|
|
Post by littlesicily on Apr 12, 2014 9:25:17 GMT -6
I'll never regret selling 3 mics to fund the u67. Yesterday, I just kept raising/lowering the mic stand of the 67 to record just about everything... acgtr, lead vocal, bgv, banjo... was incredible on everything and so easy to shape with eq where needed.
The other knock-off mics I've had in the past were good and I could *get there* but always took a lot more work. (To a lesser degree a great u87 can work similarly, but lacks the luster of a 67. There's just something about those Neumann caps.)
I guess it's a trade off of time/money. I actually think the u67 saves me time and therefore money and over time justifies it's cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Apr 12, 2014 9:26:20 GMT -6
Popmann is right on. The modded mic sounds really nice. To do what is described above I bet you would have to do some surgical eq cuts in the upper mids to smooth out that range. Then you could go for the compression and pultec. Not a big deal with a really nice digital eq. John, what tube is in your mic? Tubes make a big difference. The DIY 67's I built do that well. I do track with pultec eq on them and they sound great. They do sometimes get a little peaky around 3k when I push them hard there. These use the BeezNees capsules. My 269 I built is super smooth and sweet. It has a original Neumann capsule in it. I have heard a pair of Stephen Paul Modded 67's with 3 microns capsules. Yuck! Why ruin a good thing. , I'd love to hear your DIY 67, 269 sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by kidvybes on Apr 12, 2014 9:35:20 GMT -6
I have heard a pair of Stephen Paul Modded 67's with 3 microns capsules. Yuck! Why ruin a good thing. ...if I remember correctly, doesn't Shannon also use the thinner mylar materials?... |
|
halfstar
Full Member
I like music.
Posts: 25 
|
Post by halfstar on Apr 13, 2014 7:27:52 GMT -6
I ran my Chandler Germanium pre through my modded CV4 the other day and it sure as hell reminded me of a 67. Knocked some of the top off, gave it that beautiful harmonic distortion in the mids and a bigger bottom - which was the description John gave regarding the 67. P.S. If there's still anyone out there who's on the fence about Shannon's mod - GET IT DONE!
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 13, 2014 8:30:23 GMT -6
Gotta differ with you guys a little here. First of all, the mics are recording the same thing, so they should sound quite similar ;-) The subtleties are things we've trained ourselves to notice, and the average musician wouldn't notice much difference at all. I hear a certain shrillness in the CV4 that reminds me of a trumpet, but it's clearly a very good mic and you can take care of business with it. If you go to www.gauge-usa.com/Gauge_Microphones/Home.html they have a shootout with their $150 and $450 mics with a C12, U47, U67, 414. They are in the same direction, their mics sound good, but when you hear the C12, you know what you're paying for. I've learned that small differences eventually become what you focus on. So, a mic might seem really good at first, but once you notice an area that's not quite right, that becomes ALL you hear, You can't get away from it, EQ all you want, it's still there, like a mustard spot on a $50 tie. Now.. that U67 is the deal, no qualifications. THAT's what we all want, at least one world class mic that is a perfect example of itself. Cowboy could do 10 albums with just that mic if he had to, and you wouldn't miss a thing. Twenty years back, I used a vintage U87 on a hundred local radio and TV spots, one mic, and believe me, that $hit was money, because that mic was high end. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 13, 2014 8:52:53 GMT -6
On a related note, mic tones have fooled me for a while, but not for long. Case in point. Shannon installed the Thiersch M7 Blueline capsule in my Blackspade U17 6 weeks ago.. He was the second pro whose opinion I trust who said it reminded him of a U49. I don't know the U49, so I can't comment to that. When I first gave it a try at home, I was quite disappointed, I expected something like a U47 or C12. The hype around Oliver Archut's BV8 transformer and the Thiersch capsule had led me to think I'd be world class once the mod was done.
Deflated, I started looking for another mic in the 2k price range, and thought I might sell the U17 Blueline. I was interested in the Lauten Atlantis, and Fab Dupont and his incredible staff at Flux Studios here in Manhattan kindly allowed me to stop by and test the Lauten vs. the U17 Blueline.
