|
Post by sirthought on Feb 6, 2019 6:19:39 GMT -6
I like the champagne, but prefer the black or steel gray. That red and blue you offered are a bit too "electric" for most spaces.
Seriously, because you have launched colors for the FET, I feel your branding would improve if you stuck with those colors. If every time you saw that orange/red you knew it was a Heiserman, that's pretty strong. The more of that jersey gray that's out there, the more people will identify with what's your mic versus a million others.
If you disagree and just want to keep things interesting with new options, then I suggest trying an olive or darker green or maybe even a dark brown.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 6, 2019 6:59:31 GMT -6
My understanding is that the AMI BV11R transformer has a little bit more low end to compensate for what is lost by not using the AC701k tube. Their BV11 transformer is supposed to be historically accurate for use with the AC701k SNIP SNIP No way a 67 is getting beaten. Maybe by a 251. But a 49? Cumon people. Inside job. 67 = killer workhorse 49 = unexplainable magic OK . . . take stock of a couple of things. 1. U67 is silk. M49 is even more silk. 2. U67 is magic on a male voice. M49 is magic on a female voice. (Although I still think the U89 is tremendously overlooked and under-appreciated) 3. M49 doesn't really do low-end. Not even with a Mercury Magnetics transfo out of a Marshall 1959! It does a subtle center to low-mid push that is a mezzo or soprano 2's low-end! That's why it was "unspeakable magic" on singers like Billie Holiday (who can't she melt?) I'm sure Vincent knows what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 6, 2019 7:45:38 GMT -6
Interesting perspective. I've always looked at the M49 as the stronger pick for a deep male voice.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 6, 2019 8:10:25 GMT -6
Interesting perspective. I've always looked at the M49 as the stronger pick for a deep male voice. Really? Well, that's also a very interesting perspective. I would LOVE to hear a recording of a deep male voice with an M49. Especially one I could compare to a U47 of U67. Anyone out there able to help? Always love to learn something new!
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Feb 6, 2019 8:39:42 GMT -6
My understanding is that the AMI BV11R transformer has a little bit more low end to compensate for what is lost by not using the AC701k tube. Their BV11 transformer is supposed to be historically accurate for use with the AC701k SNIP 67 = killer workhorse 49 = unexplainable magic OK . . . take stock of a couple of things. 1. U67 is silk. M49 is even more silk. 2. U67 is magic on a male voice. M49 is magic on a female voice. (Although I still think the U89 is tremendously overlooked and under-appreciated) 3. M49 doesn't really do low-end. Not even with a Mercury Magnetics transfo out of a Marshall 1959! It does a subtle center to low-mid push that is a mezzo or soprano 2's low-end! That's why it was "unspeakable magic" on singers like Billie Holiday (who can't she melt?) I'm sure Vincent knows what I'm talking about. Hmm. M49b or m49c doesn’t do low end? I’ve always thought the m49b has great low end. But I was specifically referring to my non Neumann 49ish mic that has a historically inaccurate BV11R transformer that extends the low end. This mic has a ton of low end. It actually just has a lot going on below 1000 hz period. It pretty much always needs a high end boost, low mid cut, and high pass on vocals. If I were using it strictly for vocals I would’ve gotten a k47 capsule and regular bv11 transformer which would be closer to the m49c and would have less low and low mids.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 6, 2019 9:18:02 GMT -6
That's also curious. My time with the M49 family has been limited, but perhaps your '49ish' mic has an improvement in the low end!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Feb 6, 2019 9:29:09 GMT -6
That's also curious. My time with the M49 family has been limited, but perhaps your '49ish' mic has an improvement in the low end! A good one can but it’s not hyped, the c’s with K47’s can be a bit thin compared to some, but I wouldn’t say can’t do low end. Remember they were also used for distant mics in classical and I never heard any complaints about lowend.
