|
Post by ragan on Jan 25, 2021 14:29:49 GMT -6
According to bowie , the Amperex is slightly warmer sounding than the brighter/leaner Telefunken. I don't have any complaints about the low mids on Mark's SA-67, but for those that do, it doesn't sound like moving to an Amperex would be the answer. There are also two variants of the NOS Tele, silver and grey-plated. I have the grey-plated in my MK67 and it's bested every other tube I've tried so soundly in that mic that I've stopped trying them. The silver is (again according to Bowie) more crisp. Some of this is probably down to the rest of the circuit too. The knock on the reissue U67 is it's a little lean. Maybe that's why some people prefer the warmer Amperex in them. The knock on the MK67 is it's too dark. Maybe that's why some people (myself included) like the Telefunken. Either way, as has been mentioned, the 67 circuit is highly responsive to tube variation. I think that's a big part of the fun, since you can really tailor it with hardly any effort.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jan 25, 2021 14:40:29 GMT -6
stam , Here's a copy and paste of my answer to a customer of yours about his SA67 microphone. Verbatim. "I have 15 EF86 variant tubes for my Neumann U67. Up until I got the matched pair of Amperex EF86s, the 1960 Telefunken EF806s (small-s) was my favorite cos it had the least amount of low-mid/mud distortion in the sound. But not only did the Amperex clean that up, it also opened up the top-end as if I had clipped one of the resisters in the amp that Klaus Heine suggests to do. It is far and away the best tube in mine... against Philips (the AMperex were originally Philips by the way), Telefunken 806S 806s and 86, the Stock T-Funk tube, EH and others I don't even remember what brand now. But I've gone through them and have it down now. A barky voice gets the 1959 TF 806S, a thinner voice gets the 1960 TF 806s and a polished full voice gets the 1967 Amperex." Once, in another thread, I remarked that the 67 type gets more of its tone from the chosen tube than any other Neumann I've had and/or used. And you agreed. Trying a different tube will not lessen your microphone It will only show how much like a real 67 it actually is. You seem to be applying a general logic to a microphone that has to be individually made. You are also speaking about your U67's, not my SA67. His SA-67 has a NOS Philips EF86 tube installed. I used these tubes as well as Valvo's EF80's and Telefunken's EF86 and EF806 on my 67's when customers request NOS tubes which in my opinion are critical in this circuit. I have built about 400 U67's replicas in the past years and even had to match two SA-67's for single customers with different tubes and values on the circuit between them given the tolerances and variables on this circuit. This is why this mic has to be made in an artisan way, one by one, singing, listening, tuning and repeat. A lengthy process. I have tried every tube under the sun on my SA67 and many times when I build one I have to chose a different tube to fit that particular capsule and different values on the feedback circuit to fit that particular tube and capsule combination in order to get the sound I am hearing on my original 67's. I completely disagree that there here is low mid mud on his voice. I call it low mids and that is the beauty of a U67 microphone and why so many on this thread prefer it to other options despite having zero EQ on it. If you want something brighter with less low mid information I suggest using another microphone. Why take out what makes it so special?. It's extremely easy to make a mic without that magic, it's very time consuming to replicate it. It would never be my first choice for an acoustic guitar precisely for this reason.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jan 25, 2021 14:47:26 GMT -6
According to bowie , the Amperex is slightly warmer sounding than the brighter/leaner Telefunken. I don't have any complaints about the low mids on Mark's SA-67, but for those that do, it doesn't sound like moving to an Amperex would be the answer. There are also two variants of the NOS Tele, silver and grey-plated. I have the grey-plated in my MK67 and it's bested every other tube I've tried so soundly in that mic that I've stopped trying them. The silver is (again according to Bowie) more crisp. Some of this is probably down to the rest of the circuit too. The knock on the reissue U67 is it's a little lean. Maybe that's why some people prefer the warmer Amperex in them. The knock on the MK67 is it's too dark. Maybe that's why some people (myself included) like the Telefunken. Either way, as has been mentioned, the 67 circuit is highly responsive to tube variation. I think that's a big part of the fun, since you can really tailor it with hardly any effort. Exactly. And this is why the U67 reissue has no low mid information and sounds nothing like a vintage 67. The entire magic of these mics is their round top end and low mid information. This is why it's my go to microphone on females. Apologies for derailing the topic with my thoughts, I get carried away sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Jan 25, 2021 15:51:30 GMT -6
I completely disagree that there here is low mid mud on his voice. I call it low mids and that is the beauty of a U67 microphone If you want something brighter with less low mid information I suggest using another microphone. Exactly. Isn't that what this thread is all about? The purpose of the shootout is to compare vintage clones so that RGO members can get a sense of where the Serrano 87 lives and how it may compare in the mix to other mics. On another voice I may have easily liked the Stam 67 better. Here I prefer the Serrano, and not because I'm some newbie who thinks brighter is better. It inspired me more.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jan 25, 2021 16:04:05 GMT -6
