|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 12, 2018 8:20:35 GMT -6
Boy, I'd love to hear one of those pre-Klaus reissue U67's and post Klaus 67's.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 12, 2018 10:55:44 GMT -6
That’s an idiom in America btw. American Idiom - that's a Green Day record, right?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 12, 2018 11:56:02 GMT -6
I now hereby declare this thread to be idiom proof! Chris
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 12, 2018 14:47:22 GMT -6
Funny, a friend of mine is an engineer, and he was sent to record the New York Philharmonic. His boss gave him a pair of his favorite Shoeps. Just for fun, he bought along a pair of Guage USA's SDC's, KM84 imitations that cost around $200. Both the conductor and his boss chose the cheap Chinese capsule SDC recording. So it goes to show, one never knows, do one. You gotta listen with your ears and not your eyes. In a blind taste test 4 out of 5 dentists agreed: The Telefunken CU29 Copperhead is still one of the best sounding tube powered condenser microphones for make vocals of the past 120 months.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 12, 2018 17:15:15 GMT -6
Funny, I really didn't like the Copperhead at all when I gave it a quick listen a few times. It was clearly a good mic, but had no character i could discern. It reminded me of an RE-20, dull, dull, dull. I thought the Telefunken AK51 was a damn good sounding mic though when I tried it just after the Copperhead.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 12, 2018 21:05:03 GMT -6
Funny, I really didn't like the Copperhead at all when I gave it a quick listen a few times. It was clearly a good mic, but had no character i could discern. It reminded me of an RE-20, dull, dull, dull. I thought the Telefunken AK51 was a damn good sounding mic though when I tried it just after the Copperhead. Simple fix for that: Don't use the stock tube, get an old Mullard and then . . . BAM , tone for days. I'll send you something that will wow you
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 13, 2018 7:01:30 GMT -6
Now that's interesting Ward. My main experience with tubes is with guitar amps. They make a significant difference in tone. I'm not sure if it's as critical for mics, but it may very well be so. I had a demo of the Warm 47 here for a couple of weeks, it was a little grainy, but I thought it was because of the cost savings. Then it got worse, to the point of distortion. Bryce sent me a new tube, and voila! it was a new mic, seriously good sounding and a perfect fit for my buddy Dusty Wright's vocal, so he bought it.
send to martin@martinjohnbutler.com if you can :-)
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Aug 13, 2018 8:00:18 GMT -6
Now that's interesting Ward. My main experience with tubes is with guitar amps. They make a significant difference in tone. I'm not sure if it's as critical for mics, but it may very well be so. I had a demo of the Warm 47 here for a couple of weeks, it was a little grainy, but I thought it was because of the cost savings. Then it got worse, to the point of distortion. Bryce sent me a new tube, and voila! it was a new mic, seriously good sounding and a perfect fit for my buddy Dusty Wright's vocal, so he bought it. send to martin@martinjohnbutler.com if you can :-) Just if not more critical, you have one doing the very heavy lifting of impendece converting and really, really need low noise.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 13, 2018 8:39:29 GMT -6
My take?
"Experts" are equal parts enlightened and bluster. They carry knowledge of details that are hard to glean from blind analysis, but they've also spent years focusing on their own thoughts without much in the way of contrasting opinion, which leads to egotism.
This is why most experts have seemingly egotistical statements, but also why they might have data that is crucial to a product's success. It's almost impossible to divorce the two, yet discussion of such can devolve into threads like this where we have those who believe experts are nothing but self-promoters, as well as those who believe they are messianic in their abilities.
The problem is that both sides are right, and wrong at the same time.
The question becomes, at what point in time and at what detail is anyone actually *right*?
The answer is that it's completely subjective to any detail that might exist at any given moment in time.
Vague, I know, but it's true. Nobody is ever "right" on a topic, but they can never be "wrong" either when we talk about opinions. They can be correct or incorrect about facts, such as if a capsule backplate is manufactured to the correct tolerance based on a schematic, but one person might hear that capsule and like the sound, while another might say "that's not the way it was back in the day"..
Who's to say that Neumann's capsules back in the day sounded like intended based on the mechanical design? Perhaps it was a happy accident that nobody wanted to admit to, and now in the age of CNC machines built to be accurate to 1/10000th of a inch, that these new capsules are more true to the original intent but sound worse than we've become accustomed to?
What "expert" from the original U67 days would say "Oh I messed that up, but it sounds OK, so I let it ride"? Perhaps none would, as German engineering practices have always left little in the way of tolerance, both in mechanical and human performance aspects, and any modern discussion is wrongly basing the opinions purely on the expectation of perfection in a bygone era..