The Atlantis is pro, very FET Neuman-ish, and I've used the U47 FET, so I know it. It has 3 different settings, 2 are useful. I always thought of my voice as being in the Chris Isaak, Bryan Ferry tone range, and vintage Neumann's are what they use. I sent the files to Cowboy and kcatthedog for a second opinion, and cowboy said he thought the Blackspade just killed the Atlantis, saying it sounds exactly the way he tries to get vocal mics to sound in his tracks. The engineer at Flux commented in a similar way, saying it sounds like it's EQ'd already. I thought it was a little thin. I placed the Blackspade in the track, and voila! That worked. I've done a few more things with the Blackspade, and I'm now starting to love it. The highs are there in a big way, but no sibilance, no edge, just there, beautifully. I'm also finding that I don't need to EQ much, if at all,
So.. I'm saying mics are like wives and girlfriends, they might seem sexy at first, but it takes a while to know who they really are. Until I have enough coin for a U67 or C12, I'll happily keep romancing my Blackspade.
Kudos to Sinsay/Shannon and cowboycoalminer for picking it as a winner, long before I could hear it.
I can save face by telling myself that maybe it's just breaking in now .. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Apr 13, 2014 9:17:41 GMT -6
Gotta differ with you guys a little here. First of all, the mics are recording the same thing, so they should sound quite similar ;-) The subtleties are things we've trained ourselves to notice, and the average musician wouldn't notice much difference at all. I hear a certain shrillness in the CV4 that reminds me of a trumpet, but it's clearly a very good mic and you can take care of business with it. If you go to www.gauge-usa.com/Gauge_Microphones/Home.html they have a shootout with their $150 and $450 mics with a C12, U47, U67, 414. They are in the same direction, their mics sound good, but when you hear the C12, you know what you're paying for. I've learned that small differences eventually become what you focus on. So, a mic might seem really good at first, but once you notice an area that's not quite right, that becomes ALL you hear, You can't get away from it, EQ all  you want, it's still there, like a mustard spot on a $50 tie. Now.. that U67 is the deal, no qualifications. THAT's what we all want, at least one world class mic that is a perfect example of itself. Cowboy could do 10 albums with just that mic if he had to, and you wouldn't miss a thing. Twenty years back, I used a vintage U87 on a hundred local radio and TV spots, one mic, and believe me, that $hit was money, because that mic was high end. This has been my exact experience with all the $1500-$3000 LDC's I've owned/tried that were sudo-replacements for vintage mics. In this regard, The only mics I've owned that I've not had any complaints with are: U67 U87 Km54 (sdc I know) Brauner VM1 (modern classic IMO) I wish I could afford a 251 and u47 but I'll have to go bock on 251 and clone on u47 and deal with any shortcomings. |
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Apr 13, 2014 9:34:48 GMT -6
I think really everyone agrees they all Sound awesome for what they are..... Like we all said cowboys is da bomb. I'm sure between us all the amount of Mics heard and the experience of recording ( not my strong point lol ) is crazy to imagine.. The cv4 was never meant to compare to U67, in fact that was the first I heard 2 compared. Never fails put some of us audio geeks in a room with toys and bam hey did you know..... Or wow compared to.... And ever so famous " my cousin owns a studio in Nashville and recorded there once that someone made a number hit was using a shure 58 that blew away a vintage u47 and... ..... Lmfao At the end of the it's dollar dollar bill y'all, and vintage is our benchmark. Just kewl that a lot of people that can't afford The Mac daddy Mics can still at least showcase their talent a lot closer now. When u see a smile or hear the confidence with each verse that a mic can give hell y not. I am curios if that was the mission to match or compare and with all the feedback given how close it could be done on a budget of most. Hhhuummmm  |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 13, 2014 9:51:13 GMT -6
