|
MK-U47
Jul 2, 2014 8:14:26 GMT -6
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 2, 2014 8:14:26 GMT -6
Doh...I'll need more than two weeks to come up with $1500...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 8:32:01 GMT -6
Max' builds are simply awesome. I once built the predecessor of this one, the MK7, that was simply an awesome mic. It was built around an EF86 (or with modified psu PF86) and a custom winding ratio transformer to reflect these design changes but "modeled" after the Bv.08, with a stock of seemingly original lams material. Later he found a ressource and way to produce these also by himself if i remember correctly. Lots of detail knowledge and testing against origninal U47s went apparently into his designs. With the MK47 he just went a step further to the original, just re-designed the tube emulation of the VF14M and leaving the rest original. I don't have any doubt, that this is an extremely well thought and tested overall clone design approach, and the decision to eliminate different results apart from the capsule and body by offering the full electronic parts kit of his choice IMO stands for his love for details and his will to provide as satisfying builder experiences as possible...
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 2, 2014 8:43:29 GMT -6
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 2, 2014 8:43:29 GMT -6
kidvybes said; "keep in mind, your UM17R incorporates some M49 vibe via the subminiature EF732 (5840) tube, and that not a bad thing! ". Kidvybes, Oliver Archut's been quoted as saying the U17R resembles the U49. I've never heard a U49, so I have no reference. So, the miniature tube is a good part of the tone of the U17R? That's why with a Thiersch M7 and Oliver's BV* it still sounds U49ish? If I had my druthers, I'd like a pinch more low end like a U47, but I do love the highs on the U17R. I think great lengths were taken by Oliver to get the subminiature NOS EF732 (5840, but I've wondered if there's a holy grail replacement tube I might look into at some point. After hearing some U47 tracks, they're quite compelling and making me want some of that flavor. Still, my favorite vocal sound on record used a Neumann U67, so a U67 wouldn't be a bad thing to look into cloning either.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 2, 2014 8:55:06 GMT -6
Post by kidvybes on Jul 2, 2014 8:55:06 GMT -6
If I had my druthers, I'd like a pinch more low end like a U47, but I do love the highs on the U17R. I think great lengths were taken by Oliver to get the subminiature NOS EF732 (5840, but I've wondered if there's a holy grail replacement tube I might look into at some point. After hearing some U47 tracks, they're quite compelling and making me want some of that flavor. Still, my favorite vocal sound on record used a Neumann U67, so a U67 wouldn't be a bad thing to look into cloning either. ...the M49 and M269 (as well as a 251 variant) used the Telefunken AC701 subminiature tube, but they have become as scarce as the U47's VF14, and pricing is off the chart for NOS examples...the 5840 subminiature has become the most common substitute in microphone circuits that originally employed the AC701 (a true Holy Grail tube!): www.radiomuseum.org/tubes/tube_ac701.html...it's a great time for home-recorders, as these new DIY clones make the reality of owning a "47" or "67" much more plausible for those of use recording in spare bedrooms...
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 2, 2014 10:36:13 GMT -6
and those of us with no bedrooms to "spare" either ;-)
It is an exciting time for home recording. I recently listened to an album I did in 2006 using a U87 in a nice local studio, and the sound I get in my living room with my my Blackspade kills it.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 2, 2014 19:10:12 GMT -6
You know, just to be a total downer, I think the differences in all of these mics are and were - I don't wanna say negligible - but they were subjective. Sure, sometimes they weren't subjective, but really - it's all about the song and the singer.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 2, 2014 19:43:26 GMT -6
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 2, 2014 19:43:26 GMT -6
I understand John. It seems my mic favors a female vocalist, to my surprise, as I thought it would be too bright. In a similar way, Kcatthedog sent me a link where a U47 and a C12 were used by Pink and John legend, to me, the C12, (supposedly bright) sounds better. Suspiciously, Pink's main mic is clearly the C12, but there's a U47 right next to it, so I don't know if her vocal sound is a blend of the two or not.
When I had a U87 that was made around 1980, it was simply right on anything. I used it 3,000 times if I used it once. I'll begin researching the U67, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is sort of a U87 with a tube.
John, I agree in the sense that I think almost any good singer who's used a U47 or a C12 or ELA251 would have still gotten a great sound and performance from something like a basic U87, or cowboy's Oktava for instance. But for those who hear and feel the differences, the vintage pieces get some artists closer to their dream sound, which is so difficult.
My favorite vocal sound is Lyle Lovett's "Road to Ensenada", done with a U67 vocal mic and C24, ( a stereo C12) on the guitar, done live, with bleed from both mics.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 2, 2014 19:45:54 GMT -6
Post by mulmany on Jul 2, 2014 19:45:54 GMT -6
Wait! It is not about the Gear!
Inconceivable!
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 2, 2014 19:55:11 GMT -6
it's all about the song and the singer. wait... ^from the owner of Real gear pro audio discussion forum? well then i guess it's time to pack up shop at RGO and go home, (best cop/bullhorn voice) "nothing to see here people move on now, come on now..move on people, nothing to see here"... bwaaa!
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 2, 2014 20:07:52 GMT -6
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 2, 2014 20:07:52 GMT -6
Martin John Butler IMO, it's about all the accumulation of small things, i agree nothing is more important than the piece of music, i think thats pretty much understood, but the reason most of us are here is to raise our game, we write what we write, but we want to capture our music in better than an average demo quality, thats achieved with good ears, acquired applicable knowledge, and great gear imv. All things being equal, if you were to tell me one of my acoustic guitar based tunes sounded as good with my old stuff as it does now with my C12 and U47 combo, i'd say no way, the difference is stunning to my ears, those mics are absolutely friggin inspiring!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 2, 2014 20:59:24 GMT -6
I agree Tony. but I also understand where John was coming from, (I think).