|
|
|
Post by jtc111 on Feb 6, 2019 10:14:33 GMT -6
Someone suggested olive. That could look pretty sharp.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 6, 2019 10:24:19 GMT -6
Interesting perspective. I've always looked at the M49 as the stronger pick for a deep male voice. Really? Well, that's also a very interesting perspective. I would LOVE to hear a recording of a deep male voice with an M49. Especially one I could compare to a U47 of U67. Anyone out there able to help? Always love to learn something new! ?? I've never thought of the 49/249 as not having low end. I'll have to look around and see if I can find some old audio files. I did a recording @ Capitol of Oren Waters on "Frank's" U48, one of their best U67's, M249, and a variety of other mics. The only one that made my jaw drop and send shivers down my spine was the M249. He's a tenor though.... Not a deep baritone, but IMO, the 49/249 is exceptional on mic'd instruments and rooms as well as vocals. It's not the first mic I'd reach for though, but neither is a 67.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 6, 2019 10:31:19 GMT -6
Really? Well, that's also a very interesting perspective. I would LOVE to hear a recording of a deep male voice with an M49. Especially one I could compare to a U47 of U67. Anyone out there able to help? Always love to learn something new! ?? I've never thought of the 49/249 as not having low end. I'll have to look around and see if I can find some old audio files. I did a recording @ Capitol of Oren Waters on "Frank's" U48, one of their best U67's, M249, and a variety of other mics. The only one that made my jaw drop and send shivers down my spine was the M249. He's a tenor though.... Not a deep baritone, but IMO, the 49/249 is exceptional on mic'd instruments and rooms as well as vocals. It's not the first mic I'd reach for though, but neither is a 67. Would love to hear those files. I'll owe you an Orange Julius.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 6, 2019 10:56:42 GMT -6
I've never thought of the 49/249 as not having low end. Nobody said that. Certainly not I. I have just found that it doesn't have a robust/hyped low-end. I love the silkiness of the sound of the microphone, especially on femvox.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 6, 2019 10:58:50 GMT -6
i'd agree about not having "hyped" low end. Robust....eh, not sure I'd go with that though. probably semantics.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 6, 2019 11:16:17 GMT -6
I've never thought of the 49/249 as not having low end. Nobody said that. Certainly not I. I have just found that it doesn't have a robust/hyped low-end. I love the silkiness of the sound of the microphone, especially on femvox.
To be fair, I can see how the statement "M49 doesn't really do low-end." could be taken to mean it doesn't have low end. That's kind of how I read it. Though I can also see how it could mean not being robust/hyped as well. Semantics indeed.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 6, 2019 11:22:43 GMT -6
Interesting perspective. I've always looked at the M49 as the stronger pick for a deep male voice. Really? Well, that's also a very interesting perspective. I would LOVE to hear a recording of a deep male voice with an M49. Especially one I could compare to a U47 of U67. Anyone out there able to help? Always love to learn something new! Nick Cave says his mic of choice is an M49. If you Google that there are multiple mentions of it, including elsewhere on this message board from someone who knows him. Not the deepest voice in the world, but certainly on the deeper side of popular male singers. I've read that BB King and Tony Bennet used them also, but my guess is they worked with lots of others too.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 6, 2019 11:46:45 GMT -6
[/div][/quote] Semantics? I don't mean to be all "I told you so" but . . . Neumann M49 Cardioid frequency response chart[/u] Neumann M49 Omni frequency response chart[/u] Compare that to a U47 Neumann U47 Cardioid frequency response chart[/u] Neumann U47 Omni frequency response chart[/u] How about we compare that to a U67? even more dramatic a difference in Omni.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Feb 6, 2019 12:28:40 GMT -6
Anyone else notice the striking resemblance of both in omni to...
Loch Ness's "Nessie"? Coincidence or something more? Chris
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 6, 2019 12:31:12 GMT -6
[/quote][/div] Semantics? I don't mean to be all "I told you so" but . . . Neumann M49 Cardioid frequency response chart[/u] Neumann M49 Omni frequency response chart[/u] Compare that to a U47 Neumann U47 Cardioid frequency response chart[/u] Neumann U47 Omni frequency response chart[/u] How about we compare that to a U67? even more dramatic a difference in Omni. [/quote][/div]
Told me so? Told me what? I've never been in contradiction to either of your statements.