But then again, maybe it was exactly as designed.
Who knows.
All I know is that working with "experts" in high technology, that there are a LOT more happy accidents from those experts that are taken for experience and knowledge by those who don't have the experience to know otherwise than anyone would ever admit openly..
Besides myself I suppose..
And that I've worked with some "experts" that continually obtain work that pays far higher wages than I get paid, yet their work is sub-par for the cost, and might ultimately get trashed and redone by a lesser engineer at some point.. And yet there is a pervasive belief that somehow everyone else must have misunderstood the expert's design intent as the reason for underperformance.. The expert continues to get a pass on their work, simply by being an "expert"..
I was involved in a project many years ago, and I pointed out a relatively major error in a design to the "expert" in charge.. It was dismissed as folly of an inexperienced engineer and I received a lot of disrespect from that "expert" in the subsequent time he was there after that. The "expert" even asked that I be removed from the project, and I was. After the contract was done, he left, and the product did not work as intended. When management brought this up to the "expert", it was dismissed as "must be a mistake you are making" and management was perfectly happy to take his word on it and persecute the rest of us as the culprits of the failure.. It turns out that another engineer received the job to investigate this problem and it was ultimately the piece that I pointed out as a problem that was causing the issues. While I felt vindicated, it didn't resolve the disrespect I received, nor the management's questioning of my ability after the expert voiced his concern about me.
And yet, I've worked with some "experts" that have been every single bit of "expert" as can be, and then some! I learned more from these men and women than I have learned in years of school and personal study.
I guess the point is that it's really hit/miss as to whether or not an "expert" should be given a pass based on past performance. Everyone has a bad day, and even the best of us can be wrong or myopic on a topic. What we should NEVER do is give anyone a pass based on titles. An expert will easily prove themselves as such even in the face of criticism. A poser will not.
So personally, while I respect Klaus and his background, I stay skeptical of anything he might state as facts, and enjoy his opinions as nothing more than that. I'll still continue to make my own decisions on any and all matters, as it doesn't matter to me which side I fall on in any topic. What matters is that I feel confident about my decision based on what I see/hear in the data provided to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 13, 2018 8:39:47 GMT -6
Now that's interesting Ward. . . . . send to martin@martinjohnbutler.com if you can DONE
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 13, 2018 9:10:36 GMT -6
Now that's interesting Ward. My main experience with tubes is with guitar amps. They make a significant difference in tone. I'm not sure if it's as critical for mics, but it may very well be so. I had a demo of the Warm 47 here for a couple of weeks, it was a little grainy, but I thought it was because of the cost savings. Then it got worse, to the point of distortion. Bryce sent me a new tube, and voila! it was a new mic, seriously good sounding and a perfect fit for my buddy Dusty Wright's vocal, so he bought it. send to martin@martinjohnbutler.com if you can :-) In my experience, tubes make more difference in mics than they do in guitar amps. Whenever I spring for some nice NOS stuff for Guitar amps, I do re-amp tests before and after so I can really hear what’s going on. Revealing.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 13, 2018 9:24:56 GMT -6
My take? "Experts" are equal parts enlightened and bluster. They carry knowledge of details that are hard to glean from blind analysis, but they've also spent years focusing on their own thoughts without much in the way of contrasting opinion, which leads to egotism. This is why most experts have seemingly egotistical statements, but also why they might have data that is crucial to a product's success. It's almost impossible to divorce the two, yet discussion of such can devolve into threads like this where we have those who believe experts are nothing but self-promoters, as well as those who believe they are messianic in their abilities. The problem is that both sides are right, and wrong at the same time. The question becomes, at what point in time and at what detail is anyone actually *right*? The answer is that it's completely subjective to any detail that might exist at any given moment in time. Vague, I know, but it's true. Nobody is ever "right" on a topic, but they can never be "wrong" either when we talk about opinions. They can be correct or incorrect about facts, such as if a capsule backplate is manufactured to the correct tolerance based on a schematic, but one person might hear that capsule and like the sound, while another might say "that's not the way it was back in the day".. Who's to say that Neumann's capsules back in the day sounded like intended based on the mechanical design? Perhaps it was a happy accident that nobody wanted to admit to, and now in the age of CNC machines built to be accurate to 1/10000th of a inch, that these new capsules are more true to the original intent? What "expert" from the original U67 days would say "Oh I messed that up, but it sounds OK, so I let it ride"? Perhaps none would, as German engineering practices have always left little in the way of tolerance, both in mechanical and human performance aspects, and any modern discussion is wrongly basing