|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 28, 2017 10:16:14 GMT -6
I thought the 013 sounded "softer" than the KM84 I had...but we're also talking about vintage mics which could sound different. I don't get that it's bright...but I haven't used it a ton. I'll try and get something down and maybe post that comparison with the 84.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 28, 2017 21:02:20 GMT -6
OK - so here's an old example of my KM84 and just did the same pass with the 013. I'm about 99% positive it's the same pre lol. Anyway, you can get a rough approximation... KM84 - drive.google.com/open?id=0B5N4swnMcKWManFpSGVwOEdoYW8SU-013 - drive.google.com/open?id=0B5N4swnMcKWMb1E3SFdYN0xlRmsFor me, I think I actually prefer the Soyuz here...although I would do a few EQ tweaks. The 84 is definitely more forward in the 800Hz-3khz range...and probably a little faster transient response. And punchier on bottom. I think these reasons are why I thought it sounded "softer." Just in this instance, the 84 picks up some spikiness from my room where the soyuz doesn't...My SDC for acoustic instruments lust is satiated with the 013. Like - I don't long for an 84 anymore. Sure, when I get rich I'll buy a couple, but these Soyuz are really great mics and just killer at this price.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 28, 2017 21:16:32 GMT -6
Both sound good... different though.
I would think the Soyuz would leave a nice hole for your voice Johh, where the KM84 might fight it a bit in a strummy singer songwriter thing.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 29, 2017 4:45:11 GMT -6
Martin, Soyuz are clones too, but of old Russian mics.
The SU-017 seems to be a Lomo 19A9 type build.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jul 29, 2017 7:08:29 GMT -6
Not trying to change the subject, but maybe intersect it a bit. Has any one tried the Soyuz 013 or KM84s alongside the Telefunken M60s? They are the FET versions of their ELA M260s. I've been eying them and the Soyuz and am curious if anyone has had the pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2017 8:36:36 GMT -6
Jake, they're not clones. Clone, as we use it is a near exact copy of a previously made design. First of all, the Soyuz body, dimensions, and materials are their own. Of course there are similarities to the earliest Neumann mic, and to the Blue designs because they use the head basket lollipop, but it is not at all a clone of those microphones. So right there, that disqualifies it from being a clone. Every single part is handmade, so the parts are inherently original, and they all affect the quality of the final sound.
The guy behind Soyuz, David Arthur Brown worked with a former top Russian designer. He gave him a picture of what he wanted the mic to look like, and gave the designer carte blanche to create the best mic circuit he could. If it resembles another design, it's because it was a great one, and that was what they were aiming for. You can't say because someone uses a wheel in bicycle design it's a clone. If you do, on one level, every mic is a clone of the original mic designs. It's possible the circuit might very well be very similar to the one you mentioned, but implementation could be different, and improvements to other parts of the design would disqualify it from "clone" status.
I can't speak for David, but I'm sure he'd disagree. He'd also be transparent about any similarities to other designs too. He didn't invent something new, he made something better, or at least worthy of respect and not some cheap shot.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2017 9:01:56 GMT -6
Good post John, thanks. I spent my first significant amount of time with the 0-13 and the KM84 yesterday, and my findings were interesting. First, the 0-13 has a LOT more gain. That alone affects things. It's also more forward. The 84 has a natural compression that helps it glue with tracks, The 0-13 is bigger and more open. It has a huge presence and life to it. I believe you could dial that back if you want it to work the way an 84 does in a track, but you can't make the 84 do the trick the 0-13 does.
There is absolutely no compromise choosing the 0-13 over the 84 if you like it, they're different. What's cool is it's definitely not the lesser of the two. The most incredible difference was when I tried them as vocal mics. The 0-13 was quite useable, if not as full bodied as a high end LDC. The KM84, which I used to think was quite a decent vocal mic, paled in comparison, it was like a megaphone tone compared to a regular sound. Funny thing, singing through the 84 sounded better in my cans, and I sang a bit more comfortably, but on playback, ouch.
