Soyuz 017 FET

I read all those threads, but as you mentioned, they mostly pertain to the tube version and it's use on vocals. I am more looking for anyone's feedback on the FET version in regards to use on overheads, acoustic, and other general purpose things.

It's a world class mic. People selling is often just to raise money, I wouldn't read much into that. It's way better than an 87 on vocals, and is equal to the Chandler Redd and the Neumann 67 reissues. Of course, it's a matter of taste.

Anyone with these mics ever pick up the omni or FoE capsules? If so, any thoughts?

Never used the fet, but I love my tube one. People have said the tube one just sounds a little thicker…

I am not fortunate enough to YET own a 017. But I own a 1973 which is of course sound wise a very different pal. But what I can tell you is… you will have a hard time finding a better built mic out there than the soyuz. Everything in house built from scratch. This is something hardly any manufacturer can take pride in today. And they are beautifully crafted. My 1973 is my go to nowadays. It is just phenomenal. I am hungry for more soyuz mics. So no, you cannot go wrong with a 017 i’m sure in any other way, than that the sound just does not suite your needs. But that is something only you can determine.

Well I shall wade into here with some trepidation.
I am one of those people that bought a FET17 and did not gel with it and sold it as new.
I went through the 67 sound and bought a 1st edition stam 67 when they came out years ago. And the sound did not suit my voice.
Years later now I bought the bought the 17 fet with this possibility in mind. I did not find the mic dark in any way as some say.
I thought I would try the BU67 as I liked what I heard from that.
I find it a little strange that I like the BU67 ver2 over the Fet17 with both being a 67 style sound but not sounding that similar at all.
Having owned both of them I sold the 17 fet as I used it the least.
So sometimes people sell the Soyuz 017 fet because another better purposed mic replaces it and at a cheaper cost.
But I do know that a Soyuz 17 fet and/or tube is not something that will ever be on my radar again.
Now the Chandler REDD that could be a different story !!

I should have mentioned I did end up snagging a pair of these since starting the thread, so thank you to everyone who had initially chimed in. I was lucky enough after snagging one to come across another in mint condition mistagged as a used Bomblet by a large national chain.... needless to say, I got the deal of a lifetime!

For me, these mics have lived up to the hype and then some. I was a staff engineer for years at a studio where U47s, U67s, M49s, U87s, etc.. were my daily drivers and I put the 017 FET in that league, but with its own unique sound. It is a very colored mic, but so far, that color seems to compliment quite a few sources. It just oozes class.




I find to to be fantastic on vocals. My first session with mine, the client remarked how great it sounded just speaking into it. Its very smooth up top... as an experiment I tried to see how much top I could push before it got harsh or sibilant, and I was at close to +15 db with a top end shelf before any of that occurred. That said, I've found it only really needs 2-3 dB of any sort of top boost to sit in a mix and that's it. Usually no other EQ required. It sounds finished.

Also love it on acoustic guitar and it sounded better than I thought it would on stereo overheads. Very articulate. That said, I think I prefer the Bomblet's in that application. I will be shooting them out against a pair of vintage U67s next weekend on piano.

Also, FWIW, the Bomblet does share a familial sound with it, IMO, despite being a very different capsule. A little less present/detailed in the upper mids, but another seriously impressive mic (electric guitar cab holy cow!).

Sorry maybe I should say TLM67 - a 67 fet.
The Fet 17 was reported as to having a 67 capsule style sound.
And with that same analogy I am in no illusion that my BN 67 would or does sound like a U67.

So with the Stam SA67 and the Soyuz 017fet supposively sounding like a 67 ish style mic, I thought I was done with 67 style mics until the BN67 came along. 

I think the 67 comp has been thrown around in reference to the tube version. I mean, I guess I can see where that would come from, it's a little forward in the mids...big bottom. But the top doesn't sound anything like a 67 IMO.

So did you end up getting one? Or at least trying one out?

I started out using a lot of Gefell mics before I ever heard a Neumann. Everyone was always telling me that the U87 was the best mic ever made and would be a huge step up from the UM-70's I was used to. The first time I used a U87, I was really disappointed. Ever since then, the midrange in the 87's and 67's has always stuck out to me and sounded weird, kind of honkey. It comes down to what you're accustomed to at the end of the day. I started out on mics that were a bit more on the neutral side, so that's always going to be what sounds "right" to me. I'm sure it would have been the other way around if I started with something like U87's.

I would agree, all the Soyuz mics seem to have a cool "mid range focus" to them, but it's not anything like the a U67 or U87. The first time I used an 017, right off the bat it sounded right to me and I really liked it. I guess it's a bit darker and smooth like a U67 and has a nice focus on the "important stuff" in the frequency range, but it's not a Neumann. It's a subjective call as to that being good or bad. I would take an 017 over a 67 or 87 eight days a week...