|
Post by EmRR on Nov 14, 2017 9:02:26 GMT -6
People want to believe in things.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Nov 14, 2017 9:24:07 GMT -6
That's okay. The problem is this:
"We are pleased to release such a gorgeous sounding classic to the market at a price that’s reachable to more people than ever before. We are also proud to mention that the WA-47 sounds legitimately indistinguishable to the vintage ‘47’s we auditioned on several sources."
Warm, taking hyperbole to a whole new level.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 14, 2017 9:42:55 GMT -6
However imperfect, the expensive 47 and CK12 type clones from Bock, Flea, Wunder etc do a good job of fulfilling the sound of those mics in a mix context. Manley is sorta in between classic and modern sound with the Gold and Silver.
A vintage 87 is easily obtainable and very malleable.
We'll see about Bock's 67, but the newest U99 sounded good to me in the demos, kinda like an eq'ed and thinner 67. Reminded me of the vocal sound of a lot of alternative and indie rock productions, a bit like a lomo 19a9.
Based on the samples here and on GS, Chandler seems to me to sound best as a vocal or instrumental soloist mic in stripped down not dense productions, and excellent for overheads and especially drum rooms.
I'm not convinced that the Chandler mic is mid-forward or airy enough to work better in a dense mix for male and female vocals than the good 47/251 clones respectively or has the malleable midrange and body of a 67/87 which sit in the mix better than anything else and are my personal favorites for indie stuff. For that purpose I don't really like where the Chandler's top end lift begins (sounding nothing like a CK12 either in my opinion) despite it's being very smooth. It seems to call attention to itself a little too much for my taste. Personally I don't really like the sound of 251 on Bartiones either for a similar reason.
I think the most forward thinking company is Josephson, being pretty different than straight C37 and CK12 clones, particularly the Soundfield-like C700A, and of course the e22s which is very special.
Anyway, horses for courses, but I do like the clones, and I can attest that the Flea is a great mic.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,919
|
Post by ericn on Nov 14, 2017 10:07:48 GMT -6
That's okay. The problem is this: "We are pleased to release such a gorgeous sounding classic to the market at a price that’s reachable to more people than ever before. We are also proud to mention that the WA-47 sounds legitimately indistinguishable to the vintage ‘47’s we auditioned on several sources." Warm, taking hyperbole to a whole new level. Yeah, I don't know how many times Ihave heard that a declining price points over the years or seen ads with some famous producer / AE saying it! Vintage products are not just a moving target, mic builders also zero in on certain aspects that are their own sonic priorities and zero in on those assspects.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 14, 2017 10:17:07 GMT -6
That's okay. The problem is this: "We are pleased to release such a gorgeous sounding classic to the market at a price that’s reachable to more people than ever before. We are also proud to mention that the WA-47 sounds legitimately indistinguishable to the vintage ‘47’s we auditioned on several sources." Warm, taking hyperbole to a whole new level. Yeah, and my MF-65 ribbon sounds indistinguishable from my Max U67 on at least one female singer. They both sound like her! Amazing!