There's more to come, and you'll be able to judge for yourselves soon, once I finish the video.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 29, 2017 11:46:10 GMT -6
If it resembles another design, it's because it was a great one, and that was what they were aiming for. You can't say because someone uses a wheel in bicycle design it's a clone. If you do, on one level, every mic is a clone of the original mic designs. It's possible the circuit might very well be very similar to the one you mentioned, but implementation could be different, and improvements to other parts of the design would disqualify it from "clone" status. Then I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between these mics, and any other mic that's 'based on' or a 'clone' of something else. Only saying this as you're making a big point of Soyuz being unique, and offering something that wasn't available before, when that's not really the case; there are a shit ton of amazing mics available in the same price range as the 017 (above and below). In Chandler's $4.5-$5K range, there are even more! Neither is turning the market on its head, or re-inventing the wheel either. Back on topic though, these 13's have great pricing – they really don't have much competition if they deliver. (... and that was for you ragan – at least with me, high-end brands don't get a pass!)
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Jul 29, 2017 12:57:49 GMT -6
Hey Soyuz would you like to have the rap world know about your mics? Give me an 0-17 and 0-13 , I'll make a nice video 😂🤠
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2017 13:54:08 GMT -6
Jake, I don't know the details of the mic you are referring to as being one the Soyuz mics are "cloning". I just don't think it's fair to the manufacturers and to those interested in these to diminish their impact for musicians and engineers struggling to reach the high end plateau on a budget. A mic with a proprietary designed body and capsule inherently cannot be considered a clone, even if a circuit is similar, or even the same.
As for the "ton" of mics available in the price range of the 0-17, I've tried probably half a ton of them, and nothing touched the 0-17 until I got to the level of a vintage U47 and U67, not even the C12 or M49, as great as they are. I'm excited about the Chandler REDD, to have that preamp come with an obviously high end mic is potentially a monster deal. I have't heard one yet. In the Soyuz comparison I mentioned when starting this thread, there was a U87 and a mint condition U67, and for the two vocalists there, the 0-17 was by far the better fit. There were around 20 people listening, and everyone there sat up straight and looked at each with that "whoa" look on their face during the 0-17 playback. I'm not at all saying the 0-17 is "better" than a U67, I'm only saying it is most definitely in that league, and I suggest to my online friends they check it out.
The $1,200 a pair pricing for the 0-13 is a serious achievement for the quality I'm hearing.
|
|
|
Post by The Rising Tide on Jul 29, 2017 15:23:50 GMT -6
Martin, since you've used the SU-011 and the SU-013 do you have any comments on how the two compare? Although I've never used these mics myself, I do have several shootout files of the SU-011 and SU-013 compared with a KM184 and Schoeps CMC6 w/mk4 capsule.
After listening to John's example above, I think the SU-011 might be closer in sound to the KM84. The SU-013 has a "thickness" in the lows through the mids, and I find the top end slightly more "soft" or perhaps compressed compared to the SU-011, while the SU-011 sounds a bit more open on top - closer to the KM84 sound of John's example. I consider the SU-011 to be slightly more natural sounding overall. Sometimes the 013 and 011 sound very similar, but they definitely have their unique qualities and subtleties. I think whatever transformer they use in the 013 is colouring (or thickening) the sound a bit more than the SU-011, but I'm also not a mic designer so take my comments with a grain of salt.
I attempted to get some KM84s via ebay, but I just didn't like the risk involved with buying them so I quickly abandoned that idea. I'm weighing my options between the SU-011 and SU-013. The SU-013 is nice because you don't have to worry about tubes and power supply (and it's also considerably cheaper compared to the 011). I don't think there's a wrong choice either way. They both sound noticeably better and with a more vintage vibe than the KM184. Although I like the Schoeps CMC6, at the price they go for I'm all in on the Soyuz!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2017 15:42:05 GMT -6
theringside, welcome to the forum!
In the studio test, the 0-11 and 0-13 were tried on everything side by side. The 0-13 is more forward, has a faster response, and has a "bigger" sound for want of a better word. I would say the 0-11 is a little softer. In the comparison, I preferred the 0-13 four out of five times. Of course, it's my preference, and mine is not the final word. If memory serves, I'd say the 0-11 in general is closer in vibe to the 84. But here's the thing, I like the 0-13 better than the 84, now that I've got them both in my hands, so if handed the 0-11 and 0-13, I'd take the 0-13, which is unusual for me, because I usually prefer tubes.
The convenience of just plugging in with no power supply and no tubes to worry about is important. I find it much easier to get focused on the music and performance than when I have to fuss with a power supply. I don't have a dedicated room or studio, so it might not be an issue in other people's situations, but I don't miss the power supply and tube issues at all.
|
|
|
Post by The Rising Tide on Jul 29, 2017 16:13:44 GMT -6
Thanks Martin. I appreciate your feedback, and the warm welcome. Obviously we all hear things a little different, and have our own preferences, but it's always nice to get another point of view to consider. I agree with you on the power supply/tube issues - especially if you want things to be as portable as possible. It's still a tough choice for me, but the cost savings and portability of the 013 might just win the day in my case.
