|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 29, 2019 2:36:10 GMT -6
You know what they say - one mans negligible is another mans massive Totally agree. They say that a microphone's sound is mostly in the capsule . . . and well, the #1 here, the Heiserman is so much better it isn't even close. If this wasn't an advert for tskguy and mdmitch2 then it was a proclamation of how awesome their work is. Posted by Martin John Butler 5 hours ago uhh Ward, mic #1 is the Tim Campbell capsule.
Thanks Ward.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jul 29, 2019 3:51:09 GMT -6
I feel I should clarify something.
I have access to 9 original U67's. 3 of them are intact and were not used since the 70's. Original tube, capsule, etc.
I worked with Tim to match our favorite vintage one.
Not brighter, not darker.
This is how I operate with every microphone.
I try to match the original 100%. A very tedious, long and meticulous job but doable.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jul 29, 2019 4:01:40 GMT -6
You know what they say - one mans negligible is another mans massive Totally agree. They say that a microphone's sound is mostly in the capsule . . . and well, the #1 here, the Heiserman is so much better it isn't even close. If this wasn't an advert for tskguy and mdmitch2 then it was a proclamation of how awesome their work is. I am glad to know you like Tim's so much better We worked very hard on it I will do a video soon vs the vintage 67
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Jul 29, 2019 5:49:51 GMT -6
"I agree with Ragan that EQing a well maintained stock 67 brings out the most glorious sound. While I understand your comparison of the 87 vs 67 due to using the same capsule, in practice, a HF boost on a 67 is much smoother than the same HF boost on a 87, so that point is kind of moot. What I personally do not want is a pre-EQ'd or "open" version of a 67 because it naturally sits better with a vocal."
This has been my (limited!) experience as well mixing some tracks Bob O. did for me using his Motown 67's (vocals and acoustic guitar). Don't recall if they were modded or not, but they took EQ like a great ribbon mic. OTOH, I personally am not a fan of 'modern' sounds , so wishing I had a 'dull' one.
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 29, 2019 7:13:47 GMT -6
" What I personally do not want is a pre-EQ'd or "open" version of a 67 because it naturally sits better with a vocal." This has been my (limited!) experience as well mixing some tracks Bob O. did for me using his Motown 67's (vocals and acoustic guitar). Don't recall if they were modded or not, but they took EQ like a great ribbon mic. OTOH, I personally am not a fan of 'modern' sounds , so wishing I had a 'dull' one. There seems to be some misconception going on through this thread. A stock U67 as it comes fom Neumann is a heavily pre-EQ'd microphone. This is the reason they are darker than a U87 (which also has it's own internal EQ). Adding EQ to the mics is simply boosting frequencies that have been cut internally in the mic's amplifier. Many mods simply remove this EQ allowing you to hear more of the natural response of the capsule. It would seem logical then that using a shelving filter to cut the top end on a mic with this circuitry removed would actually replicate more closely the original sound of the mic or a slightly brighter, desired sound with less artifacts from EQ than first cutting off the top end and then boosting it back by applying a second EQ.
I am not trying to say that boosting the top end of a U67 doesn't sound wonderful. I am simply saying that cutting the top end of a brighter U67 should sound equally as good if not better.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 29, 2019 8:06:16 GMT -6
I opened it up..... there is some writing on the side of the capsule. Any idea what it is? Probably capacitance measurements for matching.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 29, 2019 8:20:15 GMT -6
" What I personally do not want is a pre-EQ'd or "open" version of a 67 because it naturally sits better with a vocal." This has been my (limited!) experience as well mixing some tracks Bob O. did for me using his Motown 67's (vocals and acoustic guitar). Don't recall if they were modded or not, but they took EQ like a great ribbon mic. OTOH, I personally am not a fan of 'modern' sounds , so wishing I had a 'dull' one. There seems to be some misconception going on through this thread. A stock U67 as it comes fom Neumann is a heavily pre-EQ'd microphone. This is the reason they are darker than a U87 (which also has it's own internal EQ). Adding EQ to the mics is simply boosting frequencies that have been cut internally in the mic's amplifier. Many mods simply remove this EQ allowing you to hear more of the natural response of the capsule. It would seem logical then that using a shelving filter to cut the top end on a mic with this circuitry removed would actually replicate more closely the original sound of the mic or a slightly brighter, desired sound with less artifacts from EQ than first cutting off the top end and then boosting it back by applying a second EQ.