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 14, 2017 10:24:22 GMT -6
I read similar reviews of the Peluso 2247SE. I'll give it to Peluso, the mic had a bigger than life sound you'd expect from a U47, but it was much brighter. Not a bright mic when compared to some other kinds of mics, but brighter than a Wagner U47W I put it up against and even than the Slate VMS emulation. I'm curious how this will stand up against something like a Peluso which is about twice the price. I liked AA's CM48T which was darker than the Peluso, but it didn't have that larger than life sound you expect when singing through a U47 or a high end counterpart. It was kind of it's own thing. I've debated reaching out and seeing if they'd send me a demo to make a video with. I'd have jtc111 come by with his FLEA 47 and I'd pull out the BLUE Bottle Rocket II with the B7. That could be fun on some old school crooning vocals.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Nov 15, 2017 18:22:59 GMT -6
Drummer showed up with a Warm Audio WA412 today. Great pres, budget aside. I have a bunch of time on an older 3124+, I might even like this a little better. Put that in the "for" column.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 15, 2017 19:47:53 GMT -6
That's okay. The problem is this: "We are pleased to release such a gorgeous sounding classic to the market at a price that’s reachable to more people than ever before. We are also proud to mention that the WA-47 sounds legitimately indistinguishable to the vintage ‘47’s we auditioned on several sources." Warm, taking hyperbole to a whole new level. There is no way for you to know whether it's hyperbole at all unless you were there for the comparison.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 15, 2017 19:48:31 GMT -6
Drummer showed up with a Warm Audio WA412 today. Great pres, budget aside. I have a bunch of time on an older 3124+, I might even like this a little better. Put that in the "for" column. I've got the WA-412 too and I dig it. Especially on drums.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 15, 2017 20:19:00 GMT -6
That's okay. The problem is this: "We are pleased to release such a gorgeous sounding classic to the market at a price that’s reachable to more people than ever before. We are also proud to mention that the WA-47 sounds legitimately indistinguishable to the vintage ‘47’s we auditioned on several sources." Warm, taking hyperbole to a whole new level. There is no way for you to know whether it's hyperbole at all or not unless you were there for the comparison. Was thinking the same thing:) Whether one agrees or not the quote is one person’s opinion: that’s all.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Nov 15, 2017 20:28:01 GMT -6
However imperfect, the expensive 47 and CK12 type clones from Bock, Flea, Wunder etc do a good job of fulfilling the sound of those mics in a mix context. Manley is sorta in between classic and modern sound with the Gold and Silver. A vintage 87 is easily obtainable and very malleable. We'll see about Bock's 67, but the newest U99 sounded good to me in the demos, kinda like an eq'ed and thinner 67. Reminded me of the vocal sound of a lot of alternative and indie rock productions, a bit like a lomo 19a9. Based on the samples here and on GS, Chandler seems to me to sound best as a vocal or instrumental soloist mic in stripped down not dense productions, and excellent for overheads and especially drum rooms. I'm not convinced that the Chandler mic is mid-forward or airy enough to work better in a dense mix for male and female vocals than the good 47/251 clones respectively or has the malleable midrange and body of a 67/87 which sit in the mix better than anything else and are my personal favorites for indie stuff. For that purpose I don't really like where the Chandler's top end lift begins (sounding nothing like a CK12 either in my opinion) despite it's being very smooth. It seems to call attention to itself a little too much for my taste. Personally I don't really like the sound of 251 on Bartiones either for a similar reason. I think the most forward thinking company is Josephson, being pretty different than straight C37 and CK12 clones, particularly the Soundfield-like C700A, and of course the e22s which is very special. Anyway, horses for courses, but I do like the clones, and I can attest that the Flea is a great mic. Interesting take on the Chandler.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 15, 2017 22:10:01 GMT -6
However imperfect, the expensive 47 and CK12 type clones from Bock, Flea, Wunder etc do a good job of fulfilling the sound of those mics in a mix context. Manley is sorta in between classic and modern sound with the Gold and Silver. A vintage 87 is easily obtainable and very malleable. We'll see about Bock's 67, but the newest U99 sounded good to me in the demos, kinda like an eq'ed and thinner 67. Reminded me of the vocal sound of a lot of alternative and indie rock productions, a bit like a lomo 19a9. Based on the samples here and on GS, Chandler seems to me to sound best as a vocal or instrumental soloist mic in stripped down not dense productions, and excellent for overheads and especially drum rooms. I'm not convinced that the Chandler mic is mid-forward or airy enough to work better in a dense mix for male and