I'm definitely here to learn from the much more experienced members on the site. My biggest problem is not being able to demo gear before I buy so I have to rely a lot more on opinions and clips. This site is great for that, and the manufacturers I've contacted - including Neumann, Beesneez, Advanced Audio, and Soyuz have all been really responsive and helpful to my inquiries. I'm sure I'll be buying gear from all of them at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 29, 2017 17:54:12 GMT -6
Welcome! I think this latest 84 didn't sound quite as good as the previous one I had. Never should have sold that thing.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2017 20:38:57 GMT -6
Don't worry too much about it John, the 0-13 is every bit as good, although different. Maybe work with it for a while and see if it grows on you. Having such a beautiful top end and a forward sound, I think I will lean toward setting the 0-13 an inch or two further away than I might a KM84.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jul 29, 2017 21:02:07 GMT -6
The other thing to consider is KM84's are at a minimum 25 years old with the earliest examples dating back to 1966 (50 plus years). When I bought my pair of near mint KM85's I did so intending to purchase brand new KK84 capsules from Neumann (Sennheiser) which I did. I don't doubt the Soyuz are excellent but like all vintage/contemporary gear shootouts the issue often is how close to original specs is the vintage gear? For instance try finding two original AKG 451's that match. I can almost guarantee you won't as the fragile metalised capsule diaphragms are likely kaput or half way there.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 29, 2017 21:43:37 GMT -6
Good points rowmat. That's one nice thing about a new mic, you can get a consecutive pair and they'll match.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 30, 2017 10:10:17 GMT -6
Don't worry too much about it John, the 0-13 is every bit as good, although different. Maybe work with it for a while and see if it grows on you. Having such a beautiful top end and a forward sound, I think I will lean toward setting the 0-13 an inch or two further away than I might a KM84. Nah - I'm totally satisfied with the 013...
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 30, 2017 13:53:11 GMT -6
It does deliver on the promise, doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 31, 2017 8:19:39 GMT -6
Jake, earlier you wrote, "The SU-017 seems to be a Lomo 19A9 type build", essentially saying it was a clone of another design. I prefer to take care before accusing anyone or any company of something that might affect their livelihood negatively. A reputation can take a lifetime to build and a minute to destroy. Online "rumors" have a way of becoming "common knowledge" overnight.
I contacted David Arthur Brown to ask about the Soyuz designs, and this was his reply: "Martin, sure you can quote me. But it's not just the capsule, there is absolutely nothing in the schematic, capsule, design, or transformer that in any way resembles a LOMO. It's like claiming the SU-017 is a clone of an SM57. :-) I love LOMO's, but the 0-17 has nothing to do with one. Our latest mic, the (upcoming) SU-023 has a LOMO capsule design. But again, the design and schematic are our own."
Of course, some people would copy because it's easier and safer to use a proven design, but I really enjoy knowing people with the mindset of guys like David, who are trying to create something new and original that compares favorably with the best products ever made. That's not to say I don't enjoy knowing some of the cool cats who do make clones or "improved design based upon" gear.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 31, 2017 12:49:02 GMT -6
Only difference between a SM57 and Lomo 19A9, the Lomo uses a 6AK5W headamp. And so does the Soyuz... That's not exactly 'absolutely nothing' as you posted above The 19A9 was also the first microphone to use that tube, and it would only be normal for a Russian engineer – they say he's an ex-Oktava employee – to be influenced by it. Just the same as their upcoming mic uses a part with Lomo design, and just the same as they borrowed the K67 capsule from Neumann. It's all influences. But I'll state my (simple) point again, rephrased in a way to hopefully get a less dramatic reaction: It's almost impossible to produce a 'brand-new' and original tube design. Almost everything has been done before, and it's all influenced by, based on, or a clone of. No-one's reinventing the wheel here either, best illustrated by their use of Neumann and upcoming Lomo capsule designs. I think we can all agree that if you want truly unique, at the least you would need to start with the capsule. (btw, to start talking about accusations, livelihoods and reputations, you obviously have a very negative view of the term 'clones'. But you're projecting your own interpretations here – there's nothing damaging to anyone in this thread).
