|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 25, 2017 7:23:59 GMT -6
I wouldn't rush to use an M7 again. I think they're slightly overrated, although very good. I've never tried a K47.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Oct 25, 2017 7:33:59 GMT -6
I've had three Thiersch M7 capsules, two Blueline, one Redline. They sound just a little different. Red took a strong hit a little better, but they're almost indistinguishable. Being honest, I'm massively weirded out by people who say the Red and Blue Thiersch sound the same... They couldn't be more different. The detail and depth of the Blueline is on a whole different level. The Redline is quite forward and flat sounding in comparison. Brighter too, and doesn't have the strong midrange push of the Blueline (common feedback is that the Redline is more 'modern' sounding). But the Redline sounds amazing in the FLEA because it's designed for it, and combines perfectly with the EF12. These FLEA's get a nasty bump in the midrange if you switch to the Blueline. In comparison, the BSA's go scooped, lifeless and bright with a Redline, because they're designed to use PVC. I've tried swapping capsules around on mine (Blue in FLEA, Red in BSA), and really didn't like the difference. It's worth sticking to what manufacturers pick as default in terms of capsules, as at least with these brands, they've put in the time to make sure it all sits correctly. Vincent, I'd definitely try the Flea 49 with the F7 before committing to the K47. You might love it!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 25, 2017 7:46:06 GMT -6
My experience was different, obviously much different than yours. My ears are fine though. I had four capsules in my Blackspade mics. The original from Oliver Archut, then the Blueline, then the Blueline in an upgraded model with some higher end components, and finally, I switched that mic's capsule to a Redline. For me, the redline worked better in that mic. I got basically the same sound, but a little better handling of harder hits, so my mileage varied. Clearly, there's no final word on the topic. If I had to describe the slight difference, I'd say the Blueline was more U47-ish, the Redline U67-ish, but both were very Neumanesque.
Who knows, maybe M7 Blueline capsules have varied over time. The BSA were great mics. My wife is a former pro vocalist, and it was incredible for her. We had two U47's to use one day, and she chose the Blackspade! But for me, it pinched a little. Now that I've tried a few different mics, the best fit for me is a K67 style capsule. The Max Mod 67 sounds great, but the new Chandler REDD 47 is the real deal, it's like an inventor put the U47, M49 and 251 together in one mic, but it's not a Frankenstein, it actually sounds like itself, but that's a fair description.
Now, if I ever start making the kind of coin I used to in the music business, the REDD's high on my list.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Oct 25, 2017 7:47:13 GMT -6
You realize you're defying 'commonly accepted knowledge' with those facts, right? [roll eyes] After all, to make a U47 U67 or WA87 sound like an M49, you just have to change the head basket [/roll eyes] Kind regards! Life, like mics, is all about guts
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 25, 2017 9:19:54 GMT -6
Isn't the Flea F7 Mylar anyway? Anyway, I have one. Stunning mic. I would just get the F47 if you like it on your voice. It's not like your voice is prone to sibilance. Yes mylar. PVC was the original M7 diaprahgm material but it deteriorates over time. I can't see that using mylar is an issue except maybe for the purists or those who dig the sound of a deteriorating PVC capsule! Ok, so what is the design difference between the M7 and the K47? I always thought the difference was simply the replacement of the PVC with Mylar. If that's the case, what's the difference between FLEA's F7 which we beleive is Mylar and their F47?
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 25, 2017 10:35:26 GMT -6
FLEA's translation of the word 'exact' is extremely loose. Loose, but not extremely loose. And regardless, they make HELLUVA great microphones!!
