|
Post by Vincent R. on Jul 28, 2019 7:21:30 GMT -6
Just a few thoughts here looking at this from a different angle. Martin John Butler and I both did big vocal shootouts at The Barbershop Studios courtesy of jeremygillespie. Both of us tried a lot of the microphones there and it's that U67 sound that I know Martin's been chasing. When Martin did his shoot out you could hear how the U67 seemed to make his voice bigger than life. On my voice it was quite the opposite. The U67 seemed a little dull and needing a bit of EQ to open up the top, at least when compared to the M49C which both Martin and I tried. Personally, I think if you listen to Martin's U67 take from that shoot out and then the SA67 with the TC cap you'll hear much more similarity in how they are capturing his voice. Now there are plenty of variables there; That room is amazing and Martin is making due in a room in his apartment in NYC. I'm not sure what preamp was used in Martin's test at Barbershop. Conversion, etc.... That said, after listening to all those samples, I still think that the TC is closer to what Martin was looking for.
The Heiserman capsule reminds me a bit of my old MK67. I have maintained that the MK67 is on the darker side, even for a U67 and seems to have a thicker low mid thing going on. I had brought it with me to test next to the U67 at Barbershop. Some people love the MK67 for that very reason. I found it a little hard to use on my voice and my wife's without a huge EQ boost. because there seemed to be a more dramatic roll off on the top. The Heiserman is doing a bit of that. I don't think either of these mics is bad, but it's probably more a matter of taste and source. I actually loved Martin's voice on my MK67 when I brought it to his place. When I first heard Stam's YouTube shootout I noted then that his original SA67 design had more of a dull top end than the U67, but had nice thickness, while the Reissue seemed much brighter than both, but brought a ton of top end detail to the equation. I think the TC get more of the middle ground and I'd love to hear Stam do another shoot out like that with the new SA67 MKII.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 28, 2019 7:38:11 GMT -6
Thanks guys. Since I will be putting the Telefunken 806S in the TC cap mic, Will have the opportunity to hear both mics with the same tube which should clear things up quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Jul 28, 2019 8:57:37 GMT -6
I would use mic 1 on the guitar and mic 2 on the vocal. Overall, I like the warmth of the Heiserman and it would be my first choice.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 28, 2019 9:19:05 GMT -6
Great discussion. The U67 that was used for comparison in this build has a very nice open top end compared to many darker examples. The most common complaint , if you could call it that, for musicians using U67's, even reissues or Max's clone, for the first time has almost unanimously been to describe them as being too damped in the high frequencies to be useful without eq. K67 type capsules don't posses the smooth top end of a CK12 and I'm sure most of you have experienced just how rough that top end can sound when you've had to boost the high end of a U87 using eq. Cutting frequencies, unless very narrow band, almost always results in less artifacts. All this being said, as with any of my capsules, if someone were to buy this mic with my CT67 and wanted the more vintage vibe they can send it to me and I'd be glad to make it that much darker but I believe that after living with it as it is you'll come to agree that we've struck a good balance. So Tim - to clarify - you guys are shooting for a modded U67 type of voicing as opposed to a stock U67 voicing? As an aside, my experience EQ-ing the HF up on stock U67's has been wonderful. I'm not sure what the U87 comparison is meant to point to as we're discussing the 67 here exclusively. Thanks for the clarifying if you can....
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 28, 2019 9:39:24 GMT -6
I’ve not experienced anything quite as pleasant in the upper frequencies as a good EQ boosting a good 67. It’s just so inviting.
That’s interesting that Stam/TC appear to have been aiming for ‘what people wish a U67 sounded like’ as opposed to the classic, mellow U67 sonics. That could explain the pretty drastic difference we hear in Martin’s clips.
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 28, 2019 9:50:28 GMT -6
Dr Bill, not at all. The U67 used as a baseline was completely stock. Old microphones can be found in all states of disaray and some 67's are brighter or darker as to their condition, tube used, etc. The reference to the K87 is that they use exactly the same capsule and it's non-linearity in the top end can be most easily heard on the U87. In my many years as an engineer I can honestly say that though a U67 can be a wonderful vocal mic and has been used to great effect on many recordings it was never my go to vocal mic when we had U47's and C12's around. After their heyday many U67's I ran across during the 90's sounded lackluster and microphonic because they were poorly maintained. People used to think nothing of smoking while they were around or even singing in microphones. I'd guess most in service today have at least been retubed and their capsules cleaned.