I am not trying to say that boosting the top end of a U67 doesn't sound wonderful. I am simply saying that cutting the top end of a brighter U67 should sound equally as good if not better.
There is no simple EQ section for the top end in the U67. It's a complex feedback/feedforward system that isn't very linear. Removing parts that have been determined to represent a high frequency EQ also affects other portions of the frequency spectrum. I'd wager that the original circuit affects high frequency harmonics in a big way along with transient and ripple responses, and would lead to more than just a frequency rolloff difference.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2019 8:35:46 GMT -6
I'm trying to switch tubes. The tubes are seated really tight. Is there anything I should know before proceeding? I've changed many tubes on guitar amps but never a mic tube.
I have the mic safely on a clean white towel, no wires are touching the surface.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 29, 2019 8:42:18 GMT -6
There seems to be some misconception going on through this thread. A stock U67 as it comes fom Neumann is a heavily pre-EQ'd microphone. This is the reason they are darker than a U87 (which also has it's own internal EQ). Adding EQ to the mics is simply boosting frequencies that have been cut internally in the mic's amplifier. Many mods simply remove this EQ allowing you to hear more of the natural response of the capsule. It would seem logical then that using a shelving filter to cut the top end on a mic with this circuitry removed would actually replicate more closely the original sound of the mic or a slightly brighter, desired sound with less artifacts from EQ than first cutting off the top end and then boosting it back by applying a second EQ.
I am not trying to say that boosting the top end of a U67 doesn't sound wonderful. I am simply saying that cutting the top end of a brighter U67 should sound equally as good if not better.
There is no simple EQ section for the top end in the U67. It's a complex feedback/feedforward system that isn't very linear. Removing parts that have been determined to represent a high frequency EQ also affects other portions of the frequency spectrum. I'd wager that the original circuit affects high frequency harmonics in a big way along with transient and ripple responses, and would lead to more than just a frequency rolloff difference. Was just going to point out the same thing. In my experience that de-emphasis filter network acts more like a multi-band compressor than a straight EQ shelf. It’s a big part of what makes a U67 so flattering to brash sources.
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 14,969
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 29, 2019 9:05:36 GMT -6
Martin, just grasp the tube firmly thumb and forefinger and initially, just exert pressure in one direction then the other.
As it looses and it well , then try experting pressure at 90 degrees, to loosen all feet and be pulling on the tube as well.
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 29, 2019 9:24:54 GMT -6
There is no simple EQ section for the top end in the U67. It's a complex feedback/feedforward system that isn't very linear. Removing parts that have been determined to represent a high frequency EQ also affects other portions of the frequency spectrum. I'd wager that the original circuit affects high frequency harmonics in a big way along with transient and ripple responses, and would lead to more than just a frequency rolloff difference. Svart this is your area of expertise not mine. My own experience with using feedback in tube designs for equalization purposes I would hardly call complex but non linear I agree.
In the increments we're describing here I still can't see that adding an additional undetermined amplifier into the circuit is somehow superior. Of course it sounds like many here have boosted top end on U67's to good effect, that's great. No one it seems has tried slightly rolling off top end to good or bad effect.
Sorry I've helped drift this thread so off subject.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2019 9:25:38 GMT -6
Thanks Matt, Mike, I got it. Put on some rubber gloves and wiggled firmly, it took a minute but it was fine. Some of the 806S numbers on the Telefunken tube flaked off though. Nothing I could do would have helped that, I guess they're really that delicate. I'll post new tracks when I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 29, 2019 9:54:16 GMT -6
There is no simple EQ section for the top end in the U67. It's a complex feedback/feedforward system that isn't very linear. Removing parts that have been determined to represent a high frequency EQ also affects other portions of the frequency spectrum. I'd wager that the original circuit affects high frequency harmonics in a big way along with transient and ripple responses, and would lead to more than just a frequency rolloff difference. Svart this is your area of expertise not mine. My own experience with using feedback in tube designs for equalization purposes I would hardly call complex but non linear I agree.
In the increments we're describing here I still can't see that adding an additional undetermined amplifier into the circuit is somehow superior. Of course it sounds like many here have boosted top end on U67's to good effect, that's great. No one it seems has tried slightly rolling off top end to good or bad effect.
Sorry I've helped drift this thread so off subject.