female vocals than the good 47/251 clones respectively or has the malleable midrange and body of a 67/87 which sit in the mix better than anything else and are my personal favorites for indie stuff. For that purpose I don't really like where the Chandler's top end lift begins (sounding nothing like a CK12 either in my opinion) despite it's being very smooth. It seems to call attention to itself a little too much for my taste. Personally I don't really like the sound of 251 on Bartiones either for a similar reason. I think the most forward thinking company is Josephson, being pretty different than straight C37 and CK12 clones, particularly the Soundfield-like C700A, and of course the e22s which is very special. Anyway, horses for courses, but I do like the clones, and I can attest that the Flea is a great mic. Having spent some time with the Chandler REDD, if you had an overly dense mix the low contour mode would do the trick. It's a bit like a thick U87. Most people haven't showcased that voicing on the mic, but it's an interesting feature. That said, I agree, it's not better or worse than the high end clones like FLEA etc. It sits firmly in their company as another color to paint with. It's all about the source and the vibe of the music.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Nov 15, 2017 22:25:38 GMT -6
That's okay. The problem is this: "We are pleased to release such a gorgeous sounding classic to the market at a price that’s reachable to more people than ever before. We are also proud to mention that the WA-47 sounds legitimately indistinguishable to the vintage ‘47’s we auditioned on several sources." Warm, taking hyperbole to a whole new level. There is no way for you to know whether it's hyperbole at all unless you were there for the comparison. Have you ever compared a multi-pattern mic's cardioid response, to that of a mic with true-cardioid? How about fixed bias compared to self bias? If the Warm doesn't even follow the basics, it can not respond the same way as a 47. Let alone be 'legitimately indistinguishable'. Sorry, but that's next level hyperbole. Pointless too... There's no need for sketchy marketing when it's a good value package, looks good, and probably sounds decent too. Job well done.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 15, 2017 22:35:24 GMT -6
I agree. In some ways, it weakens their position.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 15, 2017 22:43:30 GMT -6
Joseph, there are a number of A list artists using the Chandler REDD as we write. When their music drops, then listen and see how a REDD sounds in a mix. You can't be convinced of something that hasn't happened yet, so maybe you should give it a little time before making up your mind about the Chandler. Online, a thought or rumor can quickly become the consensus for no real reason, other than hearsay. I'm not saying you don't have good ears, just give it a little time. Until you've been in front of the Chandler, you really won't get it. Listening is not the same as using it. It makes you sing better for quite a few reasons. I've used all the classics at one point or another, and to me, the Chandler has all the attributes they have, and none of the shortcomings. That thing will sound just fine in a busy mix, believe me.
As for clones, it depends. In Kcat's situation, he had two very well appointed high end clones, and the Warm 87 sounds better for his voice than both of them. If I had that same experience and someone had bad things to say about the WA87, I'd say that's your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact, sorry. Stam has made an SSL style compressor for 10% the cost of the real one. I forget, it was either Steve Remote or jeff Steiger that has one and said with just a little tweaking, they're indistinguishable. Both those guys know what they're talking about. So now, a guy like me has a chance to get really close to that sound at home. I don't know many full time musicians who can afford a $4,250 2 bus compressor, so I have zero problems with that.
"Indistinguishable" in the context of the way Warm's ads test were done, and who was there, may be true. I know Bryce, he wouldn't make that up. He may be guilty of the sin of being really excited about his product and expressing that colorfully. That doesn't mean some of the Golden Ears here couldn't tell there's a difference. This is one instance where the marketplace will sort it out. The home recordist is really a rapidly changing market since plug-ins and clones arrived and streaming reduced income by 99%, so it'll take some time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
One thing, the originals don't sound like the originals either, because they're aged and used. So even if a clone could be made to sound exactly like the original, it would sound different from the original today. So, in truth how do we know if a clone sounds a pinch brighter, it isn't actually closer to the original than the original is now. So, where we land is you have to try them for yourself.
So far, I've only heard two mics that stand toe to toe with mint original classic mics, the Soyuz 0-17 and the Chandler REDD. There may be a few more. It is notable that every part in both those mics are handmade and while sharing similarities, are indeed different than the classics they're similar to.