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 31, 2017 15:03:36 GMT -6
For the sake of accuracy, the Russian tube they both use is a 6J1P (6Ж1П) = EF95/6AK5W in the West
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 31, 2017 15:17:42 GMT -6
I disagree, you said it was a clone, and that has connotations in this culture of musicians , producers and audio engineers, often negative..
The designer, one of owners of the company categorically denies that. If it was, I think he'd say so. It's not like clone makers are hiding out for fear of being sued. My point was that interpreting some similarity to another product as a clone, when their design is their own, circuit their own, choice of metalwork and dimensions, and on and on, isn't fair to a new company that managed to navigate all the inherent difficulties of bringing something like this to market. Of course there are precedents. The first Neumann's were bottle shape, the Blue Bottle has a lollipop grill, but saying clone is an attempt to diminish the accomplishment. Or simply put, clones as most of us interpret it are mics like the Warm WA87, or the Stam 87, clearly made to copy a well known design for a lower price. Same thing for many the "73" type preamps available.
I'm sorry if I seem a bit heavy handed Jake, it's not like I have stock in Soyuz, or Warm or Stam, or Avantone, companies I support online. It's just that over the years I've met these people, and they're good natured, hard working gearheads, like many of us, and I want them to win, because we all win if they do. If I had a large room studio of my own, I'd be quick to grab a few of those 87 clones, even if that was to supplement a high end mic locker, which unfortunately, is still in my dreams.
I agree that influences are impossible to avoid. After all, if someone makes pants, they must have two legs, and mics will have similarities, others more than some. I may be "projecting", but I've spent a lot of time online and whenever "clone" is mentioned, it's more often than not spoken of in a way that is negative.
I'll say it plain, by no reasonable interpretation is the Soyuz a clone. As for using the same tube, so do a million guitar amps, it doesn't mean a thing as far as speaking of a mic as a clone. Of course a tube has tonal characteristics, and that choice will inherently create some similarity.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 31, 2017 17:56:58 GMT -6
This isn't quite much ado about nothing. Using the word 'clone' is highly charged in these here parts and implies a deliberate intent to copy with the goal of duplication ..and in the case of pro audio equipment, duplication that is extremely hard to detect. Deliberately introducing design elements that change the nature of a mic or gear such that it is still a viable alternative to the original, but with subtle differences makes it innovative, and not a clone. Those differences can include things like specs, sonic coloration, cost, appearance, etc.
In the few years that I've been paying attention to the subject in forums such as these, I've detected a slow but noticeable shift among the cognoscenti - Yes, they acknowledge and appreciate attempts to 'clone' gear that is outrageously expensive or rare, both virtually and real, but more and more they are expecting 'more.' Not just lower cost due to different materials or even automation, but better sound and specs, such as a lower floor of noise and easier recall, etc. Besides, there are less and less people who actually know what the original equipment sounds like, and furthermore most who do state that even two original models with adjacent serial numbers can sound very different. The term clone may not become an anachronism, but it is fast becoming a misnomer for what's happening in the industry with respect to intent. I wonder that the word clone has lost it's meaning. You guys should be using some other word. Nobody builds clones of vintage Ferraris, they build replicas.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 31, 2017 18:28:52 GMT -6
@martin: Like I said, you have a very negative interpretation. For me it doesn't come with any connotations, nor pricetag: Wunder, Flea, Telefunken, AMS Neve, BAE Audio, Heritage, and god knows what else, they're all clone companies. The way I use the term, so are Peluso, Avantone, 3U Audio, and Warm, where the products aren't 1:1 copies. Which is why I said 'seems to be a 19A9 TYPE build' (similar or influenced by, but not 100% identical).
Let's be clear though, Soyuz sells microphones because they sound good, and because of that most people won't care if it's an entirely original design, or a copy of something else. And in all honesty, it's impossible to know what inspired what unless the engineer admits to it, or it's a 1:1 copy someone can reverse engineer and recognise. Moreover, it's basically all meaningless because everything is based on something. No experienced engineers mind is a clean slate.
About the tube though; tonal similarity has nothing to do with it. In a mic the tube dictates the circuitry, the transformer choice (they need to be matched), and the PSU designs. It's funny you mention a million guitar amps all using the same tube, because they're all basically using circuits they copied from each other – starting with the Bassman, which Marshall copied. In the simplest sense, there aren't a million different tube circuits. There's one or two handfuls of designs which every other design is copied from or based on. Mics aren't much different.
|
|