Yes. I have. IMO it does not work as well - ON VOCALS. I much prefer a mic with subdued HF that I can leave as is or EQ brighter as needed to a bright mic that I have to pull out HF with EQ. This is how 67's have been used for decades. I personally thought that was common knowledge. Maybe it's an LA thing....
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 29, 2019 10:11:42 GMT -6
I guess none of my knowledge can be described as "common" An LA thing? I don't see many studios dumping their 800g's, C12's, 251's,etc. to run off and purchase U67's for vocal tracking. Bill you and I agree U67's are incredible and would be my go to mic for many bright sources.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jul 29, 2019 10:13:27 GMT -6
Not to get too far side tracked but isn't the U67 head grille something that can't legally be copied? How much of a role does the shape of the grille have on the sound?
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 29, 2019 10:31:02 GMT -6
As far as I remember this headbasket was designed originally by the IRT, a goverment regulating board for German broadcasting, for the M49/50 and was adapted for the U67 so I'm not sure if it's really protected. The Germans are however very strict about safeguarding designs.
It plays a fair part in the sound. Not least the 3 layers of tight mesh.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 29, 2019 10:48:26 GMT -6
I guess none of my knowledge can be described as "common" An LA thing? I don't see many studios dumping their 800g's, C12's, 251's,etc. to run off and purchase U67's for vocal tracking. Bill you and I agree U67's are incredible and would be my go to mic for many bright sources. Tim - with the ULTIMATE amount of respect - This is starting to come off as you & stam pushing for a brighter mic. I personally do not care how you guys do it. My comments have come at the request of Martin asking for my perspective on the recorded takes, along with the "targeted" sound that he's after.Many (most) modern 67-ish clone mics present similar to yours - brighter than a stock U67. Although there seems to be one notable exception that swings pretty far the other direction. All I'm saying is that IMO it's not the preferred way of having the mic (U67 clone) present itself. My personal perspective based on years of using both pristine unmodded 67's and the typical lifted HF modded versions in real world situations - not pulling examples in - deciding which to clone. The pristine U67 does NOT have the sex appeal of a killer U47/48 or ELAm 251 when you just pull up the fader on it - and I think that's where the clone makers fall short. But it can get there.....with external hardware EQ. But few judge a mic with EQ engaged (as they are actually almost always used). They want to hear the mic sound "ready" before the EQ is applied after the pre cause that's where the point of sale is. Your personal bias to not have to EQ the HF brighter shows. The mic is brighter that many would prefer. And that's OK. You seem to not like boosting the HF on a 67. That's cool. If that's your personal MO, I'd guess you pull the 67 off the stand and reach for a brighter mic. That's all good. If you have a brighter mic that is - it's good. But sometimes if you are dealing with multiple vocalists or other sources, reaching for an EQ is waaaaay faster and easier than pulling down the mic, putting it back up, etc.. If the mic takes EQ well, then bam! You're ready. And a stock, "dull" 67 takes EQ gloriously - AND - here's the good part - you can tune that HF boost to each vocalist on an individual basis without having to deal with a built in HF boost that may or may not be the right amount, at the right freq. The 67/HF Boost EQ love relationship in my part of the world is used so much that it's become "a thing". "A Thing" that you don't seem to agree with. 67's seem to have come in vogue recently as they are the last vintage Neumann tube mic to take the path to stratospheric $$$$$$ status. That and the fact that they in FACT are not inherently bright. Where I come from, it's common knowledge that they are in FACT focused in the opposite direction. Rolled off, dull, muted or whatever you want to call it. There are two EXTREMELY good examples right here on this thread. The Townsend track and Martins track that he cut in a studio on a vintage 67. The stam mic with your cap is undeniably brighter than either of those two examples. So with that, I think I'm done. You guys can duke it out. If Martin has any other questions for me, he can speak out.
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 14,969
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 29, 2019 11:12:13 GMT -6
It’s interesting to read the practise that have developed around classic mikes. I have never used a real 67, but that vintage rolled sound described above sounds fair to me.
If a mike gets you the sound you want with no eq: great or if you know you can easily dial in the sound you want by adding some eq, that sounds great too.
I guess we could debate which is worse/better: additive or subtractive eq ?
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 29, 2019 11:18:00 GMT -6
Bill please excuse me if I have seemed contrary in any of this. I have complete respect for you and everyone else on this forum and in my way I have enjoyed all the back and forth in this thread. It's a shame all of us couldn't be having this discussion over a beer instead of as text. It would be so much easier to see how light hearted it has been for my part.