Correct that, Johnkens 251 with Sinsay's work sounds incredible too.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Nov 15, 2017 22:48:43 GMT -6
I just want a mic that sounds good, and is affordable. No one who comes to my studio has any clue what a u47 is, and the ones that do are smart enough just let me do my thing and not worry about which mic I'm using. I understand that others may have different experiences, but still, I think the vast majority of people just want something good that wont break the bank.
So we can argue whether it should be called a clone, a tribute mic, "inspired by" bla, bla bla...it doesn't really matter, its all just semantics. But if your lively hood dependent on selling these mics I'm willing to bet everyone here would use the same adjectives (more or less). Its just marketing. Besides most people are smart enough to know that all marketing is just hype at the end of the day. And I get it, some hype is justified, some isn't. But still, as with any clone, its just a tool. Use it or don't.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 15, 2017 22:55:11 GMT -6
There is no way for you to know whether it's hyperbole at all unless you were there for the comparison. Have you ever compared a multi-pattern mic's cardioid response, to that of a mic with true-cardioid? How about fixed bias compared to self bias? If the Warm doesn't even follow the basics, it can not respond the same way as a 47. Let alone be 'legitimately indistinguishable'. Sorry, but that's next level hyperbole. Pointless too... There's no need for sketchy marketing when it's a good value package, looks good, and probably sounds decent too. Job well done. Be annoyed with the marketing, that's fine. I'm not going to bat for that; I don't care about it at all. But your claim (sans rhetorical framing) is: "My belief is that unless you match XYZ schematic realities, it cannot be sonically indistinguishable". A perfectly valid belief, but it's one that resides squarely in the subjective realm. And it's not a belief that gives you the answer to whether or not some person's claim about a given scenario that you didn't take part in is correct. It gives you an assumption. Might turn out to be a correct assumption but it's still an assumption. I've failed blind tests between a cheap mic and a costly mic on one source and then had the difference be blatantly obvious on another source. I've had mics that have no business sounding like one another sound almost exactly alike in some specific scenario. I'm just pointing out that you don't know what they heard so you can't know whether they're stretching the truth or not. And unless you can grab a quick time-machine-Uber and go back and be present during the comparison, that won't change.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Nov 15, 2017 23:14:33 GMT -6
It's embellished hype, and Warm knows exactly what they're doing. It's the same as Slate saying his VMS sounds indistinguishable... It doesn't.
The only affordable mic I've heard that is indistinguishable to the original it copies, is the Stam 87.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 15, 2017 23:22:06 GMT -6
It's embellished hype, and Warm knows exactly what they're doing. It's the same as Slate saying his VMS sounds indistinguishable... It doesn't. The only affordable mic I've heard that is indistinguishable to the original it copies, is the Stam 87. I'm with you on the VMS. I bought it just to see. Knew within 5 minutes I wasn't keeping it. I'm with you on the Stam too, at least based on clips. Sounds incredibly similar. I'm not taking issue with your having an informed, pre-emptive guess on the WA-47 thing, just pointing out that it's an informed, pre-emptive guess.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Nov 15, 2017 23:48:40 GMT -6
Fine
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 15, 2017 23:54:38 GMT -6
Joseph, there are a number of A list artists using the Chandler REDD as we write. When their music drops, then listen and see how a REDD sounds in a mix. You can't be convinced of something that hasn't happened yet, so maybe you should give it a little time before making up your mind about the Chandler. Online, a thought or rumor can quickly become the consensus for no real reason, other than hearsay. I'm not saying you don't have good ears, just give it a little time. Until you've been in front of the Chandler, you really won't get it. Listening is not the same as using it. It makes you sing better for quite a few reasons. I've used all the classics at one point or another, and to me, the Chandler has all the