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 25, 2017 10:39:54 GMT -6
Yes mylar. PVC was the original M7 diaprahgm material but it deteriorates over time. I can't see that using mylar is an issue except maybe for the purists or those who dig the sound of a deteriorating PVC capsule! Ok, so what is the design difference between the M7 and the K47? I always thought the difference was simply the replacement of the PVC with Mylar. If that's the case, what's the difference between FLEA's F7 which we beleive is Mylar and their F47? I doubt their K47 capsule is being made with PVC! The original M7 was the one made with PVC and they are renowned for shrinkage and decay to the point of disintegration over time. I have ONE that seems to be defying that, but those are extremely year... sort of like humans who live to 110 and beyond. There is more to the difference between a K47 and an M7. There are architectural changes and backplate differences in addition to being made at entirely differently factories. But someone like timcampbell or Shannon (Shannon?) should reply and tell us exactly what ll the differences are. I'm just going on what memories are left jostling around the shredded electronics in my neural cortex!!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Oct 25, 2017 11:09:13 GMT -6
Flea and Thirsch do have a cooperative relationship Flea is the OEM for Thirsch's metalwork & Thirsch skins Flea's capsules. Not sure if the Flea F7 uses PVC or Mylar but it is a slightly different backplate design.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Oct 25, 2017 17:38:48 GMT -6
Loose, but not extremely loose. And regardless, they make HELLUVA great microphones!! If bodywork only, their statement is accurate. The Vintage line is lovely!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Oct 25, 2017 18:54:06 GMT -6
FLEA's translation of the word 'exact' is extremely loose. Loose, but not extremely loose. And regardless, they make HELLUVA great microphones!! Flea while not doing a historical recreation has for the most part got the one part that matters as close as anyone else, the sound! For the money can you do any better? Some will say the only true to the original current recreations is Neumann 47 FET, the next closest would be the Telefunken's that are priced near the real vintage deal! Personally I get the desire for a true historically correct recreation, but all I need is the sound and if you get me damn close at a price less significantly less than the vintage are fetching I'm a happy camper.
|
|
|
Post by jtc111 on Oct 25, 2017 19:44:58 GMT -6
They'll have to pry my Flea 47 from my cold dead hands ...and then they'd better pray I don't come back as a zombie.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Oct 25, 2017 19:45:42 GMT -6
They'll have to pry my Flea 47 from my cold dead hands ...and then they'd better pray I don't come back as a zombie. Humm that's all don't give me ideas😎
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Oct 31, 2017 10:07:34 GMT -6
Hey Flea 47 Guys, is it just me or is this thing unbelievably light? My BeesNeez Frank is the heaviest mic I've ever held and feels like a sledgehammer, but this Flea literally feels like I'm holding a flea. What's up with that?
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 31, 2017 10:25:19 GMT -6
Hey Flea 47 Guys, is it just me or is this thing unbelievably light? My BeesNeez Frank is the heaviest mic I've ever held and feels like a sledgehammer, but this Flea literally feels like I'm holding a flea. What's up with that? Funny you mentioned that. I felt the same way when I first tried jtc111 's. I had a Peluso 2247se for a while and it was much heavier.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Oct 31, 2017 10:41:33 GMT -6
Thin aluminum body? See how easily it dents, then we'll know. : ) Those Skylar MK47 DIY bodies are like that. Very light end result compared to size.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 31, 2017 11:15:30 GMT -6
Out of curiousity has anyone worked with both an M49 and an M149, either simultaneously or just in general? I was curious about the similarities and differences. I know the M149 is brighter.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Oct 31, 2017 11:44:09 GMT -6
Good news. Both the omni and cardioid patterns are working as they should. Mic seems to have survived the shipment without issue.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Oct 31, 2017 15:34:44 GMT -6
Hey Flea 47 Guys, is it just me or is this thing unbelievably light? My BeesNeez Frank is the heaviest mic I've ever held and feels like a sledgehammer, but this Flea literally feels like I'm holding a flea. What's up with that? I maybe wrong but I think Flea use duralium (or similar) for their microphone bodies. It's a hardened type of aluminum alloy which doesn't dent as easily as normal aluminum but is still lightweight. The alternative is to use steel tube for the mic body which likely accounts for most of the weight difference between the Flea and other mic manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Nov 1, 2017 8:15:55 GMT -6