I completely disagree that there here is low mid mud on his voice. I call it low mids and that is the beauty of a U67 microphone If you want something brighter with less low mid information I suggest using another microphone. Exactly. Isn't that what this thread is all about? The purpose of the shootout is to compare vintage clones so that RGO members can get a sense of where the Serrano 87 lives and how it may compare in the mix to other mics. On another voice I may have easily liked the Stam 67 better. Here I prefer the Serrano, and not because I'm some newbie who thinks brighter is better. It inspired me more. Yes it is. Some people like Carlo's 87 better on Mark's voice, some like my 67 better, it's subjective and a matter of taste. I am OK and happy with that. I also make an 87 and 87+, I know how great these mics can sound. I am OCD when it comes to matching vintage mics and I would be sadden to see my work undone to get rid of the one thing that separates a 67 from other microphones. That is why I commented. He has posted other clips of the 67 I made for him on here and it has gotten a lot of praise because how magical it sounds on his voice. I hope Mark keeps it that way. Just my 0.2
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 25, 2021 16:42:42 GMT -6
Exactly. Isn't that what this thread is all about? The purpose of the shootout is to compare vintage clones so that RGO members can get a sense of where the Serrano 87 lives and how it may compare in the mix to other mics. On another voice I may have easily liked the Stam 67 better. Here I prefer the Serrano, and not because I'm some newbie who thinks brighter is better. It inspired me more. Yes it is. Some people like Carlo's 87 better on Mark's voice, some like my 67 better, it's subjective and a matter of taste. I am OK and happy with that. I also make an 87 and 87+, I know how great these mics can sound. I am OCD when it comes to matching vintage mics and I would be sadden to see my work undone to get rid of the one thing that separates a 67 from other microphones. That is why I commented. He has posted other clips of the 67 I made for him on here and it has gotten a lot of praise because how magical it sounds on his voice. I hope Mark keeps it that way. Just my 0.2 What is the 87+? I haven't heard about that yet.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 25, 2021 17:20:16 GMT -6
IMHO The Stam 67 has the cool vintage vibe. The Serrano 87 sounds somewhere between the corner of vintage U87i, and a fine U87ai. (I prefer the "darker" circuit BTW) Kinda like the new Warm 67-but on Steroids! Honestly, I was surprised that the Soyuz wasn't comparable to the other two more. I have a ton of Low Mids (for a High Bari). So guessing the Soyuz does better, on someone like me. (I sang/tested this Soyuz model in person) Chris
|
|
|
Post by cserrano on Jan 25, 2021 17:45:13 GMT -6
Hey everyone!
Mark, your song is outstanding. I've listened to it a lot.
I'm humbled that many of you preferred the Serrano 87. It has indeed been a labor of love and the fact that fine audio engineers like yourselves are excited about it means so much to me.
I should also say that the Soyuz and the Stam both sound great and you couldn't go wrong with those!
Carlos
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jan 26, 2021 16:45:14 GMT -6
OK, in an effort to show how well the Serrano and the Stam both take EQ, here are the same versions, but EQd. I rolled a little off the top on the Serrano, and then with the Stam I took out a tiny bit of low mids and then boosted the top with a high shelf. I literally spent less than 90 seconds doing this. I think they both sound great this way, and are very, very usable. See what y'all think...
https%3A//soundcloud.com/markwilliams/the-path-to-popotla-serrano-1%3Fin%3Dmarkwilliams/sets/serrano-87-eqd-cf-stam-67-eqd-1
https%3A//soundcloud.com/markwilliams/the-path-to-popotla-stam-67-1%3Fin%3Dmarkwilliams/sets/serrano-87-eqd-cf-stam-67-eqd-1
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 26, 2021 17:31:17 GMT -6
Both sound comparably wonderful now, though a bit different. Are you keeping both Mark? The Stam does sound a little more Vintage, and the Serrano just a little more Modern. Both sound "like a record" though. Again, terrific singing. Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 26, 2021 18:07:59 GMT -6
Wow, that's mostly a toss-up for me. I think I give the edge to the Serrano here, with that top tamed. Your voice is just so clear on it. But I also love the Stam. It's richer, thicker. They both really work well on your voice though. Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 26, 2021 18:18:58 GMT -6
Whoa . . . another winner! I like the Serrano even more in this one.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2021 20:10:58 GMT -6
The serrano edges it out for me here, sounds "larger" which is almost always a good thing to me. The stam track seems like it could use some more tweaky mixing, although it has a nice weight in the mid frequencies. The serrano sounds taller and more wide open.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jan 26, 2021 20:51:53 GMT -6
Really dig the Serrano even more in the latest clips! Such a detailed mic but in such a pleasant way.
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Jan 26, 2021 21:04:56 GMT -6
Man, the Serrano with EQ is seriously impressive. I definitely prefer that one, although there are things I like about the Stam, too. The Stam has more size/weight/width, but the Serrano just sounds like a record. I need one now.