the opinions purely on the expectation of perfection in a bygone era.. But then again, maybe it was exactly as designed. Who knows. All I know is that working with "experts" in high technology, that there are a LOT more happy accidents from those experts that are taken for experience and knowledge by those who don't have the experience to know otherwise than anyone would ever admit openly.. Besides myself I suppose.. And that I've worked with some "experts" that continually obtain work that pays far higher wages than I get paid, yet their work is sub-par for the cost, and might ultimately get trashed and redone by a lesser engineer at some point.. And yet there is a pervasive belief that somehow everyone else must have misunderstood the expert's design intent as the reason for underperformance.. The expert continues to get a pass on their work, simply by being an "expert".. I was involved in a project many years ago, and I pointed out a relatively major error in a design to the "expert" in charge.. It was dismissed as folly of an inexperienced engineer and I received a lot of disrespect from that "expert" in the subsequent time he was there after that. The "expert" even asked that I be removed from the project, and I was. After the contract was done, he left, and the product did not work as intended. When management brought this up to the "expert", it was dismissed as "must be a mistake you are making".. It turns out that another engineer received the job to investigate this problem and it was ultimately the piece that I pointed out as the problem that was causing the issues. While I felt vindicated, it didn't resolve the disrespect I received, nor the management's questioning of my ability after the expert voiced his concern about me. And yet, I've worked with some "experts" that have been every single bit of "expert" as can be, and then some! I learned more from these men and women than I have learned in years of school and personal study. I guess the point is that it's really hit/miss as to whether or not an "expert" should be given a pass based on past performance. Everyone has a bad day, and even the best of us can be wrong or myopic on a topic. What we should NEVER do is give anyone a pass based on titles. An expert will easily prove themselves as such even in the face of criticism. A poser will not. So personally, while I respect Klaus and his background, I stay skeptical of anything he might state as facts, and enjoy his opinions as nothing more than that. I'll still continue to make my own decisions on any and all matters, as it doesn't matter to me which side I fall on in any topic. What matters is that I feel confident about my decision based on what I see/hear in the data provided to me. Friggin great post, Chris. I feel the same way. There’s no contradiction in someone being both extremely experienced and knowledgeable and also being wrong in some of their pet dogmas. Actually a pretty common combo in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 13, 2018 9:43:02 GMT -6
One can be contextually/situationally correct and not relate to your context/situation.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 13, 2018 9:56:20 GMT -6
My take? "Experts" are equal parts enlightened and bluster. They carry knowledge of details that are hard to glean from blind analysis, but they've also spent years focusing on their own thoughts without much in the way of contrasting opinion, which leads to egotism. This is why most experts have seemingly egotistical statements, but also why they might have data that is crucial to a product's success. It's almost impossible to divorce the two, yet discussion of such can devolve into threads like this where we have those who believe experts are nothing but self-promoters, as well as those who believe they are messianic in their abilities. The problem is that both sides are right, and wrong at the same time. The question becomes, at what point in time and at what detail is anyone actually *right*? The answer is that it's completely subjective to any detail that might exist at any given moment in time. Vague, I know, but it's true. Nobody is ever "right" on a topic, but they can never be "wrong" either when we talk about opinions. They can be correct or incorrect about facts, such as if a capsule backplate is manufactured to the correct tolerance based on a schematic, but one person might hear that capsule and like the sound, while another might say "that's not the way it was back in the day".. Who's to say that Neumann's capsules back in the day sounded like intended based on the mechanical design? Perhaps it was a happy accident that nobody wanted to admit to, and now in the age of CNC machines built to be accurate to 1/10000th of a inch, that these new capsules are more true to the original intent? What "expert" from the original U67 days would say "Oh I messed that up, but it sounds OK, so I let it ride"? Perhaps none would, as German engineering practices have always left little in the way of tolerance, both in mechanical and human performance aspects, and any modern discussion is wrongly basing the opinions purely on the expectation of perfection in a bygone era.. But then again, maybe it was exactly as designed. Who knows. All I know is that working with "experts" in high technology, that there are a LOT more happy accidents from those experts that are taken for experience and knowledge by those who don't have the experience to know otherwise than anyone would ever admit openly.. Besides myself I suppose.. And that I've worked with some "experts" that continually obtain work that pays far higher wages than I get paid, yet their work is sub-par for the cost, and might ultimately get trashed and redone by a lesser engineer at some point.. And yet there is a pervasive belief that