Soyuz Vs. Neumann Mic Comparison Event in Brooklyn
Jul 21, 2017 16:04:09 GMT -6
swurveman, M57, and 1 more like this
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 21, 2017 16:04:09 GMT -6
I attended a fun gathering at Douglass Recording studios in Brooklyn last night. David Arthur Brown of Soyuz handmade microphones brought some of the lovely Soyuz mics there, and they did comparisons with the Neumann U67, U87 and the Beezneez LULU FET, (a KM84 style SDC).
The engineers at the studio were gracious and good humored. I was happy to be in a room with people still excited about producing music for a change. My take on the results was surprising, and in some ways a lesson learned. Many of us have struggled with getting the best main mic we can, and for me, the shootout made things both clearer and more complicated.
First, they recorded a solo piano, with the LULU, the Soyuz 0-11 tube SDC and the 0-13 FET SDC. Each mic sounded very good and had a unique character. The 0-11 w/tube was rich, smooth and elegant, but the 0-13 FET captured an even wider range of tone, while being a little more forward, it was very fast. It had a lively exciting vibe that made you perk up and listen. The Lulu in comparison was a dog, but wait a minute, maybe it's a thoroughbred dog, because it had an incredibly unique sound, very dark, but very full of vibe and mystery. In that comparison, I'd take the 0-13 in a heartbeat, but I'd keep the sound of the Lulu in mind, because in a special circumstance, where you might want a seriously dark tone, like a Nick Cave record, that sound could MAKE the record.
Next, we tried a female vocalist on the LDC's, first singing something lush, then something cool that was harder with an edge. The Neumann U87 wasn't right for her, kind of boxy and nasal, the U67 was better, but still a little boxy, the 0-19 was very good too, but a bit plainer sounding in this context. The Soyuz 0-17 was the runaway winner, with all the presence of the U67, but less of a boxy tone and a smoother wider frequency response with a tight and warm low end. Everyone without exception could hear what it was doing and we all sat up straight when that track was played back. We all had one of those "whoa" moments.
At my suggestion, they also set up the SDC's for the female vocal. I'm beginning to work on a video comparing the KM84 to the 0-13 FET at home, and had been using the 0-13 earlier that afternoon. Since it will feature only the SDC's, I thought it would be fun to try them as vocal mics too. I've used the KM84 before as a vocal mic, and when you put a pop filter on it, stand back a bit, you'll think you're Marvin Gaye. It was surprisingly good and certainly useful. So, I was curious if the 0-13 had the same hidden ability, to double as a good vocal mic, and it was in fact, really good.
So, we ran by the Lulu, 0-11 and 0-13 with the female vocal, and again, the 0-13 stood out. It had a fuller tone, was more upfront, and clean and clear without any harshness or pinch. I wouldn't take it over the 0-17, 0-19 or the Neumann U67 for lead vocals, but it was so good, you wouldn't notice anything was missing if you didn't compare it. At the $600/$1200 pair price range, it's a no brainer for those people looking at the Neumann KM184 and even the vintage KM84. You can use the matched pair as two room mics, a fantastic stringed instrument mic, and who knows what else.
Next, they did a male hip-hop vocal, and results were similar.
Then at the end of the evening, they tried a solo acoustic guitar, one part finger picking in an open tuning, and one part hard strumming, and it got really interesting. The winners for me on the solo acoustic were the 0-19 FET and the U67. I would have picked the 0-19, but must say the U67 was just as good in this context. The 0-19 was big, and had that wonderful tight and deep low end you want to hear on a solo guitar, like a Tony Rice or Mark Knopfler vibe, and a certain liveliness I have trouble describing. It's not hyped, not harsh like Chinese capsule mics, not crisply thin like a 414, but just a lovely shimmer on top. The non-issue the U67 had, was its sound was so instantly familiar, and wonderful, that it was easy to dismiss somehow. I could hear John Lennon strumming away in my head the second the pick hit the strings, and was lulled into listening.
So, what I took away from this enlightening evening was how valuable having experience with a lot of great quality microphones is. Few of us have had the opportunity to listen to a U47 five times a week for decades, or a 251, or an M49, C-12, U67, KM84, etc. As a producer, I relied on the U87 every day for more than a decade to carry me through, and it worked every time. Now I would choose the Soyuz 0-19 in its place. But what would be even better than that, would be to be able to match the mic used to the artist and music being made.
A U67 is a monster for my vocals, but the two people singing last night were clearly better suited to the amazing 0-17. The solo acoustic guitar would be gorgeous with either the U67 or 0-19, but... in a busy track with a lot of acoustic guitar strumming, I'd choose the 0-13, because it needs no EQ to keep it clean in the track and not interfere with other instruments. They didn't have a KM84 on hand, so hopefully my shootout will shed some light on how those two compare.
Special thanks to David Arthur Brown for being such a generous and gracious host, and Dan Physics from Alto Music for organizing the event, he made it look easy, and we had great fun.
Before anyone had heard of Soyuz, and long before reviews were out and all the superstar producers began raving about the Soyuz mics, I just happened to hear one by chance next to a U87, and the Telefunken AK47 and AK51. I had no idea what it was, no preconceptions, just curiosity, and I knew instantly it was something special. I realize it might seem like I've been promoting the mics, but I was just passing on what was a great surprise to all the cats here who have turned me on to so many things I use every day now, because I wanted to return the favor.
