|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 3, 2017 10:17:21 GMT -6
So having finally gotten in front of the M269C I had to sit there in awe. Brighter than the M49C or the U67 it was beefy like the M49C. It was like a U87 on steriods. Of all the microphones I tried in a recent shoot out at Barbershop Studios, the M269C was incredible and probably 2nd only to the M49C on my vocals. It shined on the operatic selection though, cutting through the mix really well.
I have the MK67 kit which has a bright mode, but it's not the same. The Advanced Audio CM67SE is based on a Modded U67, and it's not quite the same either.
Has anyone tried the RMS 269. It sounds decent, but there are very few samples. Rob from RMS said he couldn't keep them in stock long enough to have a demo to send me. The frequency response chart shows the mic to be a bit brighter and different to the original. Figured I'd see if anyone has used one.
Also so open to other options if there are any.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 3, 2017 12:10:24 GMT -6
Yes. I have one. I've had it for maybe 2-3 years? When I gave up on the Max mod, I started looking different directions to scratch my 67 itch. I can't / won't pay stupid money ($8000-16,000) for a vintage mic that's been abused for decades in this day and age. There are too many awesome modern mics available. That said, the 67 and M49's seem to be the elusive ones that are difficult to capture in a modern built mic. But anyway.....
I ended up with the RMS 269. It's a wonderful mic. Still in the 67 camp, but I wouldn't call it "brighter" er than a 67. I'd call it "open" if that makes any sense. Not as bright as my U87 with the InnerTube mod slip in which is FANTASTIC - like a C12 and U47 had a baby.
At any rate, the RMS mic is really good. BTW, the freq response chart scared the crap out of me when I saw it after ordering. Luckily I bought the mic before seeing it, and the mic sounds nothing like it IMO. I'm totally happy to have this mic instead of the MaxMod mic. Cheaper, didn't need a doner mic and IMO, better for my uses.
I've used it mostly on stringed instruments.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 3, 2017 12:17:32 GMT -6
PS - regarding the "magic fairy dust" you no doubt experienced on the 269 you tried - as well as the M49c. Don't go hunting for it in a modern mic. My experience has led me to believe that for whatever reason, none of the modern mics get there. They get exceedingly close, and actually match some vintage models, but they don't get the magic fairly dust. I've spent enough time with vintage classics to know THEY DON'T ALL HAVE IT. (Magic Fairy Dust)
You'll spend a decade or two in complete frustration if that is your pursuit - even if you're only looking at vintage mics. Because. #1 - they don't all have it. #2 - they don't all have it. #3 - they don't all have it.
Your goal should be to save LOTS of money now, maybe invest in bitcoin or something, and bide your time until you end up in front of a mic that floors you like that particular 269 did. You should be prepared financially and emotionally to spend whatever it takes.
Then, walk out of the studio, find the owner/manager with checkbook in hand, and tell them you're not leaving without that particular mic. PERIOD. There's undoubtably a number that will get you leaving with it. But it's not going to be cheap. And probably not easy either.
That's the best way to end your (obviously) passionate drive for the perfect mic. Much like guitars, they are not all the same, and one size does not fit all. When you find IT, and the inspiration is there, you'd better have however much it takes to leave with it THAT DAY. Do not come back later.
Same thing with new mics. Don't demo them until you have cash in hand and are ready to buy. When you find the one that you like, do not let it out of your hands. Write the check then and there. Or transfer funds or whatever, but don't send it back thinking you will buy it later when you have more $$$....
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 3, 2017 15:55:34 GMT -6
You know the difference...right?
AC701 tube. Like a M49, like a 251.
