|
|
Post by samuelpepys on Aug 2, 2021 16:49:54 GMT -6
Yes, I'm aware this is a very uninitiated question, and has probably been asked too many times. But even though I can understand why modern microphones are generally really bright, I still haven't been able to get a straight answer as to why even the expensive clones are. We have expensive 5-6k clones of various one syllable names, and even a "genuine" (don't shoot me) 10k Telefunken, and while all of these microphones represent the pinnacle of modern microphone tube technology, they all share one characteristic: They are brighter than their vintage counterparts, and often by a lot. It's not an unpleasant brightness, it is a very sparkly and comfortable brightness, which leads me to reason that it is an entirely concious effort. Back when I worked at a big studio complex about half the size of Capitol, I used to use our old m49 pairs, and various old Tele and Neumann U47's a lot, so I got used to the sound, and the "mojo" that was there. Even though I was a total newb at the time, and wasn't yet wise to the whole "vintage vs. modern" thing, and didn't even know that a pair of vintage m49's were worth more than a couple of hundred dollars, I still chose those vintage microphones because they did something to the signal that the other - in my belief - much more fancier, more expensive modern microphones didn't impart on it. So even then, with a bias AGAINST vintage microphones because of lack of experience, I still found myself liking "those old crummy microphones" a whole lot more than the new ones in general. But when I listen to shootouts now, and even get to play with really nice clones (I own one of the most expensive m49 clones on the market), I hear the sound of the original mics that I recognise, absolutely. But I also hear a very sparkly top end that wasn't there in the original ones, and I generally also feel that something in the bottom end or lower mids is lacking a little bit. It's just that added top end sparkle that bugs me a bit, and I just don't understand why even Telefunken feels it needs to be there in their U47 reissue. My pair of old Gefell m582's absolutely oozes vintage "mojo" like there was no tomorrow. You can so clearly hear that they just sound old, but they still have a very musical and useful top end that doesn't feel cut off or not compatible with modern music. The smooth, vintage mojo or thickness they impart on any signal just makes me want to arrange a jazz session with Norah Jones and stick them so far up the soundholes of all those instruments that they'll never see sunlight again. And in my heart I just know that if someone talented were to make clones of them, that "old sound" would largely be gone, and there would be a sparkle on the top end that wasn't there in the original microphones. What is it exactly that forces all the clones to sound brighter than their older siblings? Hope this wasn't too rambly, even though I know it was. Sorry  |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Aug 2, 2021 18:06:02 GMT -6
New parts vs old nicotine soaked, drifting out of spec parts. IMO it's almost that simple.
Question everyone faces is do you build a new widget that sounds & responds like a 40 year old one? Or do you build it like it's brand new off the line?
From the guitar realm... one of my favorite quotes on vintage vs modern speakers... Everyone is chasing the sound & pays huge bucks for vintage Celestion greenbacks yeah?
Hendrix, Page, Clapton... those guys didn't play vintage speakers. They played NEW speakers!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 18:27:25 GMT -6
The clones often are made with new parts that have modern quality control and not “voiced” around using those parts like the better modern designs are. The good old stuff was voiced around what they had available. So your options are:
1) Buy a gross clone with key parts muntzed out.
2) Buy a clone made with NOS parts that sounds good.
3) Buy a modern design that sounds good and does what you need it to do.
More people unwisely choose 1 than 3 now. 2 is unsustainable and often not as useful if it’s not an 1176 or LA3A. Anyone with a credit card can buy a rack full of Behringer clones for their Sound Better page. Yet there’s less vibe in a KT76 than ReaComp and Fab Filter C 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Aug 2, 2021 18:28:51 GMT -6
Seconded on the new vs old parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassdan on Aug 2, 2021 20:08:28 GMT -6
Here’s what I understand (which is more than the average Joe but not as much as veteran mic builders.)
I think it has much less to do with internal amplifier components and more to do with the capsules. No one has yet to crack the code to what makes Neumann capsules so incredible. Add that to the best quality tubes and transformers that are difficult to reproduce today.
In some cases, I suspect that modern mic designers may wish for their own sonic character. My friend John Peluso’s mics always have an airy quality that I believe he aims for.