Ragan that was not what I was saying or implying. As I stated above we used a very pristine U67 for all our work, it was just not the darkest (mellowest) we could find though we did audition some of those also.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 28, 2019 9:57:44 GMT -6
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 28, 2019 9:59:41 GMT -6
I’ve not experienced anything quite as pleasant in the upper frequencies as a good EQ boosting a good 67. It’s just so inviting. I wholeheartedly agree with this. <thumbsup>
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 28, 2019 10:12:51 GMT -6
Dr Bill, not at all. The U67 used as a baseline was completely stock. Old microphones can be found in all states of disaray and some 67's are brighter or darker as to their condition, tube used, etc. The reference to the K87 is that they use exactly the same capsule and it's non-linearity in the top end can be most easily heard on the U87. In my many years as an engineer I can honestly say that though a U67 can be a wonderful vocal mic and has been used to great effect on many recordings it was never my go to vocal mic when we had U47's and C12's around. After their heyday many U67's I ran across during the 90's sounded lackluster and microphonic because they were poorly maintained. People used to think nothing of smoking while they were around or even singing in microphones. I'd guess most in service today have at least been retubed and their capsules cleaned. My main experience with U67's is at Capitol studio's. I believe they have 16 or 18 or something like that. All stock. All sounding wonderful. I've actually had the fun opportunity to have used ALL of them on a single session I did there once. That was a blast. The one thing I noticed? How consistent they were to each other. Remarkably so. But then, none of them were "fixed" or modded. Just maintained to sound as they should. Going out to other studio's where the mics come from who knows where, yeah, agreed, they are all over the map. Fixed, components swapped, modded...who knows what you will get. While I tend to agree with you that a U67 is not the first mic I might reach for on a vocal (modern especially), I agree with Ragan that EQing a well maintained stock 67 brings out the most glorious sound. While I understand your comparison of the 87 vs 67 due to using the same capsule, in practice, a HF boost on a 67 is much smoother than the same HF boost on a 87, so that point is kind of moot. What I personally do not want is a pre-EQ'd or "open" version of a 67 because it naturally sits better with a vocal. TO ME (and it sounds like to Martin as this is kind of his thread with his expectations, clips, etc.) - I want what some might call "dull" (or call it what you like) STOCK U67 sound when I pull up a 67. You know, the way Neumann designed them to sound. I don't want the "pre-mixed" modded or open sound of a lot of the 67's and 67 clones out there. They are not as easy to deal with as the natural voicing. A stock 67 is a breeze to get sounding great. No matter how much HF you might need to add. (Within reason of course). If you can't get it sounding great with a little HF, then you need to look towards another mic. The Townsend track, or Martin's own track that he cut on a vintage model is the classic sound of a 67 to me. That's what I expect them to sound like. Honestly, the TC capsule on the Stam is brighter than what I would expect a 67 to sound like, although it sounds like you'd be able to get it into the zone by modding the capsule. The Heiserman equipped Stam67 has something going on as well. Cheers, and thanks for the clarification. Best, Bill PS -- to clarify -- <<my opinion only>>
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 28, 2019 10:17:43 GMT -6
I’ve not experienced anything quite as pleasant in the upper frequencies as a good EQ boosting a good 67. It’s just so inviting. I wholeheartedly agree with this. <thumbsup> I’m gonna echo this. When I tested and bought my U67 (reissue) the Soyuz 017 was almost coming on top just because it was brighter. As soon as we put the slightest top shelf boost on the U67 I almost got tears in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 28, 2019 10:19:33 GMT -6
I wholeheartedly agree with this. <thumbsup> I’m gonna echo this. When I tested and bought my U67 (reissue) the Soyuz 017 was almost coming on top just because it was brighter. As soon as we put the slightest top shelf boost on the U67 I almost got tears in my eyes. yeah man!!! that's what I'm talkin' about!!!
