|
Post by Quint on Jul 31, 2019 12:43:57 GMT -6
This is off to you ? On the blind shootout poll we did 60% thought ours was the Vintage 67 and almost 100% thought ours to be the either the original or re-issue. Ends up the re-issue is way different from the original and our charts don't lie, the frequency response is virtually identical. You can be very objective with numbers when matching THD, curves, SPL, noise, etc.. Sounds amazing! The mic in this video is the heiserman capsule, correct? I think you're right. That's an older video that precedes the TC capsule, which would make it a Heiserman capsule.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 31, 2019 12:47:02 GMT -6
Sounds amazing! The mic in this video is the heiserman capsule, correct? I think you're right. That's an older video that precedes the TC capsule, which would make it a Heiserman capsule. Which essentially means it's not the mic they are selling now.... no?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jul 31, 2019 13:08:27 GMT -6
I think you're right. That's an older video that precedes the TC capsule, which would make it a Heiserman capsule. Which essentially means it's not the mic they are selling now.... no? That'd be correct.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jul 31, 2019 13:08:43 GMT -6
It's not, but as Tim explained, his company made the capsule that Stam requested. My guess is it was the same request given to Heiserman. I'd also guess that Tim knows what he's doing by now at nailing the nuances of different capsules.
And as we heard in Martin's tests, once the same tube was heard in each mic, the results were closer to each other.
But a difference in the video is the singer is in a box of thick gobos. Martin was likely in a space like his living room.
And as Martin said, a third capsule, supposedly darker is also being evaluated and he should receive one. So what then?
They are obviously putting in the effort to get it right, but so many factors can alter things. For less than $2K I'd say it's an impressive product based on what I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jul 31, 2019 13:12:30 GMT -6
It's not, but as Tim explained, his company made the capsule that Stam requested. My guess is it was the same request given to Heiserman. I'd also guess that Tim knows what he's doing by now at nailing the nuances of different capsules. And as we heard in Martin's tests, once the same tube was heard in each mic, the results were closer to each other. But a difference in the video is the singer is in a box of thick gobos. Martin was likely in a space like his living room. And as Martin said, a third capsule, supposedly darker is also being evaluated and he should receive one. So what then? They are obviously putting in the effort to get it right, but so many factors can alter things. For less than $2K I'd say it's an impressive product based on what I've heard. That all is true. People are just trying to nudge Josh into voicing this new version of the SA67 into the voice they have in their head. Perhaps a concensus will develop over where that exact voicing lies.
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 15,133
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 31, 2019 13:14:21 GMT -6
Ironically, the website still specifies the H, not the C cap.
I wonder, if you preferred the H cap, if you could just specify that?
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 31, 2019 13:29:03 GMT -6
My guess is it was the same request given to Heiserman. I'd also guess that Tim knows what he's doing by now at nailing the nuances of different capsules. And as we heard in Martin's tests, once the same tube was heard in each mic, the results were closer to each other. But a difference in the video is the singer is in a box of thick gobos. Martin was likely in a space like his living room. And as Martin said, a third capsule, supposedly darker is also being evaluated and he should receive one. So what then? They are obviously putting in the effort to get it right, but so many factors can alter things. For less than $2K I'd say it's an impressive product based on what I've heard. Yes. the sonic esthetic of the builder (Stam) is the driving factor in how the mic ends up - who I guess in this case is partially parting out to other vendors (Tim at least) which factors in as well. There are SOOOO many factors as is evidenced in the differences of the products of MANY talented mic builders / cloners out there : - the esthetic of the builder - the actual vintage mic(s) they are patterned after - and whether or not they are prime examples, well cared for, modded, and importantly - ones that carry the "magic dust", etc.. - who builds the capsule - which tube(s) they chose and are shipped with - and especially the consistency of the tube and whether each one is checked in mic. - the interaction of the components (tube / transformer primarily) - quality of power supply - etc. All these things play a major factor in how the mic ends up sounding, the consistency of the delivered mics once finalized, and essentially the "differences" of that particular mic to different mics of the same clone-age out on the market. At this point, the SA67 is still a moving target until the final details have been nailed down - and it's sounding like the SA67 is still in transition with a new capsule, darker version of said capsule, etc.. At least that's how it's sounding to me....