The VF14 simply has not been replicated. Nothing comes close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Aug 2, 2021 21:20:44 GMT -6
Doesn't the material used in the components come into play as well? Lead laws and such? 40 years ago was only the 80's, but 60's gear was made knowing you'd just dump the waste out back.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011 
|
Post by ericn on Aug 2, 2021 21:34:24 GMT -6
Here’s what I understand (which is more than the average Joe but not as much as veteran mic builders.) I think it has much less to do with internal amplifier components and more to do with the capsules. No one has yet to crack the code to what makes Neumann capsules so incredible. Add that to the best quality tubes and transformers that are difficult to reproduce today. In some cases, I suspect that modern mic designers may wish for their own sonic character. My friend John Peluso’s mics always have an airy quality that I believe he aims for. The VF14 simply has not been replicated. Nothing comes close. Dan, your endeavors in the world of gear building haven’t fallen prey to this, but there is a lot of pressure from MI based dealers to hype the Sonics so that they impress in a very quick demo, and I truly respect the fact that you have not fallen down that hole! |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 2, 2021 21:42:09 GMT -6
Doesn't the material used in the components come into play as well? Lead laws and such? 40 years ago was only the 80's, but 60's gear was made knowing you'd just dump the waste out back. Yeah - I think the metals/alloys used made a big difference. Along with some Stradivari voodoo in capsule making. I also think we live in a time of full range hi fidelity and a dark mic doesn’t impress people on first listen…so they don’t sell. I actually asked Dallas to go dark on my 251 cap and then put a Mullard in it. I thought it sounded pretty ****ing close to Jeff’s vintage 251 in cardioid. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 2, 2021 21:43:23 GMT -6
Here’s what I understand (which is more than the average Joe but not as much as veteran mic builders.) I think it has much less to do with internal amplifier components and more to do with the capsules. No one has yet to crack the code to what makes Neumann capsules so incredible. Add that to the best quality tubes and transformers that are difficult to reproduce today. In some cases, I suspect that modern mic designers may wish for their own sonic character. My friend John Peluso’s mics always have an airy quality that I believe he aims for. The VF14 simply has not been replicated. Nothing comes close. Dan, your endeavors in the world of gear building haven’t fallen prey to this, but there is a lot of pressure from MI based dealers to hype the Sonics so that they impress in a very quick demo, and I truly respect the fact that you have not fallen down that hole! Yes, Dan’s products never impress. Haha. I know that’s not what you meant. |
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Aug 2, 2021 22:00:46 GMT -6
Doesn't the material used in the components come into play as well? Lead laws and such? 40 years ago was only the 80's, but 60's gear was made knowing you'd just dump the waste out back. Yeah - I think the metals/alloys used made a big difference. Along with some Stradivari voodoo in capsule making. I also think we live in a time of full range hi fidelity and a dark mic doesn’t impress people on first listen…so they don’t sell. I actually asked Dallas to go dark on my 251 cap and then put a Mullard in it. I thought it sounded pretty ****ing close to Jeff’s vintage 251 in cardioid. Totally agree on the darker might be better thing. You gotta hear it all in context together as a song. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Aug 2, 2021 22:06:21 GMT -6
Doesn't the material used in the components come into play as well? Lead laws and such? 40 years ago was only the 80's, but 60's gear was made knowing you'd just dump the waste out back. Some of that is factor too... Sure even if it's not materials tolerance plays a role. Could look at transformers vs guitar pickups & winding machines. In the 1950s the counters on those machines, coupled with the handwork involved wasn't very accurate. So like, we could look at a couple 3 Gibson PAF humbuckers and some are hotter... have a higher output based on the way someone did or didn't count wire turns around the bobbins. Today we buy a DiMarzio and the turns, consistency is way more accurate. And certainly other things are like the pyramids... where the knowledge and technology has simply vanished. Take all that put age and mileage on it. 1950s mic? 70 years of use +/- 3dB..? How well does a 70 year old car run? Would you pull a 51 Ford out of a barn and do a road trip?! Or would you do some maintenance and replace the worn out bits so it won't break down & kill you over the next 2000 miles? How about 10000? |
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Aug 2, 2021 22:12:07 GMT -6
How well does a 70 year old car run? Would you pull a 51 Ford out of a barn and do a road trip?! Or would you do some maintenance and replace the worn out bits so it won't break down & kill you over the next 2000 miles? How about 10000? I guess on the car analogy, I'm inspired to mention (I think for the second time?) Singer's cars. If you maintain it on the way or commit to completely rebuilding the thing, it could go on another century and be a new thing of beauty.
