic 2 is going to hit that zone for you. Mic 2 is closer though, but again, something not feeling quite right there..... If you can get both up against that 67 that you sang on above, that will tell you all you need to know. But I bet you walk out of the studio scheming how to steal or buy that vintage one. LOL
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 27, 2019 22:48:33 GMT -6
My only experience with a 67 is with the new reissue. It wasn't an exciting sound. Haven't heard the clips yet, but from what everyone is saying, mic 1 sounds brighter than I would expect a 67 to sound.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 27, 2019 23:18:38 GMT -6
I so wish we lived closer and we could hear my MK67 on you, Martin. I think it would put you right where you want to be.
Super keen to hear more from these two Stams though.
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Jul 27, 2019 23:25:25 GMT -6
I can see how folks might say Mic #1 is too bright but I think about the tone of it after being run through a 2A and 76, which will mop up some of that high frequency and still leave you with a really clear midrange. I always use those 2 in series on vox.
I would worry that Mic#2 would approach ribbon territory after going through that chain. Of course not everybody uses that chain...
I am interested to hear the tube swap so we can really compare the capsules themselves. Thanks for the files, Martin.
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Jul 27, 2019 23:42:32 GMT -6
Just be sure to check and adjust PSU voltages after swapping tubes (in any mic) as all tubes draw differently. U67 heater voltage should be 6.3VDC (some like 6.2 to be safe.) Be careful in there though, as there are potentially lethal DC voltages present. Might be easier to just swap head assemblies?
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jul 28, 2019 0:27:19 GMT -6
The tube has a HUGE impact on the 67 sound. A Telefunken EF806 will sound less bright and add a bit of low mids compared to a Siemens EF86
What I said is that same batches of NOS Siemens and Telefunken EF86 are the same. They even come on Siemen boxes and have Telefunken inside and viceversa
I was portraying that the sound difference on here is in line with my findings when I tested these capsules hundreds of times against each other, you could change the tube and it was the same. Identical difference.
However, I did not know martin had a EF806, which is different. Apologies Martin, I assumed it was an EF86.
That will be a different batch and therefor there could be differences.
You should try doing the test again on your voice with the EF806, is certainly worth a try
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jul 28, 2019 0:31:11 GMT -6
Agree 1000% Tubes make a HUGE difference in this circuit. Obviously I totally agree.....and yet..... stam said:"Both tubes perform the same They are the same brand, we tested them before shipment Identical tone" Not sure what to make of that, but yeah, IME, tubes make a huge difference.....even tubes branded the same, from a similar time period. Not from the same batch-year, Siemens or Telefuken, same. I have made 600 U47 replicas with Siemens and Telefunkens from the same year, not a single difference. Same with the 67. Only thing that varies is noise (you have to test each one of them) but not the tone. Martin's has a EF806 on one of them, different batch. There should be a difference.
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 28, 2019 3:39:51 GMT -6
Great discussion. The U67 that was used for comparison in this build has a very nice open top end compared to many darker examples. The most common complaint , if you could call it that, for musicians using U67's, even reissues or Max's clone, for the first time has almost unanimously been to describe them as being too damped in the high frequencies to be useful without eq. K67 type capsules don't posses the smooth top end of a CK12 and I'm sure most of you have experienced just how rough that top end can sound when you've had to boost the high end of a U87 using eq. Cutting frequencies, unless very narrow band, almost always results in less artifacts. All this being said, as with any of my capsules, if someone were to buy this mic with my CT67 and wanted the more vintage vibe they can send it to me and I'd be glad to make it that much darker but I believe that after living with it as it is you'll come to agree that we've struck a good balance.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 28, 2019 6:36:26 GMT -6
In case people didn’t know, Tim is always open to tuning his cap, if you are so inclined. I’d think you would want to live with the mike a bit, roll a few tubes maybe and then consider cap tuning, but certainly reassuring to know the build and parts quality, and have the options of cap tuning. I do agree with Ragan that his max mod 67 has a very special balance of presence and tone with at least to me no nasty artifacts. I heard he soaked his cap in fine Seattle brewskies to get that going on !
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jul 28, 2019 6:44:00 GMT -6
Well we all know who to summon when we want the scoop... bowie Happy to help out. To avoid shifting focus, I won't comment on the sonic differences in the tubes but I'll just establish a couple of facts. When making component comparisons, it's important to eliminate variables, such as the tube, because that can make a significant difference and you won't just be comparing capsules. Siemens factory EF86s are rare so when we're talking about a Siemens EF86, 99% of the time we're talking about a tube that was made by someone else, but branded for Siemens. Siemens rebranded just about every make of EF86 ranging from the very best to the absolute worst. A Siemens EF86 could be a valuable Telefunken or a $5 Russian tube. If the Siemens was made by Telefunken, it's still not safe to assume it will sound exactly the same as a Tele EF806s as there were different revisions of the Tele EF86/EF806s and they sound different. Not to mention that the tubes will behave differently if they bias differently. Though they will likely be in the same ballpark, when critically comparing components I wouldn't feel comfortable judging a capsule unless I knew the tubes were a properly matched pair from the same production period. Hope that helps!
|
|