Out of curiousity has anyone worked with both an M49 and an M149, either simultaneously or just in general? I was curious about the similarities and differences. I know the M149 is brighter. I have experience with the M149 compared to other M49 type mics. Lets just say, it looks very similar. The sound is not similar, if only a hint of inspiration. The Amplifier sound is completely different. Very Hot output, very whispy and very bright sounding. Too linear. It instantly distorts inside the mic on loud sources. Not as forgiving, soft, chewy and musical as the M49. The M49 sound is god to me, the M149 could be handled by 100 other microphones at half the cost. Its not a terrible microphone, [maybe for its price tag] but I would never use it in front of a Highly dynamic source. Great for Classical, at a distance recordings. I would only use this mic close to a sound for quiet vocals or quieter instruments. Never on drums. Never on a loud singer. Its very "feminine" sounding though. Light and Airy.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 1, 2017 8:52:53 GMT -6
Glad you posted that Adam, I was curious about the M149, I'd seen a very low price on Craigslist for one.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 1, 2017 10:54:21 GMT -6
Out of curiousity has anyone worked with both an M49 and an M149, either simultaneously or just in general? I was curious about the similarities and differences. I know the M149 is brighter. I have experience with the M149 compared to other M49 type mics. Lets just say, it looks very similar. The sound is not similar, if only a hint of inspiration. The Amplifier sound is completely different. Very Hot output, very whispy and very bright sounding. Too linear. It instantly distorts inside the mic on loud sources. Not as forgiving, soft, chewy and musical as the M49. The M49 sound is god to me, the M149 could be handled by 100 other microphones at half the cost. Its not a terrible microphone, [maybe for its price tag] but I would never use it in front of a Highly dynamic source. Great for Classical, at a distance recordings. I would only use this mic close to a sound for quiet vocals or quieter instruments. Never on drums. Never on a loud singer. Its very "feminine" sounding though. Light and Airy. Well that solved that curiosity. At 110 decibels at my peak I imagine I'm a bit loud for it. lol.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Nov 1, 2017 11:09:22 GMT -6
Yea, I would probably decide to put the Mic about 50 Feet from you
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012
|
Post by ericn on Nov 1, 2017 11:42:25 GMT -6
Out of curiousity has anyone worked with both an M49 and an M149, either simultaneously or just in general? I was curious about the similarities and differences. I know the M149 is brighter. I have experience with the M149 compared to other M49 type mics. Lets just say, it looks very similar. The sound is not similar, if only a hint of inspiration. The Amplifier sound is completely different. Very Hot output, very whispy and very bright sounding. Too linear. It instantly distorts inside the mic on loud sources. Not as forgiving, soft, chewy and musical as the M49. The M49 sound is god to me, the M149 could be handled by 100 other microphones at half the cost. Its not a terrible microphone, [maybe for its price tag] but I would never use it in front of a Highly dynamic source. Great for Classical, at a distance recordings. I would only use this mic close to a sound for quiet vocals or quieter instruments. Never on drums. Never on a loud singer. Its very "feminine" sounding though. Light and Airy. Yeah when the M149 came out the pitch was it was a modern 49, only in looks in reality. If can work with some singers, but I agree your far to powerful to use it close up. It is a great mic for distant use and some close up work. It is a great mic but not a 49 and not for you.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 1, 2017 12:08:41 GMT -6
Yeah when the M149 came out the pitch was it was a modern 49, only in looks in reality. If can work with some singers, but I agree your far to powerful to use it close up. It is a great mic for distant use and some close up work. It is a great mic but not a 49 and not for you. It's ok. Honestly, at this point I have enough cash to pick up the FLEA 49. I've sold off most of my Advanced Audio mics and even my first mic, KSM44 to do it. I still have my CM49. I'm waiting to meet with the tech from Brooklyn who is building the AMI kits and selling them. I'd like to try it. He advised he could put a Thiersch M7 in it. In fact his demo model has that. His build uses a BV11r transformer. It was a revision by Oliver that brought in more low end to combat the M49C's typical lack of low end. It could be advanatageous to develop a working relationship with a good tech around my area and not have to worry about sending gear out should anything happen. I'm also waiting to see if the FLEA 49 goes on sale for Black Friday. If I can save a few bucks I'd be very happy. My rep at Vintage King advised I can pick up the FLEA 49 with the stock F7 capsule and if I truly prefer the F47 cap I have 30 days to make the exchange. So, that's the plan.
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Nov 1, 2017 12:37:00 GMT -6
M149 is very underrated imo. I have always liked it when I've put it up.
|
|