Go ahead and put into words what the -5db at 30hz means on the 49. Does it mean the "M49 doesn't really do low-end"? Several other people have thought otherwise in their responses. In reality, those charts can be described in English in many ways that can then be interpreted in even more ways. Which is by the way, semantics. That is literally my only point.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 6, 2019 18:06:15 GMT -6
Ok... Mister Chase, In other words . . . I don't wish to come across as a complete dick, a tool, an arsehole, an asshole, a know-it-all, someone who is holier-than-thou, a dweeb, a smartpants, a nincumpoop, a doorknob, a juice-arse, a douche bag or any similar derogtaory form of "all I told you so". It's an English Language euphamism and nothing more. Just demonstrating that it's not just my hearing that perceives the M49 as being lighter in it's bass reproduction, but scientific measurements show the same. And oddly enough, I made the statement before I went to Tape-op for diagrams illustrating the same.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Feb 6, 2019 18:11:21 GMT -6
Ok... Mister Chase, In other words . . . I don't wish to come across as a complete dick, a tool, an arsehole, an asshole, a know-it-all, someone who is holier-than-thou, a dweeb, a smartpants, a nincumpoop, a doorknob, a juice-arse, a douche bag or any similar derogtaory form of "all I told you so". It's an English Language euphamism and nothing more. Just demonstrating that it's not just my hearing that perceives the M49 as being lighter in it's bass reproduction, but scientific measurements show the same. And oddly enough, I made the statement before I went to Tape-op for diagrams illustrating the same. Graphs we don’t need no stinking Graphs! Now we all know mic response graphs are pretty useless at truly showing the response of a mic and even then in close micing situation give us absolutely no idea of what the proximity effect is like, but they are interesting.
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Feb 6, 2019 18:45:26 GMT -6
Ha, so we go from the m49 doesn’t do low end, to I never said it doesn’t have low end, certainly not I, to here are some graphs showing it doesn’t have low end and I told you so.
Anyway, who knows which iteration of the m49 these graphs show? B or C circuit? Which transformer? Which capsule? A pvc m7 that dried out and lost its low end decades ago? Too many iterations and variables to to say this is the definitive frequency response of an m49.
All I know is the one I used had what I would call a robust low end, and it’s been a favorite of many prominent engineers for micing things like upright bass, cello, and horns specifically because of the great low end.
|
|
|
Post by jtc111 on Feb 6, 2019 19:50:30 GMT -6
mdmitch2, you can avoid the entire 47/49 low end war by going with the 67.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 6, 2019 19:58:35 GMT -6
Ok... Mister Chase , In other words . . . I don't wish to come across as a complete dick, a tool, an arsehole, an asshole, a know-it-all, someone who is holier-than-thou, a dweeb, a smartpants, a nincumpoop, a doorknob, a juice-arse, a douche bag or any similar derogtaory form of "all I told you so". It's an English Language euphamism and nothing more. Just demonstrating that it's not just my hearing that perceives the M49 as being lighter in it's bass reproduction, but scientific measurements show the same. And oddly enough, I made the statement before I went to Tape-op for diagrams illustrating the same. Yes, I understand.
Still not, nor have I been, in contradiction to your statements about the sound of the mic. We're just not operating on the same planet here, so I am going to leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Feb 6, 2019 20:02:35 GMT -6
mdmitch2, you can avoid the entire 47/49 low end war by going with the 67. Sounds good to me! We’re leaning that way anyway.... I think the 67 makes more sense for us right now. To be honest I started this thread thinking we would make a 251 next, but the great feedback here has helped to steer us in a bit of a different direction....
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Feb 6, 2019 20:55:06 GMT -6
Maybe 84 style after that? Chris
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 6, 2019 21:10:13 GMT -6
Ok... Mister Chase , In other words . . . I don't wish to come across as a complete dick, a tool, an arsehole, an asshole, a know-it-all, someone who is holier-than-thou, a dweeb, a smartpants, a nincumpoop, a doorknob, a juice-arse, a douche bag or any similar derogtaory form of "all I told you so". It's an English Language euphemism and nothing more. Just demonstrating that it's not just my hearing that perceives the M49 as being lighter in it's bass reproduction, but scientific measurements show the same. And oddly enough, I made the statement before I went to Tape-op for diagrams illustrating the same. Yes, I understand. Still not, nor have I been, in contradiction to your statements about the sound of the mic. We're just not operating on the same planet here, so I am going to leave it at that. I resemble that remark. And I apologize.
|
|