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 28, 2019 10:46:24 GMT -6
Bill what a fantastic experience. I haven't been as lucky obviously. In +45 years of engineering I've only used U67's as I've found them in this or that studio maintained or not. For this build however we did assemble as many U67's at one time as we could and no one prefered the dullest of them. The one we did pick was stock and did sound as Neumann built it.
As I've stated earlier though I'm very happy to serve my customers and give them a voicing they'd prefer. I don't agree however that externally equalizing a darker mic somehow must sound better than one that has an inherent more natural frequency response.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 28, 2019 11:01:09 GMT -6
I don't agree however that externally equalizing a darker mic somehow must sound better than one that has an inherent more natural frequency response. Thanks Tim. We'll have to disagree then - at least when it comes to the U67. The reason people have gravitated to the U67 (IMO) is for 2 reasons : 1.) People are preferring darker mics after all the uber-bright chinese nonsense - finding joy in Ribbons and other options, but wanting a euphonic tube mic that is ribbon-like, and : 2.) That a dark mic which in fact NEEDS to be EQ'd like the 67 does can be EQ'd to perfection very easily, while other mics - the U47 or C12 to use your examples, are already brighter, and they may or may not work as preferred. Needing De-essing, EQing (cuts), or etc..
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jul 28, 2019 11:05:55 GMT -6
Don't disagree drill. I wanted to get started, and so I just used what was in each mic, so I'll consider this Part I. My next move will be to try the Telefunken 806S in the TC mic. Just for kicks I will try the Siemens in the Heiserman, just so I know. In a bigger mix, I think Mic 1 would sit better. I do like the push in the low end of mic 2, it's quite 67-ish in that regard. But that said, the transparency and detail of Mic 1 wins me over. It would be very cool if the EF86 added a pinch more low end to Mic 1, then it would be a monster, like Ragan described. We'll see soon, probably won't have tracking time until Monday afternoon. I only quickly listed to solo voice... I like mic 2 better.... Mic 1 is honky cloudy but louder so hard to tell exactly....
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 28, 2019 11:06:29 GMT -6
As I've stated earlier though I'm very happy to serve my customers and give them a voicing they'd prefer. That is awesome Tim. If you guys hit an off the shelf version that sounded like the Pete Townsend track and Martin's track on the vintage 67 and could get them "in stock", you'd sell a kazillion of them. Thats what I believe people want from a 67. My opinion of course. Ps - of note : vocals are not the main reason for U67's IMO. At least not from my experience. There are so many other fantastic uses that really call out for a less bright / sibilant mic. String overheads for example. I love using 67's in close mic formation overhead of violins in an orchestral scoring session. Certain brass situations where I want the euphonic vibe of a tube mic instead of a ribbon, drum overheads, and on and on. There ARE reasons for a less bright U67.....
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jul 28, 2019 11:16:10 GMT -6
Ps - of note : vocals are not the main reason for U67's IMO. At least not from my experience. There are so many other fantastic uses that really call out for a less bright / sibilant mic. String overheads for example. I love using 67's in close mic formation overhead of violins in an orchestral scoring session. Certain brass situations where I want the euphonic vibe of a tube mic instead of a ribbon, drum overheads, and on and on. There ARE reasons for a less bright U67..... Bill on this we agree 100%
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 28, 2019 11:29:30 GMT -6
I wholeheartedly agree with this. <thumbsup> I’m gonna echo this. When I tested and bought my U67 (reissue) the Soyuz 017 was almost coming on top just because it was brighter. As soon as we put the slightest top shelf boost on the U67 I almost got tears in my eyes. Same here. Had the Soyuz and U67 side by side. Soyuz sounded “better” by comparison. Sounded prettier, pre-eq’d. But once you start molding the U67, it can go in a lot of different directions, more so than the Soyuz.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jul 28, 2019 11:44:21 GMT -6
My take on these various recordings was I picked #1 over #2 up until the final file. Mostly, #1 seemed to have a more exciting push in upper mids. But the voice and guitar together, the #2 recording kind of fit together better.
Mind you, these were extremely close to me, and given that 95% of anyone doing production would reach for an EQ, on either mic, the comparison seems a little useless. Both are quality.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 28, 2019 17:26:45 GMT -6
I always expected I'd end up with something U47-ish or a C-12. When I tried the vintage C12, M49, U47, I also brought the Soyuz 0-19 FET and the Blackspade UM-17R with me. The Blackspade was meant to fall somewhere in-between the U47 and M49, and it did.
