|
Post by aremos on Aug 9, 2018 9:11:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Aug 9, 2018 9:35:25 GMT -6
Why?
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 9, 2018 9:47:14 GMT -6
I know the man is highly respected but I’m all for blind tests and hard science. I’d eat my mic collection if he can prove all those opinions about the cable etc with blind testing.
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Aug 9, 2018 10:02:07 GMT -6
The big take-away is that Neumann capsules are not consistent. According to Klaus, you may get lucky and get a mic with a great capsule, or you may be unlucky and get a meh capsule.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Aug 9, 2018 10:02:22 GMT -6
It seems like the main difference he hears in sound is due to the capsule (tightening). But he had stated a couple of years ago that the "new" k67/k87 from around 2012 on "seemed" to be being made in a consistent-high quality way like in the 60's k67. So it seems like there's an inconsistency again in capsule manufacturing. He states that the new Russian tube is not up to par with the old Amperex, Telefunken, Mullard stuff. But it's the best that Neumann could find per modern construction.
As for the little stuff, he says that the new cable doesn't match up to the old Belden 3344 & the PS doesn't either, again also stating it's the best that Neumann could do as per modern construction limits.
Being that the capsule is 80+% of the sound there's a chance you might get a capsule that isn't the best. Quality control? A NOS tube you might be able to find & change that. He states that it might cost (& perfectly doable) around $2K to make the reissue sound exactly like the vintage.
I guess the only way to confirm all this is to A/B my U67 v. a vintage one. And start changing tubes & capsules. Do I want to or have the time? I think it sounds fine.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 9, 2018 10:05:34 GMT -6
I know the man is highly respected but I’m all for blind tests and hard science. I’d eat my mic collection if he can prove all those opinions about the cable etc with blind testing. Yes..to buy this I’d need the component swaps to be done double blind. Bias is a hell of a drug.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 9, 2018 10:08:46 GMT -6
A lot of improvement in the U67 reissue can be gained with just a simple change of tube.
He is an expert on these things, though, he can be a bit harsh and singular in his vision and opinion on things like this.
He's earned that right too.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 9, 2018 10:11:51 GMT -6
It seems like the main difference he hears in sound is due to the capsule (tightening). But he had stated a couple of years ago that the "new" k67/k87 from around 2012 on "seemed" to be being made in a consistent-high quality way like in the 60's k67. So it seems like there's an inconsistency again in capsule manufacturing. He states that the new Russian tube is not up to par with the old Amperex, Telefunken, Mullard stuff. But it's the best that Neumann could find per modern construction. As for the little stuff, he says that the new cable doesn't match up to the old Belden 3344 & the PS doesn't either, again also stating it's the best that Neumann could do as per modern construction limits. Being that the capsule is 80+% of the sound there's a chance you might get a capsule that isn't the best. Quality control? A NOS tube you might be able to find & change that. He states that it might cost (& perfectly doable) around $2K to make the reissue sound exactly like the vintage. I guess the only way to confirm all this is to A/B my U67 v. a vintage one. And start changing tubes & capsules. Do I want to or have the time? I think it sounds fine. I will probably (at some point) get mine to Shannon and have the good Doctor Rhoads overhaul it and tweak it to what an original would be.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 10:14:51 GMT -6
Dang. I thought that was excellent. ITCS
(It’s the capsule stupid)
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Aug 9, 2018 10:17:29 GMT -6
The thing about Klaus is that he has built a reputation that he is the one person on Earth who can assess Neumann capsules and turn the mediocre ones into magic.
The marketing has worked, because he's so busy he won't even put you on a wait list.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 10:22:57 GMT -6
From many, many conversations with Shannon, that “tension” is the main cause for the zing sound we hear in lots of modern mics. He kind of described it as the capsule being too taught to vibrate the way it wants and it just kind of freaks out. This analogy just TOTALLY came out of the blue to me, but I kind of think of it like when you were a kid and pedaled your bike as fast as you could, but then you couldn’t keep up with it anymore...feet fall off the pedals and all hell breaks loose. I.e. you hit the mic too hard dynamically and at a certain frequency, it just freaks out. That inconsistency HAS to be the capsule...the other stuff contributes to the tone, but I found his main point to be the issue with the capsule tension. Nothing that can’t be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2018 10:23:42 GMT -6
The thing about Klaus is that he has built a reputation that he is the one person on Earth who can assess Neumann capsules and turn the mediocre ones into magic. The marketing has worked, because he's so busy he won't even put you on a wait list. I know a guy that lives down the street.
|
|
|
Post by bradd on Aug 9, 2018 10:37:15 GMT -6
The thing I find depressing about anything Klaus writes is that you are left with the impression that unless you are one of the lucky few who can afford to buy a vintage original and have Klaus check it out, you are wasting your time. Yes, the vintage stuff is excellent, but there are quite a few guys alive right now who are making great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ulriggribbons on Aug 9, 2018 10:39:02 GMT -6
(you guys all piled in as I was writing this =) )
As someone who listens to a lot of mics, I find his testing approach completely acceptable, and I do similar with microphones that I work on (albeit, the mics I work on have fewer moving parts =) ).