Gotta differ with you guys a little here. First of all, the mics are recording the same thing, so they should sound quite similar ;-) The subtleties are things we've trained ourselves to notice, and the average musician wouldn't notice much difference at all. I hear a certain shrillness in the CV4 that reminds me of a trumpet, but it's clearly a very good mic and you can take care of business with it. If you go to www.gauge-usa.com/Gauge_Microphones/Home.html they have a shootout with their $150 and $450 mics with a C12, U47, U67, 414. They are in the same direction, their mics sound good, but when you hear the C12, you know what you're paying for. I've learned that small differences eventually become what you focus on. So, a mic might seem really good at first, but once you notice an area that's not quite right, that becomes ALL you hear, You can't get away from it, EQ all you want, it's still there, like a mustard spot on a $50 tie. Now.. that U67 is the deal, no qualifications. THAT's what we all want, at least one world class mic that is a perfect example of itself. Cowboy could do 10 albums with just that mic if he had to, and you wouldn't miss a thing. Twenty years back, I used a vintage U87 on a hundred local radio and TV spots, one mic, and believe me, that $hit was money, because that mic was high end. Well, apparently I'm just your average musician, because I don't hear that big a difference...and I'm not afraid to admit it. I think the hyperbole should be tamped down a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 13, 2014 9:55:42 GMT -6
Honestly, I'm getting to the point that some of the minor differences that we "think" matter...don't. I think it's more psychological than anything. I've had an opportunity to buy three different $3500 + pieces (for great deals) of gear here lately, but I just can't justify the expense for the amount of "improvement/difference" that it comes with. Kind of a swing/shift in my thought process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 10:21:43 GMT -6
You could say the same thing about converters.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Apr 13, 2014 11:18:30 GMT -6
Honestly, I'm getting to the point that some of the minor differences that we "think" matter...don't. I think it's more psychological than anything. I've had an opportunity to buy three different $3500 + pieces (for great deals) of gear here lately, but I just can't justify the expense for the amount of "improvement/difference" that it comes with. Kind of a swing/shift in my thought process. I hear ya...and I'm that way with a u47... not gonna pay $14k for that when I can get the general sound for $3000 +/-. But I think Martin John Butler's point was that over time those subtle or not so subtle "differences" or shortcomings become like a splinter in your foot. For example: Soundelux e49... really cool mic. Not exactly that close to a 49 but a great sound. But... after using daily, I got tired of the spitty sounding sibilances. After a while, that was all I could hear. Insert other knock-off $2500 mic... deal with harsh mid-range, or muddy lows, peaky 2.5k thing, brittle top end... not all/any in excess but there and problematic.
So I sold 2 of those mics and one of my vintage 87's to fund the u67. Viola'!! The sound I've been looking for and no "problems". When it's not the right mic (though it is more than half the time) I put up another choice. I have another really cool $2500 mic... BIG Sound "Big"... not exactly like anything else... and it's a great companion to the u67. So many singers here love it. Reid Shippen says he uses same two mics all the time. One day, it'd be nice to have a 251 but not sure it'll happen. |
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Apr 13, 2014 11:25:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 13, 2014 11:26:15 GMT -6
Yes, you could. The Burl was one of the items I was talking about passing on. If you were trying to "catch" me in some contradiction referring to the converter thread, you're wrong. I still firmly believe that there are differences between a sound blaster and a symphony. For me, however, I don't feel the difference between the Symphony and the Burl was enough to spend an extra $2500. That's just my opinion.
AND - it has been brought to my attention that I am being "defensive" about the modded CV4 and 67 comparison. I believe I stated several times that, yes, I can hear the differences. I believe I even said - several times - that the U67 sounded better. I don't know how else I can be more clear. What does bother me is when people start saying, "your average musician" can't hear the differences. That's talking down to people. I happen to believe the "improvement" that the u67 provides isn't worth MY investment. If you guys see differently - I swear to you - that's ok with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 13, 2014 11:59:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 13, 2014 11:59:56 GMT -6
One of the great "ahh-Ha!" experiences of my life was when Gotham's Detroit manufacturers' rep loaned me a U67 to try out for a week while I was in high school. (He knew perfectly well I could never afford the $500 to buy one.)I plugged it into a Shure mike transformer and then my beloved Wollensak tape recorder. I'll never forget how the results stunned me. I jumped at a chance to buy three U67s when a studio went out of business around 1970.