When I finally got to the U67 it was like fireworks, my head went back and I though whoa, now we're talkin'. I was Sinatra for a minute. The Chandler Redd had the same effect.
This is one reason I've had difficulty getting a vocal mic that's the right fit. U67's aren't easily copied and made cheap in China, and I totally get that the most common go to mic in pro situations would probably be a U47. The Soyuz 0-17, (the one with the tube), also worked beautifully for me. So I learned the K67 style capsule was the best fit for my voice, but nothing I liked under $3,500 was available. Stam Audio's SA67 was kind of my last hope, and it's great that I have one mic that very similar to the darker original and one that's more balanced to choose from. I prefer the detail the TC capsule brings, but do love the low end honk the Heiserman has. When I switch tubes tomorrow, that should clarify. If I have to, I might just send it to Tim Campbell for a fine tuning, but I think the tube switch may just get me there and I won't have to bother.
I will also try to EQ the Heiserman, just to see how that goes.
What frequencies do you guys typically boost on a U67? Is there any particular plug-in EQ you like? Can't wait until tomorrow when I can do another session..
* just had a listen after getting away for a while, I noticed how well the T.C cap handled the highs, they were smooth, not attenuated, but smooth and no extra sibilance. The Heiserman seemed a little pinched when I hit it hard with some edgy vocals. It's the highs that have bugged me the most on many modern mics. Just one more point to consider.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 28, 2019 18:11:39 GMT -6
It's not a frequency you lift on a U67...it's the frequency you lift on a VOICE...and it's always unique. That's why preEQ'd mics are hard to work with. Unless it happens to be THAT right one for THAT voice, you're stuck with it...
I mean, I didn't really think the vocal NEEDED more highs with #2. The acoustic did...I don't know 7khz shelf by 1.5 or 2db? Or you could try a 12khz CENTERED bell...maybe just a Slate Revival and spin up the "air" to 9 or 10 oclock. It's just not remotely hard to add high end to a mic and tailor it to the source. So long as the mic has GOOD HF capture. People seem obsess about the AMOUNT of HF in the capture...but, I just want it to be a GOOD HF capture. Raising the LEVEL of that can be done pretty easily with a WIDE variety of tools.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 28, 2019 18:39:12 GMT -6
Thanks Popmann.
I looked around and I have:
Softube Sie-Q Tokyo Dawn Labs Slick EQ, Waves Puigtec, Linear Phase H-EQ R-Channel SSL EQ V EQ 3 & 4 UAD Pultecs Waves API-550A, B, 560, Logic's Vintage EQ and Channel EQ.
I'm probably missing a few.
For those digging Mic 2 on vocals, (Heiserman) what frequencies would you boost on the T.C mic to come closer in tone?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 28, 2019 19:29:43 GMT -6
Thanks Popmann. I looked around and I have: Softube Sie-Q Tokyo Dawn Labs Slick EQ, Waves Puigtec, Linear Phase H-EQ R-Channel SSL EQ V EQ 3 & 4 UAD Pultecs Waves API-550A, B, 560, Logic's Vintage EQ and Channel EQ. I'm probably missing a few. For those digging Mic 2 on vocals, (Heiserman) what frequencies would you boost on the T.C mic to come closer in tone? Try a 12k lift on the UAD Pultec, MJB.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jul 28, 2019 20:01:03 GMT -6
deleted
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 28, 2019 21:00:49 GMT -6
uhh Ward, mic #1 is the Tim Campbell capsule.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 28, 2019 23:01:51 GMT -6
Why would you boost on the one that sounds less good? Do you mean to give the air to #2? If its the Mk2 UaD Pultecs, 12khz....on the narrow side but not all the way and pretty boosted. If its a mk1, use the Waves. IKs will sound better if you are working at single sample rate, as it will resample internally.
If you mean Soundtoys SiEQ....its a nice shelf....start at whatever point is near to 7-8khz and only do a 1.5db or something.
Honestly my first call isnt eq....Slate’s free Revival works really well to just add a little kind of tubey top air.
|
|