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 31, 2019 13:36:26 GMT -6
Ironically, the website still specifies the H, not the C cap. I wonder, if you preferred the H cap, if you could just specify that? I assume you've read how I came to building this capsule for Stam. There is ZERO chance of ordering a SA67 with the Heiserman capsule. I have been checked and checked and checked by Stam to make sure I stay on spec and am consistent across large numbers of capsules.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jul 31, 2019 13:40:38 GMT -6
Ironically, the website still specifies the H, not the C cap. I wonder, if you preferred the H cap, if you could just specify that? I still can't believe they can't do something as simple as alter their webpage to show the current build specs. Welcome to Stam Land.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jul 31, 2019 15:14:18 GMT -6
I still can't believe they can't do something as simple as alter their webpage to show the current build specs. Welcome to Stam Land. I didn't want to confuse my clients as we still had some left over capsules from our previous supplier and some fully paid units to get out. Now that we have completed those shipments we can change it for future orders. We will manufacture all new SA67's with the TC67.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jul 31, 2019 15:18:03 GMT -6
Ironically, the website still specifies the H, not the C cap. I wonder, if you preferred the H cap, if you could just specify that? No, we don't offer that option and won't in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jul 31, 2019 15:22:24 GMT -6
I think you're right. That's an older video that precedes the TC capsule, which would make it a Heiserman capsule. Which essentially means it's not the mic they are selling now.... no? Correct. We will sell the same mic with a different capsule but it will sound the same or just as close as the vintage 67 on this video. It's easy to match the voicing once you know what you are doing. This was just a protoype I sent to Martin because he didn't like his SA67 as much with the older capsules, he said there was something missing and it sounded a bit dull so I sent him a brighter version with a bit more mids which he likes better. This is not the final version that will start shipping soon but a custom one. He added some clips here to see what people thought about it.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 31, 2019 16:03:02 GMT -6
Could be drbill, the next time I track, I'll try the SA73 preamp. I think the tubes affected tone much more than we expected. In time i'll figure out where it's at. I'll keep working with the mics until I'm sure of what I'm hearing. So you used a tube preamp? IMO, tube pres tend to be brighter...at least the ones I've used.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 31, 2019 16:34:08 GMT -6
Guys, once these (quality) capsules are closely in the 67 Ballpark/Spectrum... For most users, can't you just EQ/process them for exceptional results? (I still appreciate everyone contributing comments & clips nonetheless) Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 31, 2019 18:32:23 GMT -6
For most users, can't you just EQ/process them for exceptional results? Exceptional? I don't know what that means really. You can get exceptional results with a SM58, but I've never reached for one on a session right out of the gate. For me, exceptional comes from the performance. The rest is just gear and engineering technique. That said, some mics DO have a magical quality to me, and others are solid and really functional and good tools to have in the box. The magic ones are few and far between and just because a mic has the classic "number" doesn't mean it's magic. (Case in point, Eric Valentine mentioned in his video's that his U47 really just isn't one of the magic ones....that it's only "OK".) M49's have been the most magical for me out of the usual suspects. U67's almost always require some EQ for a modern vocal recording, but like Tim and I have kind of hinted at - I don't really consider the U67 as a top vocal mic amongst the normal suspects - 251, C12, 44, 47/48, 87, etc.. It's excels much better as an instrumental mic for my purposes, although with EQ it can be great on vocals - especially bright / thin ones. But in terms of capturing the magic - you can't post-recording EQ or process in that magic factor IME. Doesn't work. You either catch it when you record, or you live without it. I don't have an M49 though (even though Adam has me jonesing....) - and it doesn't stop me from recording. But the best capture is your best bet. Everything else is just trying to play catchup. Expensive, classy mics are always worth it if you can swing it. For me, a good example of the magic was Martin's voice on the vintage 67 that he was in the studio with. The clones were both good, but IMO not magical. Swapping tubes, pre's, room treatment, capsules, etc. may very well change that. I'm always looking for magic. It's what keeps me recording and buying gear. Always trying to catch that elusive muse....
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 31, 2019 18:40:50 GMT -6
Could be drbill, the next time I track, I'll try the SA73 preamp. I think the tubes affected tone much more than we expected. In time i'll figure out where it's at. I'll keep working with the mics until I'm sure of what I'm hearing. So you used a tube preamp? IMO, tube pres tend to be brighter...at least the ones I've used. I had one of those D4’s and thought the top was ‘glassy’, if that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 31, 2019 19:25:08 GMT -6
"Grasshopper" here thanks you, Dr. Bill. Brilliant post.
I also totally agree regarding that Vintage 67, on MJB. Chris
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 31, 2019 21:58:24 GMT -6
Great posts guys. Thanks to Stam for clarifying. Joshua went above and beyond the call of duty getting a second mic to me to try, and I greatly appreciated it.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 31, 2019 22:30:52 GMT -6
I have occasionally teased Joshua about the "usual stuff" people have brought up about Stam, in the past.
But...
I sincerely wish all related parties (both past and present) nothing but great success in their ventures. IMHO it's not "worth it" to go the extra mile that it takes, in the audio gear game, unless you have a true passion for it.