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Jan 26, 2021 21:20:45 GMT -6
This really interesting. They both sound great but try listening to them in reverse order, The Stam first and Serrano second. I was surprised. I may have preffered a notched filter instead of a shelf on the top of the Stam or perhaps just a tad less gain on the shelf.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 26, 2021 21:23:12 GMT -6
This really interesting. They both sound great but try listening to them in reverse order, The Stam first and Serrano second. I was surprised Yeah that’s what I always do too. Revisit several times with fresh ears and vary which clip I start with.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Jan 26, 2021 21:33:48 GMT -6
This thread is why I continue to find RGO helpful, and at times expensive. I'm really intrigued by the Serrano, especially because I've yet to find a favorite acoustic guitar mic (or ride cymbal for that matter but that's a thread for Cymbalholics). I like what I hear and I trust my ears (mostly) but...eventually new mic offerings come down to a discussion about the capsule and how it may or may not measure up. The website says that each capsule is hand crafted but that could mean many things: parts assembled here, or Chinese capsules tweaked or tuned, or actually hand made from the ground up in the USA. I'm not casting aspersions at all--this mic impresses me. But the price point doesn't add up to the usual cost to build a quality mic that includes a top end capsule. Perhaps this has already been covered in another thread, but I'd love some insight into the capsule.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 26, 2021 21:35:50 GMT -6
This thread is why I continue to find RGO helpful, and at times expensive. I'm really intrigued by the Serrano, especially because I've yet to find a favorite acoustic guitar mic (or ride cymbal for that matter but that's a thread for Cymbalholics). I like what I hear and I trust my ears (mostly) but...eventually new mic offerings come down to a discussion about the capsule and how it may or may not measure up. The website says that each capsule is hand crafted but that could mean many things: parts assembled here, or Chinese capsules tweaked or tuned, or actually hand made from the ground up in the USA. I'm not casting aspersions at all--this mic impresses me. But the price point doesn't add up to the usual cost to build a quality mic that includes a top end capsule. Perhaps this has already been covered in another thread, but I'd love some insight into the capsule. Carlos has candidly discussed his whole design process and his choices in the main Serrano thread. Very cool. And yeah, an impressive mic to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 26, 2021 22:04:45 GMT -6
Dig the Serrano - still. EQ-ing of course could be more dialed on both, but the guts are there. Thanks for doing this mark!! A Great mic without either EQ or Compression in a mix is not really a totally accurate representation - cause those almost always get used. The Serrano still has the goods for me.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Jan 26, 2021 22:41:45 GMT -6
This thread is why I continue to find RGO helpful, and at times expensive. I'm really intrigued by the Serrano, especially because I've yet to find a favorite acoustic guitar mic (or ride cymbal for that matter but that's a thread for Cymbalholics). I like what I hear and I trust my ears (mostly) but...eventually new mic offerings come down to a discussion about the capsule and how it may or may not measure up. The website says that each capsule is hand crafted but that could mean many things: parts assembled here, or Chinese capsules tweaked or tuned, or actually hand made from the ground up in the USA. I'm not casting aspersions at all--this mic impresses me. But the price point doesn't add up to the usual cost to build a quality mic that includes a top end capsule. Perhaps this has already been covered in another thread, but I'd love some insight into the capsule. Carlos has candidly discussed his whole design process and his choices in the main Serrano thread. Very cool. And yeah, an impressive mic to be sure. Thanks for pointing me to that.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 26, 2021 23:05:57 GMT -6
Carlos has candidly discussed his whole design process and his choices in the main Serrano thread. Very cool. And yeah, an impressive mic to be sure. Thanks for pointing me to that. You bet. Woulda grabbed the link if I had more than a sec earlier. Glad you found it.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jan 27, 2021 7:59:30 GMT -6
Both sound comparably wonderful now, though a bit different. Are you keeping both Mark? The Stam does sound a little more Vintage, and the Serrano just a little more Modern. Both sound "like a record" though. Again, terrific singing. Thanks, Chris Thanks, Chris! I am *definitely* keeping both the Stam and the Serrano. I’m beginning to wonder if I should hold onto the Soyuz or not, though I like it better here than most folks on the thread seem to. It’s an interesting in-between sound: more muscular than the Serrano, clearer than the Stam. But, I could always sell it and pick up another Serrano to have a pair. Hmmmmm...
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,976
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jan 27, 2021 16:41:15 GMT -6
Both sound comparably wonderful now, though a bit different. Are you keeping both Mark? The Stam does sound a little more Vintage, and the Serrano just a little more Modern. Both sound "like a record" though. Again, terrific singing. Thanks, Chris Thanks, Chris! I am *definitely* keeping both the Stam and the Serrano. I’m beginning to wonder if I should hold onto the Soyuz or not, though I like it better here than most folks on the thread seem to. It’s an interesting in-between sound: more muscular than the Serrano, clearer than the Stam. But, I could always sell it and pick up another Serrano to have a pair. Hmmmmm... Man I was about to say that! Pairs are great besides stereo stuff it’s just so much easier to make a matched pair work on something like voice and guitar. They have this way of making you look like you are 4 times the AE you really are. I’ll bet 2 Serranos and a United 47fet would be an awesome drum sound, but then I made a very good living spending other people’s money on gear!
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 27, 2021 17:00:42 GMT -6
Plus the UT 47FET is no slouch on vocals either... Chris
|
|