I'm very interested in hearing the new Chandler REDD mic too, but if you guys can, don't rush into a new U87 or vintage U47, U67, or a KM184, until you at least give a listen to these mics, you may save yourself a ton of cash, and still have pride of ownership.
![]()
The engineers at the studio were gracious and good humored. I was happy to be in a room with people still excited about producing music for a change. My take on the results was surprising, and in some ways a lesson learned. Many of us have struggled with getting the best main mic we can, and for me, the shootout made things both clearer and more complicated.
First, they recorded a solo piano, with the LULU, the Soyuz 0-11 tube SDC and the 0-13 FET SDC. Each mic sounded very good and had a unique character. The 0-11 w/tube was rich, smooth and elegant, but the 0-13 FET captured an even wider range of tone, while being a little more forward, it was very fast. It had a lively exciting vibe that made you perk up and listen. The Lulu in comparison was a dog, but wait a minute, maybe it's a thoroughbred dog, because it had an incredibly unique sound, very dark, but very full of vibe and mystery. In that comparison, I'd take the 0-13 in a heartbeat, but I'd keep the sound of the Lulu in mind, because in a special circumstance, where you might want a seriously dark tone, like a Nick Cave record, that sound could MAKE the record.
Next, we tried a female vocalist on the LDC's, first singing something lush, then something cool that was harder with an edge. The Neumann U87 wasn't right for her, kind of boxy and nasal, the U67 was better, but still a little boxy, the 0-19 was very good too, but a bit plainer sounding in this context. The Soyuz 0-17 was the runaway winner, with all the presence of the U67, but less of a boxy tone and a smoother wider frequency response with a tight and warm low end. Everyone without exception could hear what it was doing and we all sat up straight when that track was played back. We all had one of those "whoa" moments.
At my suggestion, they also set up the SDC's for the female vocal. I'm beginning to work on a video comparing the KM84 to the 0-13 FET at home, and had been using the 0-13 earlier that afternoon. Since it will feature only the SDC's, I thought it would be fun to try them as vocal mics too. I've used the KM84 before as a vocal mic, and when you put a pop filter on it, stand back a bit, you'll think you're Marvin Gaye. It was surprisingly good and certainly useful. So, I was curious if the 0-13 had the same hidden ability, to double as a good vocal mic, and it was in fact, really good.
So, we ran by the Lulu, 0-11 and 0-13 with the female vocal, and again, the 0-13 stood out. It had a fuller tone, was more upfront, and clean and clear without any harshness or pinch. I wouldn't take it over the 0-17, 0-19 or the Neumann U67 for lead vocals, but it was so good, you wouldn't notice anything was missing if you didn't compare it. At the $600/$1200 pair price range, it's a no brainer for those people looking at the Neumann KM184 and even the vintage KM84. You can use the matched pair as two room mics, a fantastic stringed instrument mic, and who knows what else.
Next, they did a male hip-hop vocal, and results were similar.
Then at the end of the evening, they tried a solo acoustic guitar, one part finger picking in an open tuning, and one part hard strumming, and it got really interesting. The winners for me on the solo acoustic were the 0-19 FET and the U67. I would have picked the 0-19, but must say the U67 was just as good in this context. The 0-19 was big, and had that wonderful tight and deep low end you want to hear on a solo guitar, like a Tony Rice or Mark Knopfler vibe, and a certain liveliness I have trouble describing. It's not hyped, not harsh like Chinese capsule mics, not crisply thin like a 414, but just a lovely shimmer on top. The non-issue the U67 had, was its sound was so instantly familiar, and wonderful, that it was easy to dismiss somehow. I could hear John Lennon strumming away in my head the second the pick hit the strings, and was lulled into listening.
So, what I took away from this enlightening evening was how valuable having experience with a lot of great quality microphones is. Few of us have had the opportunity to listen to a U47 five times a week for decades, or a 251, or an M49, C-12, U67, KM84, etc. As a producer, I relied on the U87 every day for more than a decade to carry me through, and it worked every time. Now I would choose the Soyuz 0-19 in its place. But what would be even better than that, would be to be able to match the mic used to the artist and music being made.
A U67 is a monster for my vocals, but the two people singing last night were clearly better suited to the amazing 0-17. The solo acoustic guitar would be gorgeous with either the U67 or 0-19, but... in a busy track with a lot of acoustic guitar strumming, I'd choose the 0-13, because it needs no EQ to keep it clean in the track and not interfere with other instruments. They didn't have a KM84 on hand, so hopefully my shootout will shed some light on how those two compare.
Special thanks to David Arthur Brown for being such a generous and gracious host, and Dan Physics from Alto Music for organizing the event, he made it look easy, and we had great fun.
Before anyone had heard of Soyuz, and long before reviews were out and all the superstar producers began raving about the Soyuz mics, I just happened to hear one by chance next to a U87, and the Telefunken AK47 and AK51. I had no idea what it was, no preconceptions, just curiosity, and I knew instantly it was something special. I realize it might seem like I've been promoting the mics, but I was just passing on what was a great surprise to all the cats here who have turned me on to so many things I use every day now, because I wanted to return the favor.
I'm very interested in hearing the new Chandler REDD mic too, but if you guys can, don't rush into a new U87 or vintage U47, U67, or a KM184, until you at least give a listen to these mics, you may save yourself a ton of cash, and still have pride of ownership.