A problem today is that you'd be hard pressed to find any U67 that hasn't been dropped many times because they really were used on every session back in the day. (You can still buy a new housing as a service part so appearance is meaningless when it comes to any Neumann.)The other problem, with one exception, is modifications. That exception is restrapping the output impedance to 200 Ohms and removing the output pad from the power supply unless you are using it with a vintage preamp designed for RCA ribbon mikes. (This only applies to mikes that were originally sold in the U.S.) Any other "modification" restores the high frequency resonance defeating the whole reason for using a 67 or 87 for that matter.
The 67, 87, 86 and the 84 are by far the most versatile microphones ever made. You just set them up, hit record, add a little eq. in the mix and you are miles ahead of most contemporary recordings because the performers aren't bored by "getting sounds" and you'd be hard pressed to find anything better sounding in the context of a mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Apr 13, 2014 12:10:09 GMT -6
Honestly, I'm getting to the point that some of the minor differences that we "think" matter...don't. I think it's more psychological than anything. I've had an opportunity to buy three different $3500 + pieces (for great deals) of gear here lately, but I just can't justify the expense for the amount of "improvement/difference" that it comes with. Kind of a swing/shift in my thought process. We have all had inflated expectations of gear at some point or another in our journeys. I can plug my Sm7 into a little old TubeMP and get something I'm comfortable with as a singer. easy to work with...sit in a mix...I mean, I have my little vintage "perfect for me" mic...but, that's just a huge tip of the hat to engineering laziness--I can literally push up the fader, add compressor and vocal production is done. I never found that in a modern LDC. There were a ton that sounded really nice solo'd--I'd argue that's actually what they're going for--singer plugs it in and the playback is bigger and airier than their voice--"cool-that sounds like record!"....until they go to try to get it to sit in a mix and every bit of compression or EQ makes it's simply weirder...and so they heap on more processing...or they buy endless vintage inspired "color pieces" to throw it through... |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 13, 2014 12:26:01 GMT -6
John, sorry if my mentioning "the average musician" came off as speaking down to someone, it wasn't meant that way at all. In fact, as a music teacher, I have the highest respect for the "average" musician. You can fake lots of things in life, but you can't fake playing. Even the local bar band's chops have to be pretty damn good to pull off a good cover song.
What I meant was that the average musician pays little or no attention to the engineering aspect in my experience. Hell, I did a few albums and couldn't tell you what board was used, no less which mic, preamp, compressor, etc. was used. If it was a Neumann, I was usually good to go.
I like Pomann's explanation of top of the line mics being "even". The better the mic, the more even I find the high end.
When Littlesicily said, "Soundelux e49... really cool mic. Not exactly that close to a 49 but a great sound. But... after using daily, I got tired of the spitty sounding sibilances. After a while, that was all I could hear.", that was exactly the kind of thing I was referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 13, 2014 12:37:15 GMT -6
Totally understand. I just don't find this modded cv4 spitty or the differences being that big. But like I said - that's just my opinion - maybe I'm not hearing stuff that others are hearing. I'm also talking about the post eq'd version vs. the 67...I would agree the original file was brighter. Actually, I would prob eq the 67 too by taking out some bottom and taking out the tiniest bit of upper mids.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 13, 2014 13:02:47 GMT -6
Honestly, I'm getting to the point that some of the minor differences that we "think" matter...don't. I think it's more psychological than anything. I've had an opportunity to buy three different $3500 + pieces (for great deals) of gear here lately, but I just can't justify the expense for the amount of "improvement/difference" that it comes with. Kind of a swing/shift in my thought process. I disagree, mediocre equipment in series, seems to re enforce the short comings of the prior piece. I've said this before, and i'll say it again, I believe the quality of the results we get in the studio are directly tied to the sum of many very small things. Ex. all things applied competently... great performance+great room+great mic+great pre+great compression+great conversion= great track great performance+sub par room+subtly sibilant, jumpy mic fixed with a mediocre phasey(99% of eq's are phasey)eq+mediocre pre+mediocre compressor+soundblaster converter= mehhh x16 tracks= mehhh..  all these pieces may only sound marginally better than their counterpart one on one/side by side, but in the end, it's the difference between a single drop of rain landing on your head unnoticed, and being caught in a downpour. as always, JMO |
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Apr 13, 2014 13:17:30 GMT -6
Yep, it's a game of inches. Gains can be made in many places, and in a number of ways. I say go for the low hanging fruit first. This way we can get the most out of our music the easiest. Then over time (and money and practice) we can start grabbing some if the other, harder to reach fruit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 13, 2014 13:51:41 GMT -6
Nicely put dandeurloo.