No modern mic (other than telefunken recreations because Oliver stockpiled them) uses them because they're so rare--it would be irresponsible to design a new mic to use it. Only difference in a U67 and M269c. But, also Bill is right, IME-new mics don't have the fairy dust. that isn't the tube. Stayne (at Innertube) makes wonderful tube head amps that when you put it in a U87AI, it's a fraction fo the "great" as putting it into a vintage 87i. I do think it's interesting that no one seems interested in reverse engineering the 701s....given that they DO have a "something" in that vocal air band that simply isn't in other tubes. I can't imagine it would be hard to manufacture a modern tube that comes CLOSE...but, it's cheaper to just use ef86s or 6072s, so that's what modern makers do.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 3, 2017 22:37:47 GMT -6
Yes. I have one. I've had it for maybe 2-3 years? When I gave up on the Max mod, I started looking different directions to scratch my 67 itch. I can't / won't pay stupid money ($8000-16,000) for a vintage mic that's been abused for decades in this day and age. There are too many awesome modern mics available. That said, the 67 and M49's seem to be the elusive ones that are difficult to capture in a modern built mic. But anyway..... I ended up with the RMS 269. It's a wonderful mic. Still in the 67 camp, but I wouldn't call it "brighter" er than a 67. I'd call it "open" if that makes any sense. Not as bright as my U87 with the InnerTube mod slip in which is FANTASTIC - like a C12 and U47 had a baby. At any rate, the RMS mic is really good. BTW, the freq response chart scared the crap out of me when I saw it after ordering. Luckily I bought the mic before seeing it, and the mic sounds nothing like it IMO. I'm totally happy to have this mic instead of the MaxMod mic. Cheaper, didn't need a doner mic and IMO, better for my uses. I've used it mostly on stringed instruments. Awesome. drbill your description was exactly how I felt about the real M269C. More open is the best description, because it has heft. I'm glad the RMS 269 shares that quality. I too am debating about moving on from the MK67 and possibly picking this up. I'm curious if you've ever tried it on Brass. I know the U67 is known as a decent brass mic and I imagine the MK67 would shine in that application. I find the MK67 a little dark on many sources. If you have any samples you could share of the RMS 269, particularly if you have any comparisons I'd love to hear some stuff; vocals, stings, etc. PM me if you do. I do understand that the clones can only get so close. Frankly I wasn't even looking to try the old Vintage mics cause I know I can't afford to buy, let alone maintain one. Jeremy's offer to get in front of so many holy grail mics at once was too good for me to pass up, especially since he's only about 2 hours away and I work out there all the time. I've been looking for "my" mic.....within a certain price point. Really I've just been listening for a certain "something" I want to hear in my vocals. In fact, although I loved the M49C I chose to just order the stock tube in the FLEA 49 rather than go for something closer to it. The AC701 sounds awesome, but added a low end to my voice that wasn't really needed and altered how I sound a bit. I played the samples of various Flea 49s and the M49C for some friends who really know my voice, both fellow artists and engineers and most of them chose the FLEA 49 with the K47, without the AC701 (I tried 3 different versions of the FLEA including one with an AC701). Again, this just proves it's about how the source meshes with microphone. I'm actually looking at the RMS 269 as an option for my wife who as of right now uses a U87ai, which is the best option I have for her voice with what I and any of my good friends own. It beat out the Chandler REDD, Advanced Audio CM12, CM251, CM49, FLEA 49, BLUE Bottle Rocket II B6 cap, B8 cap, and the MK67. The U87 definitely works. I just feel like there is a little something missing. popmann I too wonder why no one has undertaken the task to start reproducing tubes like the AC701 and VF14, which if done well have a built in market already.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 4, 2017 0:37:32 GMT -6
If your wife could take a little bit brighter mic - or perhaps I should say more open with extreme HF lift, the inner tube mod for your 87 might be just the ticket. Definitely worth checking out. I'm not sure I have any vocals on the RMS269. I know for sure I don't have any brass recorded with it - I tend to use ribbons on brass. It's been awhile since I used it to be honest. Not sure why, but I've been on a KM86 / KM53 binge as of late. I should pull it out and put it in play though, I loved it last time I used it. If I figure out something that I recorded it on, I'll pass it along. Good luck with the search.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Dec 4, 2017 16:13:46 GMT -6