In a funny way I have no dog in this fight. Yes I've built the new capsule for Stam's SA67 but it is the exact capsule I was contracted to make not the capsule I decided to make. If another company approached me to build a darker version of the same or a different capsule I'd do that as long as it didn't stray too far from my aesthetic. It's hard not to contribute because the basis of this thread has seemed to hinge on who has built a better capsule. Heiserman and I have both provided a capsule to Stam Audio according to their criteria. No one has asked how well matched the front and back halves are? How do the various polar patterns sound? What is the capsule s/n ratio? How is the build quality? How pleased is Stam (our customer) with our work? Those are the only real ways to judge the quality of our work. Bright or dark is not our call.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 29, 2019 11:45:26 GMT -6
Bill please excuse me if I have seemed contrary in any of this. I have complete respect for you and everyone else on this forum and in my way I have enjoyed all the back and forth in this thread. It's a shame all of us couldn't be having this discussion over a beer instead of as text. It would be so much easier to see how light hearted it has been for my part. In a funny way I have no dog in this fight. Yes I've built the new capsule for Stam's SA67 but it is the exact capsule I was contracted to make not the capsule I decided to make. If another company approached me to build a darker version of the same or a different capsule I'd do that as long as it didn't stray too far from my aesthetic. It's hard not to contribute because the basis of this thread has seemed to hinge on who has built a better capsule. Heiserman and I have both provided a capsule to Stam Audio according to their criteria. No one has asked how well matched the front and back halves are? How do the various polar patterns sound? What is the capsule s/n ratio? How is the build quality? How pleased is Stam (our customer) with our work? Those are the only real ways to judge the quality of our work. Bright or dark is not our call. Got it. And completely understand. The clients wishes always come first. We are all in a "service" business first and foremost after all if we want to keep eating.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 29, 2019 11:54:23 GMT -6
We can agree to disagree on desired brightness in a vocal mic, but what I'm going to have to point out...AGAIN (not for Tim who I'm sure knows this but for someone reading along)....every time this comes up is that a U67 doesn't have "less high end" per se....nor does what makes it different involve an EQ circuit....the closest analogy would be that it has a built in deEsser and de-popper....a U67 capsule is CRAZY bright, intentionally--because it's bleeding overages to ground. Whenever I hear a mic manufacturer say anything resembling "you can always roll off HF to get it to sound like a 67"....a mental box gets checked that says "never buying a 67 clone from them--they don't know how this works". Which is NOT to say they don't make a brilliant lovely CK12 capsule, chichis objectively a better capsule for general purpose use, IMO....all day. But, the recipe of hyper bright sizzle capsule and deemphasis transformer/tube head amp....being bought by Motown and use on so much 60s/70s pop/soul work have engrained a certain sound into the fabric of expectation. The U67 (or 269) is the only mic that scratches that itch. It's not a "better"--it's just not the SAME. Where we can talk all day about some C12s being better or worse--you can't compare it to a 67, because it doesn't do the same thing other than both being tube based LDC mics. It's like saying your La2a is inferior to an 1176 because it can't catch the fast transients. Situationally, SURE--it might be and inferior tool for jobX or Y....but, they're just completely different tools.
So--I really hadn't been paying a lot of attention to the most recent mic developments, is this two options of ordering from Stam, or is this Tim&Stam is stock and someone swapped in whatever a Heiserman capsule is for Martin. If it's stock, it explains why I thought the original clip last year sounded "broken".