I can technically repair a microphone, take all the measurements that show it is 100% functioning as designed, and then listen to the microphone and come up *Meh*
*Meh* because based on my experience, I know the mic should sound better. I know there is something not right. It's sometimes a very subtle feeling, but you learn to trust it.
You could argue that scientifically, there should be a way to measure it, and perhaps there is beyond what is already measured. But you can spend many many hours(and have already) establishing that the test measurements you are making are meaningful. Personally, my ears/emotional response tell me in more detail, more quickly. The measurement systems, with it's numbers and graphs and eyeballing, make sure that things are in the ball park. What I and most engineers are after is beyond that. You want that extra 5-10% performance that are going to make the artists eyes pop a bit, and get "that" take. The one where they can make it sound like it's supposed to.
I found Klaus's review informative, and if I were working on a U67 (something I only do for good friends with some arm twisting. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should =P), I'm left with good perspective.
$.02
Jon
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Aug 9, 2018 11:03:53 GMT -6
How difficult, or impossible is t to retension the diaphragm? I have no idea, but it seems this could turn good mics into great ones. The design on the the hole patterns on the plates is well-known I'm sure. So it has to be something with the tensioning that is preventing even Chinese made capsules from sounding better. Thickness of the mylar and the sputtering will also affect it, but it seems odd that with all this technology, we can't get something right that was done nearly half a century ago.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 9, 2018 11:24:39 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway...
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Aug 9, 2018 11:31:30 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway... I agree. And the lone voice is someone who directly benefits from spreading his opinion on the matter. Here's the thing: trust your ears. Klaus might fix mics, but no one is making records with him.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 9, 2018 11:45:54 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway... It's purely an industrial action designed to make a product come off an assembly line meeting a spec a certain amount of the time. They aren't actually in the business of magic, and they sell aplenty, some on reputation alone, some on sound, most in between. But....sure, what would it cost to reject more of them? We will probably never know. They are getting it right by their spec, more of the time. It's like the Chicago red hotdog factory story: built an new plant, and the color was wrong no matter what they did. Tracked it down to the former location procedure had a guy pushing them from one location to another over 20 minutes time, and that un-spec'd action WAS the color. Had to recreate it with a particular holding pattern in the process. Now, our eyes notice that immediately. The ear doesn't work that way. So maybe it's as cheap to buy 10 capsules and audition them all your self, sell off 9, as it is to send it to Klaus? I don't know. Or buy 10 TLM67's and see which head sounds the best, swap it onto your reissue, sell off the others. Etc etc etc. I also find his methodology somewhat unquestionable, he's done the time to develop an innate sense with these mics. I'm not in an educated position to second guess his expertise, and blind testing can lead to preferences based on mood, or targets outside the scope. We may pick a 67 that doesn't really sound like the average 67 which actually falls outside of spec, and it may sound like some other companies mic that might also win a blind shootout. We are chasing fairies here, and he's seen few in his time. The rest are just decent functional microphones, which anyone can make a satisfactory record with.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 9, 2018 11:48:30 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway... I agree. And the lone voice is someone who directly benefits from spreading his opinion on the matter. Here's the thing: trust your ears. Klaus might fix mics, but no one is making records with him. I don't buy this. Of course no one is making records with him, he's an expert in making mics sound better for other people who make records. That is his career. He doesn't need to advertise for business, the guy is busy and practically at retirement age. He gains nothing by having more people knock on the door. Imagine the complaints if he were suddenly unavailable to work on mics because of his startup engineering career.
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Aug 9, 2018 12:25:32 GMT -6
I agree. And the lone voice is someone who directly benefits from spreading his opinion on the matter. Here's the thing: trust your ears. Klaus might fix mics, but no one is making records with him. I don't buy this. Of course no one is making records with him, he's an expert in making mics sound better for other people who make records. That is his career. He doesn't need to advertise for business, the guy is busy and practically at retirement age. He gains nothing by having more people knock on the door. Imagine the complaints if he were suddenly unavailable to work on mics because of his startup engineering career. I'm not buying 'Klaus makes magic' where no one else can- it's way too self-serving. I've watched his passive-aggressive self-promotional act for years. I've also watched how his opinion of Neumann has shifted as his personal career has taken off. Track down some old Neumann Forum posts of his and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 9, 2018 12:59:32 GMT -6
but happychap, his knowledge, re[utaton and expertise. have all increased over the years as well
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Aug 9, 2018 13:14:16 GMT -6
One thing that concerns me, is implicitly Klaus has something consistent to compare to. But, this isn’t actually true: nothing is static. It seems to me he has been making this same point for decades ?