You know the difference...right? AC701 tube. Like a M49, like a 251. No modern mic (other than telefunken recreations because Oliver stockpiled them) uses them because they're so rare--it would be irresponsible to design a new mic to use it. Only difference in a U67 and M269c. But, also Bill is right, IME-new mics don't have the fairy dust. that isn't the tube. Stayne (at Innertube) makes wonderful tube head amps that when you put it in a U87AI, it's a fraction fo the "great" as putting it into a vintage 87i. I do think it's interesting that no one seems interested in reverse engineering the 701s....given that they DO have a "something" in that vocal air band that simply isn't in other tubes. I can't imagine it would be hard to manufacture a modern tube that comes CLOSE...but, it's cheaper to just use ef86s or 6072s, so that's what modern makers do. I have seen some long discussions about this very topic of tube reverse engineering. Tube recipes for the alloys etc are quite involved and apparently some of these crazy engineers kept the recipes in their heads, so the info is sort of gone. Also, many of the processes and materials are banned by the EPA, however that leaves us with China. Suffice it to say, someone may have tried it, only to be let down sonically. In fact, I recently found a tube site that had an ac 701 reissue tube. If I can find it, I will link it.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Dec 4, 2017 16:14:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 4, 2017 18:24:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 4, 2017 19:44:05 GMT -6
If your wife could take a little bit brighter mic - or perhaps I should say more open with extreme HF lift, the inner tube mod for your 87 might be just the ticket. Definitely worth checking out. I'm not sure I have any vocals on the RMS269. I know for sure I don't have any brass recorded with it - I tend to use ribbons on brass. It's been awhile since I used it to be honest. Not sure why, but I've been on a KM86 / KM53 binge as of late. I should pull it out and put it in play though, I loved it last time I used it. If I figure out something that I recorded it on, I'll pass it along. Good luck with the search. I'd prefer not to go too bright. I find the brighter mics loose the some of the quality of her voice. I already think the U87ai is a little bright. Lol. I've also heard it doesn't take loud volumes well. I'm loud and sing at about 90-110 db. My wife is louder. I also find it can be tricky when mixing duets if one of us is on a bright mic and the other is on a darker mic. I made that mistake once. Lol. I had reached out to Stayne to try one, but I didn't follow through. I got caught up in the holidays.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Dec 4, 2017 20:26:21 GMT -6
My thoughts exactly. I wouldn't mind trying one in some build. Little info out there on them.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Dec 4, 2017 20:31:54 GMT -6
There were a bunch of threads on GS and Klaus's sites about the earlier solidstate VF14 replacements.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 5, 2017 20:02:56 GMT -6
drbill, have you ever put the RMS next to a real M269? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 5, 2017 21:22:50 GMT -6
Nope
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 5, 2017 21:23:07 GMT -6
Nope
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 6, 2017 10:09:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 7, 2017 16:48:54 GMT -6
Ordered the RMS 269. I'll let everyone know how it is. 3 weeks out due to the holiday.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Dec 7, 2017 21:06:09 GMT -6
I'm sure it will be quite nice. Looking forward to the clips.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Dec 7, 2017 21:07:08 GMT -6
Ordered the RMS 269. I'll let everyone know how it is. 3 weeks out due to the holiday. Let me know when you’ll be back in N.J. after you get it. I’d love to hear it next to the real deal!
|
|
|
Post by hadaja on Dec 7, 2017 21:33:01 GMT -6
Also interested in thouhts on rms 269
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 7, 2017 22:54:12 GMT -6
Ordered the RMS 269. I'll let everyone know how it is. 3 weeks out due to the holiday. Let me know when you’ll be back in N.J. after you get it. I’d love to hear it next to the real deal! I'll have the FLEA 49 probably by Christmas and the RMS 269 around New Years. I'm sure we can figure something out.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 8, 2017 15:45:14 GMT -6
Here's the RMS269 straight into an LA2a. Needed about 50% more gain on the LA than I would use for line input sources. About 1dB of GR. So smooth.....this was a jangly bright tambourine. One of the hardest things to not have splatty.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Dec 8, 2017 23:48:30 GMT -6
Here's the RMS269 straight into an LA2a. Needed about 50% more gain on the LA than I would use for line input sources. About 1dB of GR. So smooth.....this was a jangly bright tambourine. One of the hardest things to not have splatty. Beeeeeeeeeeutiful, Doc! Reminds me of those old Stones rekkids where basically everything was tracked with a u67. Midrange.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 9, 2017 0:44:20 GMT -6
Yup. My playing wasn't all that great though, but it's OK in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Dec 9, 2017 0:55:07 GMT -6
Sounds nice and smooth. Funny enough, I recorded a music box type sound from a stuffed bear my son has. It helped him sleep, but it only lasted 7 mins and he would wake up when it ended if he wasn't in a deep sleep. So decided to record it and make a 1 hour loop. I tried the MK67, but it changed the tone of the sound too much. At the time I had the Slate VMS and it was up on a stand. So I recorded it with that. I went through all the emulations and settled on the FG269. Haha. Of course, that emulation didn't hold a candle to the original I tried, but it's kinda funny either way.
|
|