But I also totally get your points. It's all in the hands of who can continue "it" I guess. And if you let something rot, no matter what it is, it's not going to get going out of a barn ready for a road trip.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassdan on Aug 2, 2021 22:36:21 GMT -6
But microphones don’t experience the same mechanical “wearing out” like a car. It’s apples to oranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Aug 2, 2021 23:02:47 GMT -6
But microphones don’t experience the same mechanical “wearing out” like a car. It’s apples to oranges. Cool, I wouldn't know, so I'll step out of that debate. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Aug 2, 2021 23:41:21 GMT -6
But microphones don’t experience the same mechanical “wearing out” like a car. It’s apples to oranges. That's a false statement based out of either inexperience or ignorance. Plenty of things in microphones wear out and break down over time... PVC based M7 capsules? Capacitors & resistors drift and fail... tubes wear out. Foam in the windscreen crumbles. Physical abuse. Nobody here has ever fumbled and dropped a microphone? Anyone who says they haven't is either lying or hasn't been in the game very long. I've spent considerable time around vintage microphones. Unless rebuilt they all have issues that affect day to day reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 3, 2021 0:37:33 GMT -6
Hmm.. Darker than their original/iconic microphone...
Here are some of the darker "inspired by's".
Bock 251.
Beesneez 87.
Sorrento 87 (current default model).
Tonelux JC37.
Neumann TLM 67. (Especially w/Max Mod)
Heiserman H47 FET (slightly darker than 47 FET)
Chris
P.S. How would you guys compare Heiserman tube 47's, to a pristine U47/48?
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 3, 2021 6:52:44 GMT -6
Then there’s the cases of people who’ve had a capsule replaced in a u67 or u47 who say it sounds the same. Bob O being one, with a u67 I recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassdan on Aug 3, 2021 7:07:17 GMT -6
But microphones don’t experience the same mechanical “wearing out” like a car. It’s apples to oranges. That's a false statement based out of either inexperience or ignorance. Plenty of things in microphones wear out and break down over time... PVC based M7 capsules? Capacitors & resistors drift and fail... tubes wear out. Foam in the windscreen crumbles. Physical abuse. Nobody here has ever fumbled and dropped a microphone? Anyone who says they haven't is either lying or hasn't been in the game very long. I've spent considerable time around vintage microphones. Unless rebuilt they all have issues that affect day to day reliability. Inexperience and ignorance are both of my middle names. In the context of the original post, is it an inherent feature that the older a microphone is the darker sonically it becomes? I would argue no. |
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Aug 3, 2021 7:13:37 GMT -6
I don't believe all clones are brighter than originals. I think it is just a generalization spread by the likes of GS. There are hundreds of shootouts with vintage vs modern where the differences are minimal. Memory is generally romanticised - old is better. If you are listening to early recorded material from tape based files of course it has a mellower top end than digital. Lastly I think the poor quality of available tubes and differences in modern transformers play the greatest role in this top end quandary. We have shown this here many times simply by changing a tube in a given mic.
When I bought my vintage ELA M251E it sounded ok but not brilliant. After auditioning about a dozen GE6072 5 star tubes suddenly I hit on one and voila there was all the magic it had been missing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 3, 2021 7:28:57 GMT -6
It's almost impossible to compare what a vintage mic sounded like new to a high end recreation. Many of us who have a lust for high end mic quality had spent quite a bit of time in analogue studios. The sound of those vintage mics was always coupled with the sound of the vintage gear it went through.
If you analyze a classic record, you'll often find the high frequencies stop or fall off significantly around 14k. Today we go past 20k with air bands, etc. So often we're listening to more high frequencies than we used to, so the mics sound brighter. Digital has that effect too.
Then you get the aging parts, different quality metal, and unobtanium tubes, and the likelihood of any new mic sounded just like that old vintage mic is slim to none.
I have the Stam SA-67. After the early revisions, I found the mic tone to be right in the middle of sounding like a vintage 67 and a reissue Neumann U67 when it came to balance. I have an expensive NOS tube in mine. Fast forward a year and a half later, and damn if it doesn't sound just like the vintage 67 now. I have no idea why, maybe the tube broke in, ( I haven't used it much since covid), maybe capsules break in, I don't know. Like speakers breaking in by moving, I've wondered if capsules break in too.