The way I took the files John posted was that it shows clearly that mics in the 1.5-2.5 K price range can sound pro, and can certainly get the job done well.
Some personal preference comes into play, but so far, the vocal sound I like the most on any recording was done with a U67, and the best vocal sound I've personally enjoyed was a vintage C12. The capsule upgrade did create the "even" top Popmann mentioned, and that's why I like the Blackspade U17 R/Blueline, it feels like a cousin to the real deal, not like a clone at all. That doesn't mean I don't hear things from the vintage classics I'd prefer.
Where I feel something like John's feeling at the moment is with plug-ins. Although I was picky as hell last year, now, I could use almost anything, like the Exponential, the ReLab or the UAD lex, even the Logic reverb's and still get close enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 13, 2014 14:05:26 GMT -6
Yep, it's a game of inches. Gains can be made in many places, and in a number of ways. I say go for the low hanging fruit first. This way we can get the most out of our music the easiest. Then over time (and money and practice) we can start grabbing some if the other, harder to reach fruit. Yep, the 67 is much more justifiable a buy in the future if I start doing more record vocals...I've been cutting vocals here at home for 85% demos and 15% records...right now, it just doesn't make sense financially to me. But it could in the future. I WANT a Bricasti, but I don't need one. I'm not mixing major projects here - I might occasionally mix something small, but the money I get paid for it doesn't justify the expense. So, as Dan said, I'm focusing on the low hanging fruit and trying to make efficient, incremental changes that improve my sound. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 13, 2014 14:08:18 GMT -6
Honestly, I'm getting to the point that some of the minor differences that we "think" matter...don't. I think it's more psychological than anything. I've had an opportunity to buy three different $3500 + pieces (for great deals) of gear here lately, but I just can't justify the expense for the amount of "improvement/difference" that it comes with. Kind of a swing/shift in my thought process. I disagree, mediocre equipment in series, seems to re enforce the short comings of the prior piece. I've said this before, and i'll say it again, I believe the quality of the results we get in the studio are directly tied to the sum of many very small things. Ex. all things applied competently... great performance+great room+great mic+great pre+great compression+great conversion= great track great performance+sub par room+subtly sibilant, jumpy mic fixed with a mediocre phasey(99% of eq's are phasey)eq+mediocre pre+mediocre compressor+soundblaster converter= mehhh x16 tracks= mehhh.. all these pieces may only sound marginally better than their counterpart one on one/side by side, but in the end, it's the difference between a single drop of rain landing on your head unnoticed, and being caught in a downpour. as always, JMO But Tony, we aren't talking mediocre equipment here. Modded CV4, Helios, sta-level, symphony. I just think that can get the job done. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 13, 2014 14:38:33 GMT -6
I agree with that John in that sense. The gear we're talking about is high quality for sure. The allure of the nuances and beauty of the vintage high end pieces comes with the pursuit of excellence, and are part of the fun, while trying to achieve the sound you desire.
Two days ago, I compared my mic's sound through a vintage Neve console to running it through my Warm Audio ToneBeast with the new John Hardy 990+ opamp installed. I found the Neve to be like driving a finely tuned race car, a huge thrill, but man, the ToneBeast wasn't light years away by any means, and if put into a decent room, I'm sure a good record can be made with it.
|
|
!!! 