#2 has peaked my interest....a lot. It's multi pattern? If so, I might need to arrange a demo.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 29, 2019 12:21:28 GMT -6
Bill please excuse me if I have seemed contrary in any of this. I have complete respect for you and everyone else on this forum and in my way I have enjoyed all the back and forth in this thread. It's a shame all of us couldn't be having this discussion over a beer instead of as text. It would be so much easier to see how light hearted it has been for my part. In a funny way I have no dog in this fight. Yes I've built the new capsule for Stam's SA67 but it is the exact capsule I was contracted to make not the capsule I decided to make. If another company approached me to build a darker version of the same or a different capsule I'd do that as long as it didn't stray too far from my aesthetic. It's hard not to contribute because the basis of this thread has seemed to hinge on who has built a better capsule. Heiserman and I have both provided a capsule to Stam Audio according to their criteria. No one has asked how well matched the front and back halves are? How do the various polar patterns sound? What is the capsule s/n ratio? How is the build quality? How pleased is Stam (our customer) with our work? Those are the only real ways to judge the quality of our work. Bright or dark is not our call. Totally reasonable. For my part, I'm more or less solely interested in seeing Martin get a mic he's truly happy with. Hearing the differences in capsules is of course interesting in and of itself but I'm mostly just following along and contributing in the interest of giving feedback to Martin.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2019 12:22:46 GMT -6
Hi Guys, my time's getting tight. I ran some very quick takes after switching tubes. So to be clear, let's call this Part II. I was mostly interested in comparing the T.C cap mic with the Telefunken EF806S tube to the T.C cap with Siemens tube. But since the tubes were switched, I checked out the Heiserman cap with the Siemens tube, just in case.
The levels were different now, so I did my best..
First up, the Tim Campbell cap mic with the Telefunken EF806S tube. Solo Vocal:
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/sa67-tc-captele-806s-tube-solo-vocal
Nest: The Heiserman cap with the Siemens tube. *For some reason this combo gave me 4-6db more gain, I have no idea why:
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/sa67-heisermansiemens-tubesolo-vocal Now, T.C. cap mic with EF806S guitar and vocal
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/sa67-tim-campbelltele-806s-tube-vocal-gtr Finally, Heiserman cap w/ Siemens Voc & Gtr
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/sa67-heiserman-cap-siemens-tube-vocal-gtr
Listening here at home, I'm closer to it all, and I'm 98% sure I'm digging the T.C. cap with the the Siemens tube. I expected the Tele tube would have been my choice, but to me, it made it less clear. The low level detail of the T.C./Siemens combo was doing it for me today. I get that the U47 or a 251 might often be the better choice for lead vocals, but for my voice, the K67 style cap seems to be The One. I so appreciate all the amazing input here and thank you all so much. I'm of course willing to change my mind after listening for a few more days, but I think I've got it now. I can always send it to Tim if I want a slight adjustment in timber.
To make comparing easier, here's the T.C. cap mic with the Siemens tube, this way you can compare the Telefunken EF806S and this one.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/sa67-ac-gtr-vocal-mic-1
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jul 29, 2019 12:24:22 GMT -6
This is one of the funniest threads on RGO yet!
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 29, 2019 12:25:31 GMT -6
We can agree to disagree on desired brightness in a vocal mic, but what I'm going to have to point out...AGAIN (not for Tim who I'm sure knows this but for someone reading along)....every time this comes up is that a U67 doesn't have "less high end" per se....nor does what makes it different involve an EQ circuit....the closest analogy would be that it has a built in deEsser and de-popper....a U67 capsule is CRAZY bright, intentionally--because it's bleeding overages to ground. Whenever I hear a mic manufacturer say anything resembling "you can always roll off HF to get it to sound like a 67"....a mental box gets checked that says "never buying a 67 clone from them--they don't know how this works". Which is NOT to say they don't make a brilliant lovely CK12 capsule, chichis objectively a better capsule for general purpose use, IMO....all day. But, the recipe of hyper bright sizzle capsule and deemphasis transformer/tube head amp....being bought by Motown and use on so much 60s/70s pop/soul work have engrained a certain sound into the fabric of expectation. The U67 (or 269) is the only mic that scratches that itch. It's not a "better"--it's just not the SAME. Where we can talk all day about some C12s being better or worse--you can't compare it to a 67, because it doesn't do the same thing other than both being tube based LDC mics. It's like saying your La2a is inferior to an 1176 because it can't catch the fast transients. Situationally, SURE--it might be and inferior tool for jobX or Y....but, they're just completely different tools. So--I really hadn't been paying a lot of attention to the most recent mic developments, is this two options of ordering from Stam, or is this Tim&Stam is stock and someone swapped in whatever a Heiserman capsule is for Martin. If it's stock, it explains why I thought the original clip last year sounded "broken". #2 has peaked my interest....a lot. It's multi pattern? If so, I might need to arrange a demo. There's a dramatic back story with capsule choice here which you can read if you want to check the "U67 Style Microphone..." (or something like that) thread. In the interest of everyone though, let's not re-hash it here in MJB's shootout thread. It'll get cray-cray in a hurry.
|
|