attributes they have, and none of the shortcomings. That thing will sound just fine in a busy mix, believe me. A list productions are so overproduced, who knows what you're hearing. Actually I think being in front of it might increase bias in its favor. Because it has so much wow factor with the soft but present top end. On the other hand, that's good for performance too, like you observe. Well, it sounds good on you, so that's what matters. I didn't say I didn't like the sound of the mic. I think it would be great for certain things, such as the demos you posted and what I said above, but it's only my opinions on what I personally think best serves certain productions. I'm just saying that the demos make me think it's not as universal as people would like it to be. It's just another LDC, albeit an excellent one. On the vocal demos it's still hit or miss depending on singer of what I've heard so far. It will lose out to less ornate mics sometimes. There's nothing superseding the 47 derivations with mids that are different from the Chandler or the 251 and other CK12 types with airy highs with the obvious phase shift and so on. The Chandler obviously is not going to sound like a Bock 251 or a 414 or C12A or Josephson C716 or Manley Gold, speaking of some sounds I am a little familiar with. But my personal taste for indie genres for example veers toward mics that are a little darker and less pretty/present. So that's the kind of mic I'd be interested in, like the Manley Silver and Josephson C715 for sure, U99 and Bock 67 I'd expect.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 15, 2017 23:56:21 GMT -6
It's embellished hype, and Warm knows exactly what they're doing. It's the same as Slate saying his VMS sounds indistinguishable... It doesn't. The only affordable mic I've heard that is indistinguishable to the original it copies, is the Stam 87. I'm with you on the VMS. I bought it just to see. Knew within 5 minutes I wasn't keeping it. I'm with you on the Stam too, at least based on clips. Sounds incredibly similar. I'm not taking issue with your having an informed, pre-emptive guess on the WA-47 thing, just pointing out that it's an informed, pre-emptive guess. VMS is sibilant and has little depth in almost all the demos I've heard. It loses in every shootout with the real thing. Maybe sometimes it sounds good enough, but life's too short.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2017 0:29:30 GMT -6
I'm with you on the VMS. I bought it just to see. Knew within 5 minutes I wasn't keeping it. I'm with you on the Stam too, at least based on clips. Sounds incredibly similar. I'm not taking issue with your having an informed, pre-emptive guess on the WA-47 thing, just pointing out that it's an informed, pre-emptive guess. VMS is sibilant and has little depth in almost all the demos I've heard. It loses in every shootout with the real thing. Maybe sometimes it sounds good enough, but life's too short. It was easily beaten (blind and otherwise) by my $599 GZ67Fet. Granted that pricetag is deceptive because in a retail scenario that mic would be double (or a little more) than the $599, but still. If Slate's ad copy were true, the GZ67 would be easily knocking off All Of The Best Mics Ever when it handily beat the VMS. That's just not the case. VMS sounds flat and a little lifeless to me. The top end is always a little detached or something too. I admire the effort but the result just didn't sell me at all.
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on Nov 16, 2017 15:18:56 GMT -6
It's embellished hype, and Warm knows exactly what they're doing. It's the same as Slate saying his VMS sounds indistinguishable... It doesn't. The only affordable mic I've heard that is indistinguishable to the original it copies, is the Stam 87. Hi Jake, its really all personal taste. We had two U47's, two original 414eb's, two C37a tube microphones and 5-U87's during my 20 tenure at Ocean Sound Studios and the U87 was the least favourite for vocals. However, it was the goto microphone for voice-over work and strings. When KD Lang and Roy Orbison came in to sing "Crying" Dusty Wakefield put up one of the U47's and never even asked if we had a U87. We had two U87's pre-1988 and 3-U87AI microphones. Even then I was convinced the U87 was the most over priced microphone on the market. When I built my CM87 a purposely designed 14db more headroom into the circuit and tried in my humble opinion to improve it not copy or clone it. Cheers, Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 15:25:29 GMT -6
I prefer my hyperbole clones to my hyperbole plugs ...
|
|