So I highly respect all those involved, in the overall evolution of the SA-67. Kinda like trying to start a successful new restaurant-very tough! Chris
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 1, 2019 4:20:54 GMT -6
Not sure about the Stam clones, but in my mid 60’s u67’s PSU’s (nu67’s) there are trim pots for the heater (filament) voltage. The b+ has no trimmer and you need to change resistors to get it right (210VDC off the top of my head). Disclaimer: Please be careful in there. Lethal DC voltages are present. If you are not used to working around high voltages, get a tech to do it and show you... These things can bite you even when unplugged from the AC outlet. The nu67 specs 6.5V assuming some loss in the connecting cable.....which was what length? 210V is correct, but it could be +/-10% with the tube itself having more effect, since there's a 150K resistor between it and the tube inside the mic. 75V at the plate of the tube, after that resistor, so that 210V could be adjusted to anything that gives +/-10% of 75V.....which one really shouldn't have to do, change the tube because it's not in spec, actually. No trims in a Max MK67 PSU. Didn't notice voltage changes with myriad tube rolling. Generally not all that critical here, not like a U47 circuit at all which uses a single voltage for heater and plate, with a dropping resistor for heater. Change the cable wire gauge or length from mic to PSU will change the heater voltage, slightly. 6.3V tubes are designed for 6-6.6V operation tolerance, many run fine with no obvious changes down to 5.7V. I've never seen significant gain changes in small signal tubes at 5.5V, but yes, on power tubes for sure. Nor for B+ changes within 20%: doubling or halving voltage is usually a 6dB move, if the circuit can even take it. There are arguments (and measurements) out there showing life and distortion improvements when underheated, for some tube types. So bottom line, I needn’t be concerned with adjusting PSU values when swapping tubes in a 67 circuit?
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Aug 1, 2019 10:19:00 GMT -6
The nu67 specs 6.5V assuming some loss in the connecting cable.....which was what length? 210V is correct, but it could be +/-10% with the tube itself having more effect, since there's a 150K resistor between it and the tube inside the mic. 75V at the plate of the tube, after that resistor, so that 210V could be adjusted to anything that gives +/-10% of 75V.....which one really shouldn't have to do, change the tube because it's not in spec, actually. No trims in a Max MK67 PSU. Didn't notice voltage changes with myriad tube rolling. Generally not all that critical here, not like a U47 circuit at all which uses a single voltage for heater and plate, with a dropping resistor for heater. Change the cable wire gauge or length from mic to PSU will change the heater voltage, slightly. 6.3V tubes are designed for 6-6.6V operation tolerance, many run fine with no obvious changes down to 5.7V. I've never seen significant gain changes in small signal tubes at 5.5V, but yes, on power tubes for sure. Nor for B+ changes within 20%: doubling or halving voltage is usually a 6dB move, if the circuit can even take it. There are arguments (and measurements) out there showing life and distortion improvements when underheated, for some tube types. So bottom line, I needn’t be concerned with adjusting PSU values when swapping tubes in a 67 circuit? Maybe I’m too particular, but I always check heater voltage, b+ and plate after tube swaps or PSU component replacement etc in any of my tube mics. It’s true that some other mics derive heater and plate and capsule polarization from a single voltage (u47) so the b+ is even more crucial, But the capsule polarization voltage on u67 is also derived from the b+, so I wouldn’t want a 10% change. That likely effects the sound of the capsule and noise specs etc. (Emrr, Is there a Neumann spec that suggests a tolerance +/- 10% on the b+?). AC701 mics (m221, km54(53/56) etc) are even pickier. If heater voltage on a ac701 is over by even 5% it will shorten tube life (expensive!) Anyway, for a u67 you are likely to “get away with it”, but for a tube/capsule comparison test where we are trying to rule out variables, I’d think that calibrating voltages per mic/tube combo would be prudent.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Aug 1, 2019 14:54:26 GMT -6
We just did a shootout with the original mic
Very pleased, video to come soon
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Aug 1, 2019 16:56:32 GMT -6
From my perspective on the mics I've used at Capitol and other places, either your examples are off, or your recreations are off. That's my perspective and again, take it for what it's worth. $0.02. This is off to you ? On the blind shootout poll we did 60% thought ours was the Vintage 67 and almost 100% thought ours to be the either the original or re-issue. Ends up the re-issue is way different from the original and our charts don't lie, the frequency response is virtually identical. You can be very objective with numbers when matching THD, curves, SPL, noise, etc.. Mic A sounds like the rich mids and low mids I expect from a u67. The top is butter smooth and slightly veiled in a flattering way.. Mic B has a smaller sounding more pointed focus to the high end, along with more exaggerated “mouth noises” (transients) and kind of folds in on itself more on louder high notes. Doesn’t have the creamy low middle. Mic C sounds a little claustrophobic and boxy, but the low mid cream is back...Mic placement (especially hight) could be playing a role here... (Not sure what mic is in what position.) Also, this piano sound is not cool, at all. But that’s for another day. 😬