somehow everyone else must have misunderstood the expert's design intent as the reason for underperformance.. The expert continues to get a pass on their work, simply by being an "expert".. I was involved in a project many years ago, and I pointed out a relatively major error in a design to the "expert" in charge.. It was dismissed as folly of an inexperienced engineer and I received a lot of disrespect from that "expert" in the subsequent time he was there after that. The "expert" even asked that I be removed from the project, and I was. After the contract was done, he left, and the product did not work as intended. When management brought this up to the "expert", it was dismissed as "must be a mistake you are making".. It turns out that another engineer received the job to investigate this problem and it was ultimately the piece that I pointed out as the problem that was causing the issues. While I felt vindicated, it didn't resolve the disrespect I received, nor the management's questioning of my ability after the expert voiced his concern about me. And yet, I've worked with some "experts" that have been every single bit of "expert" as can be, and then some! I learned more from these men and women than I have learned in years of school and personal study. I guess the point is that it's really hit/miss as to whether or not an "expert" should be given a pass based on past performance. Everyone has a bad day, and even the best of us can be wrong or myopic on a topic. What we should NEVER do is give anyone a pass based on titles. An expert will easily prove themselves as such even in the face of criticism. A poser will not. So personally, while I respect Klaus and his background, I stay skeptical of anything he might state as facts, and enjoy his opinions as nothing more than that. I'll still continue to make my own decisions on any and all matters, as it doesn't matter to me which side I fall on in any topic. What matters is that I feel confident about my decision based on what I see/hear in the data provided to me. Friggin great post, Chris. I feel the same way. There’s no contradiction in someone being both extremely experienced and knowledgeable and also being wrong in some of their pet dogmas. Actually a pretty common combo in my experience. It's extremely common in the higher realms of education. Doctors are especially bad at being completely egotistical and self-centered through years of filtering through the system, due to the A+ type personality it takes to persevere through the hardships of medical school and internships, and they ARE experts in a field.. yet they are also generally resistant of any opinion that might cause them to question their education and/or beliefs.. Just try telling a doctor that you were looking online and you had questions about your symptoms.. First thing you'll likely get from the doctor is a BIG SIGH, and even maybe an eye roll, before they might lightly insinuate that *they* are the doctor and know best.. At worst, they might even dismiss your symptoms altogether and give you a spiel about how their years in medical school trump a few minutes of online research.. Yet, multiple studies have shown that if you take internet information, aggregate symptoms and average out the answers to a bell curve, the most prevalent answer for your disease is likely to be more correct than any single doctor.. And then there's the classic joke.. What do you call someone who graduates from medical school with a D average? Doctor! But that's no reason to not trust your doctor either. You have to be educated on your own, but have your fears put in check by the doctor. You're also putting the doctor's ego in check with your online research too. After all, you're the one living in your body, so only you can know what's really going on. The doctor/patient relationship should be symbiotic, not adversarial. For me, it's important because it might have saved my life at one point. I had an issue, and went to the doctor. I got a completely apathetic workup and diagnosis. I took pills that made me sicker, but did not fix the issue. I went back to the doctor to only be met with admonishment for supposedly not taking my pills correctly. The doctor was so sure of himself that he did not entertain the idea that he might have been wrong. The blood tests were unspecific, etc. He put me on more pills. I got sicker. I decided to go to another doctor, which did not even do the tests the first doctor did and essentially told me that he saw nothing wrong and sent me home with a different prescription. I would get better, then worse, then better and worse over the course of a few months and finally started looking online for my symptoms. Of course the symptoms ran the gamut of psychology to cancer, but I kept on it and found something I thought was similar enough. I went to yet another doctor, who started to dismiss me once again, but I damn near cussed him out and he finally huffed and allowed me to speak my mind.. He perked up and actually said I might have been right, put me on some different pills for a few weeks and I was 100% cured. I had to force them to listen, and when they did, it worked out for both of us. Same goes for just about any role in the world where experience and knowledge meet the opposite. You have to break through that crust of egotism, but once you do, the information, education, experience you find in an expert is pure gold.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Aug 13, 2018 10:17:22 GMT -6
I sort of scanned this whole thing so hopefully this hasn't yet been discussed, but does anybody know why they designed the reissue to have the capsule sticking up higher in the head basket and what effect that may have on the sound? Klaus mentioned it with a picture, but didn't really go into detail about it.
