|
Post by adamjbrass on Aug 4, 2020 9:03:00 GMT -6
^I’m VERY happy with the Redline M7 that is in there already. I’ve compared it directly too. The BA-49 is way wider and way more 3D.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Aug 4, 2020 9:39:22 GMT -6
I have a Wunder CM7GTS (suprema) with a Thiersch Red in it. I've done extensive tests with it against a U48. It holds it's own and has a very similar quality. The U48 had a touch more air but I also think that U48 had a K47 capsule and the red is an M7 but uses mylar. Both are very nice and wouldn't hold anyone back from making great recordings. On a side note, I used to think that a U47 was the best mic for all sources but have come to realize that a U47 is not always the right choice. I didn't find it to be the right mic on some female voices and it is not my favorite on instruments. On the right vocalist, it can be magic though. Maybe it was the cost of the mic that made me think it would be a great mic on everything, but I was wrong. On acoustic guitar, give me a KM84 or Oktava MC012 over a U47. Hard to believe a mic I paid $100 beats out a super expensive U47 clone on anything.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 4, 2020 10:04:27 GMT -6
I can't wait to do some more with my SA67, but I won't be recording anything for a while. The cool thing is it hangs in there against the Chandler, which honestly surprised me. Interesting. From my expectations, they would kind of be polar opposites if the SA67 is indeed dark like a vintage non-modded 67. The Chandler is bright, but sweet.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Aug 4, 2020 10:13:31 GMT -6
THX guys great answers. I stay with the UMT70 seeing cost versus performance I can't complain.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Aug 4, 2020 10:37:50 GMT -6
THX guys great answers. I stay with the UMT70 seeing cost versus performance I can't complain. It’s easy to want to chase the latest and greatest, it’s hard to realize you have a classic at that price point.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 4, 2020 11:22:57 GMT -6
THX guys great answers. I stay with the UMT70 seeing cost versus performance I can't complain. Get yourself a great tube pre to go with it for a little more flexibility. Locomotive Weight Tank WT72 or perhaps a Coil CA70 if you really want darker and woolier.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 4, 2020 12:11:06 GMT -6
Grasshopper (that's me) thanks you guys, for the great feedback... Chris
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 4, 2020 12:42:46 GMT -6
I can't wait to do some more with my SA67, but I won't be recording anything for a while. The cool thing is it hangs in there against the Chandler, which honestly surprised me. Interesting. From my expectations, they would kind of be polar opposites if the SA67 is indeed dark like a vintage non-modded 67. The Chandler is bright, but sweet. You're not wrong Dr. Bill. What I by meant "hang in there" was it's of such good quality that you might choose it over a REDD 47 for some voices. My first impression is the SA67 tone seems to be in-between the classic 67 sound and the reissue, but I think the tube choice determines the final tone factor. My way of describing the vintage Neumann U67 is that it's the biggest sounding mic of all. Somehow the soundstage is wider, yet the forward focus remains. It never leans into Omni territory. I've tried some mics attempting to be big, but their pickup pattern felt too narrow, or too wide and diffuse. The vintage 67 does it perfectly. The Chandler was the only other mic I'd heard that pulled off that magic trick. I've only had time to try the Stam SA67 for an hour or two, but it had the power and attack a U67 should have. Once I have more time with it, I'll know just where it stands against those other heavyweights. I've posted this before, but you can hear for yourself how the vintage U67 sounds compared to a vintage U47, C12, M49 and my Soyuz 0-19, as well as the Blackspade UM17R I used to own. The surprising thing was the Soyuz placed third IMO. It sounds much like the vintage U47, but without the 47's beautiful tube harmonics. My description of the vintage U47 was that it was perfectly balanced. realgearonline.com/thread/5685/high-end-mic-shootout-preview?page=4
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 4, 2020 12:53:28 GMT -6
I have a Wunder CM7GTS (suprema) with a Thiersch Red in it. I've done extensive tests with it against a U48. It holds it's own and has a very similar quality. The U48 had a touch more air but I also think that U48 had a K47 capsule and the red is an M7 but uses mylar. Both are very nice and wouldn't hold anyone back from making great recordings. On a side note, I used to think that a U47 was the best mic for all sources but have come to realize that a U47 is not always the right choice. I didn't find it to be the right mic on some female voices and it is not my favorite on instruments. On the right vocalist, it can be magic though. Maybe it was the cost of the mic that made me think it would be a great mic on everything, but I was wrong. On acoustic guitar, give me a KM84 or Oktava MC012 over a U47. Hard to believe a mic I paid $100 beats out a super expensive U47 clone on anything. I recently had a female on the U47. I didn't like the outcome and I should have used the C12 or something else as the U47 was much too woofy on her voice and I resorted to cutting a LOT of low end out. Also, the redline capsule is actually the same as the Gefell M9, which as you pointed out is just a mylar version of the M7. The mylar is a bit brighter and cleaner than the PVC but lacks the husky low end.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 4, 2020 13:56:09 GMT -6
MJB, if you compared the Soyuz 019 (now 017 FET), to the 017 Tube version... How are they the same/different? Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 4, 2020 14:30:34 GMT -6
The tube brings harmonics and some natural compression. The Soyuz 0-19 FET sounds a lot like the 0-17 (tube), but the lush quality a good tube mic can have isn't there. They're the same mic except for the tube. It's similar to a comparing a U87 to a U67, but the sound difference between them isn't as big as the Neumann's.