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 1, 2019 17:41:38 GMT -6
So bottom line, I needn’t be concerned with adjusting PSU values when swapping tubes in a 67 circuit? the capsule polarization voltage on u67 is also derived from the b+, so I wouldn’t want a 10% change. That likely effects the sound of the capsule and noise specs etc. (Emrr, Is there a Neumann spec that suggests a tolerance +/- 10% on the b+?). Pretty much anything tube is cool with +/-10% variation, Neumann doesn't say it and did not have to say it, it's a blanket assumption of the technology at hand. The only place anything gets that tweaky is weird kludges like the U47 filament value, or broadcast compression and transmission circuits with metering who's accuracy reflects on legally allowable maximum standards, and those circuits use regulated power supplies to overcome line voltage variations. U67 PSU isn't regulated, but it has the mains voltage step 117/127/220/240VAC adjustment which is a clue they considered that 'good enough'. A lot of US broadcast tube gear has steps like that, and some of it has regulation too. 210V B+, highest polarization voltage 120V for figure 8, 59V for cardioid, eh. Seems overly literal, given the other huge list of variables.....like a tube drawing way too much or way too little, then you adjust the B+, but the tube is whack and you haven't actually addressed 75V on it's plate.....these numbers aren't holy grail, they are typical values and NOTHING in old tube circuit world was literal and exacting.....as someone who techs a lot of stuff from old tube world. I think literal becomes more crucial and prudent when the tubes cost a ton and face scarcity, but cost/scarcity are the primary reason. Really, the thing with capsule polarization voltage is you can't measure it with readily available tools as it's too high impedance and most accessible test gear sags the actual value, and virtually no 2M2 and 3M3 resistor from that era actually reads at that EXACT value (you can read the 59V there with a standard meter), so.....the polarization doesn't read those exact values either......and you can't measure them at the capsule after the 60M and 400M resistors.....so chasing the PSU 210V is a bit distant from anything that might seem crucial in that regard, in my book at least. To someone else, I'm surely wrong, but these aren't day to day problems in my studio with my microphones. My early '30's Carrier tube condenser was originally battery power, and in putting a modern supply on it I listened in a range from 150-200V. 150V was definitely a lesser sound, but 185-200V was no difference to the ear. The polarization and B+ are one in the same in that mic. The tubes are directly heated triodes, which are one type that's been shown to perform better somewhat under-heated.
|
|
|
Post by soundintheround on Aug 18, 2019 22:53:14 GMT -6
Thanks so much for doing this thread!! Some great comments here from some very experienced people. I was surprised/worried to hear when the announcement came they were switching capsules (having owning the Heiserman SA67), so I'm glad I could take a listen for myself. Wow, what a difference the tubes can make! It made me go back and listen to a few different ones that I have. I too am similar to Martin, the vintage U67 is my dream mic. Although we have slightly different references for it.... (mine is recordings from the 60's/70's, Olympic Studios, Eddie Kramer, Glyn Johns etc, as well as a local studio around the corner from me which has a good one.) I think I was one of the first 5 people to reserve the SA-67 when I first heard Stam was doing it. I asked Josh multiple times to give me the luxury model, add as many mods or upgrades as possible to to get it authentic as it could be. In typical Stam fashion the answer changed 2 or 3 times (no upgrades/we have upgrades/no upgrades), eventually I think I heard about it on this forum, from a newsletter that I wasn't even getting. At the time the AMI transformer or NOS tube weren't stock, so I made sure to pay extra for those. (he eventually sent me a mullard).... Months later he told me to go get some Tele EF806S. So I went out and bought 4 of those. Whatever it takes! But it is interesting to see that I guess neither capsule comes out a clear and obvious winner. Both guys seem to be making pretty darn good stuff and I'll leave it at that. But I too had some reservations about the top end on my SA67 when I first got it. I also have also made some pretty killer 60's style drum recordings with it as well. For vocals my SA47 is just magical, and I like my SA87 for various other things too. You can tell I am a fan of Josh's mics? Josh when does my SA800 and 251 ship? .. jk Bottom Line: I think Josh is doing an excellent job and obviously paying close attention to the details. But yes, please listen to the old heads on here and make sure to get their feedback! The reason I am subscribed to your bi-yearly microphone club is because your mics aren't overly bright, or brighter than they need to be. Let's keep it that way! Don't fall into the brightness wars. (having said that I expect my SA800 to be crispy, but please don't go crazy. Bring us authenticity.)
|
|