I understand there is natural variation, but are Neumann’s QC standards really that lax ? Hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Aug 9, 2018 13:14:42 GMT -6
but happychap , his knowledge, re[utaton and expertise. have all increased over the years as well True. He didn't used to think that Neumann capsules were inconsistent. Let me hear a before and after with a KH U87. Where are all of Klaus' sound samples? Can we mere mortals hear the difference? Lot's of folks clean capsules, set FET's, replace caps, etc... But Klaus has made his niche in saying he makes all those mediocre Neumann capsules into magic. It's something only he can do (ask him). Is Klaus training an intern so someone can do all of this very important work in the future? Or is Neumann going to hire Klaus to show them how it's done, because (according to Klaus) they are obviously making more crappy capsules than good ones! David Brown? Tom Onofrio? What do they think about all of this talk of crappy-tight capsules? Can I be a skeptic? Or is the cult of Klaus just too powerful?
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 9, 2018 13:23:18 GMT -6
From many, many conversations with Shannon, that “tension” is the main cause for the zing sound we hear in lots of modern mics. He kind of described it as the capsule being too taught to vibrate the way it wants and it just kind of freaks out. This analogy just TOTALLY came out of the blue to me, but I kind of think of it like when you were a kid and pedaled your bike as fast as you could, but then you couldn’t keep up with it anymore...feet fall off the pedals and all hell breaks loose. I.e. you hit the mic too hard dynamically and at a certain frequency, it just freaks out. That inconsistency HAS to be the capsule...the other stuff contributes to the tone, but I found his main point to be the issue with the capsule tension. Nothing that can’t be fixed. Just from a mechanical point of view the capsule will have a resonant natural frequency based on the tension, just like a drum head. Higher tension means higher resonant frequency. I would suspect that they are tensioned high enough that the resonant frequency is out of the audio range, but I genuinely don’t know. There’s also going to be mode shapes developed by the bolt pattern and termination, and those will vary slightly by inconsistnecy in tension from “lug to lug” however slight. There probably is a range of sweet spot for tension for every capsule design, and then a specific sweet spot for each individual capsule based on minute manufacturing tolerances and so on. I don’t know about the blanket statement of “too tight” though. Any more than you can say a snare head is “too tight”. Stuffs complicated, lots of different things are interacting.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 9, 2018 13:28:07 GMT -6
I know the man is highly respected but I’m all for blind tests and hard science. I’d eat my mic collection if he can prove all those opinions about the cable etc with blind testing.
No offense intended but I'd trust Klaus's ear over a blind test any day of the week, week of the month, and month of the year.
There are many, many things in audio that blind tests do not reflect accurately, and they have many vectors of inherent bias built in. Audio is the only art I know of that is susceptible to such pseudoscientific claptrap.
Typical blind tests are not science. They're just sophisticated witchcraft most of the time. Real blind tests are fiendishly difficult to devise, set up, and execute properly, and are only appropriate for a very small range of subjects and circumstances - for such a test to be valid there must be ZERO uncontrolled variables and ZERO environmental influences that are not accounted for.
The very fact of a blind test biases the subject toward disbelief, scepticism, and mistrust of his own observations. People don't listen the same way in a blind test than they do any other time - the emotional need to be hypercritical poisons the experiment.*
And Klaus's comments on the current lamentable art of vacuum tube production are based on well known and widely accepted science (Metallurgy, chemistry) and mechancal design/production. Printing a "tung-sol" or "telefunken" label on a cheap Russian or Chinese tube does not make it a real Tung-sol or Telefunken. It doesn't even make it an International Servicemaster.
Likewise, his comments on the tensioning of diaphragms should not be subject to dispute by people who do not tension diaphragms for a living. If Shannon wants to say that Klaus is full of it, well, he knows enough about the subject to have an opinion. But somehow I don't think that Shannon would - he's probably busy working out his own upgrade process for the new reissue.
* - You know the state you get in after mixing a song for 18 hours straight and you don't know up from down anymore? The state where you think you've finally achieved a masterpiece only to listen a day or two later and discover it's horrible? That's the state that a blind test imposes almost immediately.
|
|