To me, FET mics are a bit flatter sounding than tube mics.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 4, 2020 14:53:54 GMT -6
Thanks MJB. Not enough experience with high quality tube LDC's (although I kid about my MXL V69!), to make a definitive judgement. But... I'm starting to think for singers with thick/strong Low Mid's (like me in full voice), it can be a toss up on the Tube vs. FET choice. IMHO for someone with "monster Low Mid's" (not quite me! ) like Lou Rawls... This was why the Neumann 47 FET was a terrific choice on him, for "You'll Never Know". Chris
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 4, 2020 16:54:13 GMT -6
Side-by-side for a lead vocal, you would probably pick a U67 almost every time over a U87. But when it comes to mixing, the 87 sits in easier and still sounds great, so it depends. If you owned the 87, you probably don’t need a 67 all that much.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 8, 2020 18:19:01 GMT -6
The tube brings harmonics and some natural compression. The Soyuz 0-19 FET sounds a lot like the 0-17 (tube), but the lush quality a good tube mic can have isn't there. They're the same mic except for the tube. It's similar to a comparing a U87 to a U67, but the sound difference between them isn't as big as the Neumann's. To me, FET mics are a bit flatter sounding than tube mics. There's something infinitely more pleasing to the ears about even order harmonics!
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 8, 2020 18:33:59 GMT -6
It's definitely a FET-ish for all of us... Chris
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 8, 2020 18:43:52 GMT -6
It's definitely a FET-ish for all of us... Chris OMG . . . so.... bad . . . .
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 8, 2020 19:01:44 GMT -6
I know. Done with a fiendish-almost human intelligence... Chris
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Aug 8, 2020 19:45:47 GMT -6
It's definitely a FET-ish for all of us... Chris OMG . . . so.... bad . . . . He is a bit of an Odd harmonic.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 8, 2020 20:34:52 GMT -6
That's a bit heavy PUNishment for the crime.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 8, 2020 21:50:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Aug 8, 2020 21:51:12 GMT -6
Yeah. Now that I'm recording more regularly I've learned what an asset the U87 is. On my Christmas Album its showing up on all of the background vocals done at my place (Emily, myself, my mom, and my siblings.... yes we all sing). I like it on acoustic guitar; maybe not soloed, but in the mix its great. It sounds so nice on cello. The U67 is a little more specific and I prefer it to the U87 almost every time on lead vocals. When the U47 is "magic," it is untouchable. Its just not "magic" as often as a U67 or U87 is"just right." I'm not sure if you're doing any type of 'toys' percussion, shakers, tambourines, triangles etc, if you ARE, try the U87 on those.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 9, 2020 5:18:21 GMT -6
That's a bit heavy PUNishment for the crime. My backplate is against the wall, I'm polarized, and no phantom power is gonna save me.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Aug 9, 2020 6:36:45 GMT -6
Yeah. Now that I'm recording more regularly I've learned what an asset the U87 is. On my Christmas Album its showing up on all of the background vocals done at my place (Emily, myself, my mom, and my siblings.... yes we all sing). I like it on acoustic guitar; maybe not soloed, but in the mix its great. It sounds so nice on cello. The U67 is a little more specific and I prefer it to the U87 almost every time on lead vocals. When the U47 is "magic," it is untouchable. Its just not "magic" as often as a U67 or U87 is"just right." I'm not sure if you're doing any type of 'toys' percussion, shakers, tambourines, triangles etc, if you ARE, try the U87 on those. Will do. If I’m honest, all this use of the U87 these days is making me consider a donor mic for my modded MK67 so I don’t have to keep swapping the circuits back and forth.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Aug 9, 2020 9:33:09 GMT -6
That's a bit heavy PUNishment for the crime. My backplate is against the wall, I'm polarized, and no phantom power is gonna save me. For Vincent, the Phantom of the Opera will!
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Aug 17, 2020 1:54:28 GMT -6
MJB, if you compared the Soyuz 019 (now 017 FET), to the 017 Tube version... How are they the same/different? Thanks, Chris mikec has both, and could add to the discussion for you. I have the 0-19 (now 0-17 FET, as you pointed out), and I used to have a U195 like yourself. So I can offer some comparisons there if useful. Though I sometimes wonder if something wasn’t quite right with my 195. I owned it for probably 10 yrs, and by the end, I decided I only really liked it on acoustic guitar, and essentially nothing else. Mine was very sibilant on many vocalists. So I sold it. The 0-17 FET is a beguiling creature. I just did a bunch of VO work on it (my voice) and it proved challenging in the top end: sibilance and 1-2kHz harshness. But then I used it a couple weeks later on my voice singing, and it was damn near perfect for a FET mic. Vanishingly little EQ needed. I was using my Weight Tank WT-72 mic pre in that case, which really does change things and give just a bit of that tube pre liveliness or breath. And the 17 FET sounds *killer* on acoustic guitar. Right now in my space I have their 0-13 FET set up about 20 inches in front of the 10th fret, pointing off axis at the neck joint and then the 0-17 FET in front and over my right shoulder, looking almost straight down, brushing across the bridge-ish area. Panned hard L/R, it sounds HUGE, with warm attitude but enough dynamic range to play sensitive finger style or driven pick. It’s a real nice setup. The kind of mic setup that makes me say, “OK, now I need an OM-style guitar again. Wish I hadn’t sold that last one.”
|
|