In my audiophile days back in the 80's cables did in fact break in, clearly sounding different and better 150 hours later.
Even when we listen to an analogue recording these days it's gone through digital processing.
Besides all that, put three of the same model vintage Neumann mics in the same room and they will each sound different. So, which one is the reference? This complicates making new versions sound right.
I remember Joshua from Stam mentioning he has six vintage U67's to compare to when voicing his SA-67.
For me, transparency and low level detail are what I look for, and I don't want sibilant frequencies highlighted. I also think there's a brightness trend in music production, almost like the loudness wars, there's a kind of brightness war. I don't like that breathy whisper vocal in your face sound, but perhaps manufacturers are leaning that way on purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 3, 2021 7:43:57 GMT -6
The old ones would have sounded bright back when they were new, if the rest of the gear could pass the bandwidth like today's gear can.
Then the parts burned in, changed values, tolerances drifted, capsules covered in spit, capsule plastic dried up a little, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobtwiddler on Aug 3, 2021 7:49:32 GMT -6
I just received a U87 from Neumann that has had a new capsule installed.
Mic was cutting out for a few weeks now, so I sent it to them, and they said it needed a new capsule. So I said go for it.
Besides that, one of the switches was broken (the pad) so I had that replaced also.
Literally just opened the box.
Will have to test and report back on it's sonics.
Very expensive repair, but the mic is from the early 70's and I'm the original owner, so I had to do it!
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 3, 2021 8:29:47 GMT -6
Lastly I think the poor quality of available tubes and differences in modern transformers play the greatest role in this top end quandary. We have shown this here many times simply by changing a tube in a given mic.
Transformers - I haven't yet seen a modern higher ratio transformer with the top end curve of a similar vintage type. Maybe the U67 BV12 recreation and the Moby BV12. Design philosophies have changed. Old stuff rolls of sooner and differently, the few things I've seen that rolled off early looked like bad winding practice, with a different and less useful shape. |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Aug 3, 2021 9:48:25 GMT -6
I honestly think it's more a case of small differences adding up to the whole. Slight differences in the metals that can be used today vs what as used originally, slight differences in capsule manufacture, changing tubes due to the originals being unavailable with no one making any kind of actual replacement for them.
The U67 reissue suffers from the capsules being a touch brighter due to tolerances changed at Neumann so there were less rejected capsules; aka quality control changes. They also use tubes that are simply not made at the same quality level as the NOS tubes. Changing out the tube helps and if you're really in it you can send it to someone like Klaus to tweak the capsule a bit.
When I used the FleA 49 with a real AC701 it was a real revelation of how close they could get if they had the right tube. They already have good capsules. I sometimes wonder about tracking down a new K47 from Neumann and sending one of mine back to FleA for them to install it and an AC701k. I declined the AC701 originally, because I didn't want to be chasing unobtanium parts down the road. So for me I accepted the slight differences the 6S6B tube made.
Telefunken made the conscious choice to go for a sonic pallet they felt was closer to what the microphones might have sounded like right off the assembly line, or maybe they say that because that was as good as they could get them to sound without the VF14 tube. FleA chose to go for a mellower more mid heavy vintage sounding version, which is probably a little less open than a real U47, but again they are trying to make the best 47 they can with the parts they have access to.
So there are a lot of factors at play. If you really have a microphone you love, find a manufacturer that can tweak the mic as requested. Buy the mic and book time at the studio with the microphone you love. Then send the mic to be tweaked based on the samples you recorded with the source mic and your mic side by side. You may have to do that a couple of times, but I'd bet you could get pretty close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Aug 3, 2021 10:18:32 GMT -6
+1 on the old vs. new parts. I always wonder how the classic mics sounded when they were just built and brand-new. I suppose we'll never really know, but I feel certain that they didn't sound at that time like they do now after decades of use/abuse/maintenance/mods/storage/etc.
Every time I hear or read someone stating that a clone sounds just like a 47, my first thought is "which one?"
All that said, I just use the mics that bring what I seek. I don't care how new they are or where they're made.
Interesting topic for sure.
-09
|
|