I totally admit I know much of nothing about mic design and don't pretend to. Seems like the head basket shape and location of the capsule inside of it would change the sound.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 13, 2018 10:20:59 GMT -6
I sort of scanned this whole thing so hopefully this hasn't yet been discussed, but does anybody know why they designed the reissue to have the capsule sticking up higher in the head basket and what effect that may have on the sound? Klaus mentioned it with a picture, but didn't really go into detail about it. I totally admit I know much of nothing about mic design and don't pretend to. Seems like the head basket shape and location of the capsule inside of it would change the sound. Just going to take a wild guess here . . . Um, because the capsule mounting apparati and head basket are the same as what's being used for the U87ai and why design another one or make a variation when you already have one (even if it isn't period correct)? Economics.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 13, 2018 10:24:17 GMT -6
I sort of scanned this whole thing so hopefully this hasn't yet been discussed, but does anybody know why they designed the reissue to have the capsule sticking up higher in the head basket and what effect that may have on the sound? Klaus mentioned it with a picture, but didn't really go into detail about it. I would imagine they deemed it non-critical, right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by delcampo on Aug 13, 2018 11:37:25 GMT -6
Bowie said, "People WANT to see something just as good come along".
I couldn't agree more. People here are rooting for Stam to hit a home run with the SA67, and most of us are certainly hoping that Neumann replicates the microphone magic we've all been seeking. Chandler's Redd is truly a viable alternative to the classics, (finally, whew), and the Soyuz 0-17 is in the ballpark too. Unfortunately, they're out of reach for many of us pricewise. The Warm WA47 is damn good, and a great value compared to other mics in its price range, but a little higher up the food chain, and the Stam and Golden Age mics have the potential to get us into the zone we want without taking a second job or mortgage. Many of us have been frustrated trying to work around the dreaded capsule nasties, and to date, you get what you can pay for, but since ITCS, I'm more hopeful than ever that Shannon can help if we need him to. First I gotta get my hands on the Stam 67, then I'l know where things really stand. All this old tubes vs new tube talk got me wondering about trying another (vintage) tube in the Soyuz 017 I have. I dig it as is but wouldn't mind a hair more top smoothing. Might be a pleasant surprise?
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Aug 13, 2018 11:41:21 GMT -6
There's a "67" shootout test going on in another thread (Stam). One thing I've learned is to only trust MY own ears & in MY own environment. I've heard the weirdest "results", if you may, from shootouts that you'd think would/should have sounded differently. If I don't have control of distance, axis, same pres (that I'm familiar with), and a source that I know, anything else would have to be taken with a grain of salt. I trust & have great admiration for Klaus. And I take what he says very seriously - can always learn from it. And all his experience & wisdom will save me a lot of time in advancing to a certain point where I can make certain conclusions based on my own experience & knowledge. And all this applies to knowledge gained from people in the field I respect - including some members of this forum
But the final decision on something like this would have to be A/Bing my reissue with a vintage. Most probably with my vox ... & in my studio.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 13, 2018 11:56:22 GMT -6
Seems like there are plenty of cheap 6267 NOS tubes available.. Why has no one tried that one instead?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 13, 2018 11:56:56 GMT -6
That's definitely the ideal thing to do Aremos, try it for yourself. Unfortunately, that's not always possible.
I chose the Blackspade UM-17 from hearing sound files online, and when I got it, it was exactly how it sounded online and was a good choice at that time. Yet some shootouts are not as helpful.
This tediously long shootout at Vintage King with Warren Heart was superb in the sense that you can really hear the different qualities of the very high end mics tested. My choice was 1) the Telefunken U47 reissue, 2) the Bock 251 style mic, and 3) the Manley Reference.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 13, 2018 12:01:19 GMT -6
Seems like there are plenty of cheap 6267 NOS tubes available.. Why has no one tried that one instead? Some of the tubes I posted sound samples for were marked both 6267 and EF86. You only see it in America I believe, so "it ain't a proper Euro tube" in most peoples minds. Even though it is probably actually a rebranded Euro tube.
|
|
|
Post by roundbadge on Aug 13, 2018 23:22:22 GMT -6
not hearing "choked,starved etc" [Klaus description] on my re issue.at all.using next to vintage and 269. guess I got a good one? tube wise I've been flipping btw a nos tele grey plate and the stock tube.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 14, 2018 9:25:27 GMT -6
As for the capsule being higher, iI believe it will make a difference. The original position wasn't accidental, the position affects the input somewhat. Neumann sacrificed authenticity for convenience and price, but I think it may be arrogance too.
Ward sent some Coperhead files, and it does sound better with a different tube, somewhere between the Tele AK47 and AK51.
I had 3 Thiersch capsules, and they all responded differently in the same mic, so I'd say Klaus makes a good point. I certainly wish anyone here ordering the reissue 67 gets a good one :-)
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Aug 14, 2018 15:11:38 GMT -6
Considering that Neumann patented that headbasket design and claims it has acoustic properties( I think they claim, anyway) then I can only imagine that the height of the capsule would make a difference as the spacing will change in every direction in relation to the top and sides of the headbasket since the front and back are at an angle.
|
|