I did a live recording in a magnificent studio in the 90's. The engineer brought out a mint, vintage C12. I thought I'd died and came back as Bono or Elvis, that's how good my voice sounded through it. I use that experience as a benchmark, and fortunately, I seem to have a good audio memory. I never sang better than when I used that C12, so yeah, they are truly inspiring, no doubt. In fact, it was the Blackspade's similarity to the C12 in the smoothness of the high end that made it my choice as a main vocal mic.
A couple of months ago I used a K84 and an U47 FET a friend loaned me for a few demos. The K84 did something almost indescribable, it was articulate, yet smooth and fat, just not bloated. I believe it's the best acoustic sound I've managed to produce. I feel that with a few well chosen pieces, I can get close to the sound I really want. That's why I'm here, to learn and share and to enjoy some good company, all in the hope of producing music I can feel proud of, and for sure, it takes some decent gear to get me there.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 2, 2014 21:11:21 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by svart on Jul 2, 2014 21:11:21 GMT -6
You know, just to be a total downer, I think the differences in all of these mics are and were - I don't wanna say negligible - but they were subjective. Sure, sometimes they weren't subjective, but really - it's all about the song and the singer. 100% agree. The Mic tone can agree or disagree with a voice, but the Mic can never make up for the differences in performance.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 2, 2014 22:50:23 GMT -6
^ really? Great equipment, wether it be mics, pre's, compressors, guitars, drumsets, basses or take your pick, no matter how small someone else perceives the differences, can totally inspire and elevate your performance, from creation to completion of your masters and everywhere between. I feel weird typing this because i almost feel you guys are messing with us? I pick up my acoustic g every single day and play it, because its a complete badass to me, i've had other guitars that have sat untouched for years before i dumped them, because they didn't "have it", i built my own drum kit from absolute scratch, spared no attention to detail(that includes designing and machining my own lugs), it's a very high quality instrument that is a total blast to play, it sounds crazy good to me, and beyond a shadow of a doubt makes me play drums better. Each piece of equipment up and down the chain matters big time toward the performance in the whole IMV
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 3, 2014 7:21:47 GMT -6
Post by warren on Jul 3, 2014 7:21:47 GMT -6
The only time I really get excited by gear is when it's new i.e. "Cool, gots me a new mic, I wanna use it now!" Other than that, I really don't draw inspiration from gear. Great gear to me is more like paint to an artist. I don't draw ideas from the paint, but use the paint when I get ideas
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 3, 2014 7:49:17 GMT -6
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 3, 2014 7:49:17 GMT -6
It depends.. I lust for a Blankenship Leeds 21 amp for guitar. Back story, I had a Marshall 100 amp owned by the Allman Brothers that was given to me at the time they did the Live at the Fillmore album. It was the most responsive guitar amp I'd ever used. I played better with it, because of it's dynamic sensitivity. Did it make me a better player, no, but it enabled me to fully express myself. It was stolen and pawned, (by a "friend"). There's only ever been one amp I've played that was close to it, a Blankenship Leeds 21. Unfortunately, I didn't have the $2,200 cash sitting around to buy it when I tried it out. I use a 5 watt Blackstar amp now. It sounds quite boutiquey Marshall-ish, except that it's too frickin' noisy, ugh..
So, for me to realize the music that's in my head, I need the tools to get there. I'm sure that before electricity, composers were sensitive to the tone quality of certain brand instruments, and would likely request the musicians they worked with use them. It's basically the same way now. We want the tone that's in our head, and sometimes, it takes some well appointed gear to get there, and of course, sometimes not.
Case in point, a musician I know is a serious engineer, he just mixed an album, and used a guitar pedal for the delay on the vocal, that $hit was money I tell you.
Me, I hope I can own a C12 and a U47, and in the meantime, I'll keep looking at the DIY's so I know what to do when I can afford to do it. I love to hear tracks done by members here, as their successes and their difficulties inspire me to keep going too.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 3, 2014 8:33:44 GMT -6
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jul 3, 2014 8:33:44 GMT -6
You know, just to be a total downer, I think the differences in all of these mics are and were - I don't wanna say negligible - but they were subjective. Sure, sometimes they weren't subjective, but really - it's all about the song and the singer. 100% agree. The Mic tone can agree or disagree with a voice, but the Mic can never make up for the differences in performance. I may be wrong but I think any serious recordist knows this. Most of us work with talent that is capable. After that, the issue DOES become the equipment. Is so and so right for this? Is it right for that?? The ball is in our our court at this point to screw it up or make it good. I personally am guilty of taking a perfectly good take and screwing it up because I put up the wrong equipment. I'm not saying that any one mic is across the board better than others. There are those however that work on pretty much everything. Those are the mics it seems we always talk about and want. A 47 is certainly in that camp I think.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 3, 2014 8:40:42 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 3, 2014 8:40:42 GMT -6
I don't see anything wrong with what I said. This is all fun to nerd out and obsess about stuff - I love to do it so much I started a message board about it. But it really all comes down to performance and performer. Why is that offensive?
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 3, 2014 10:31:31 GMT -6
I don't see anything wrong with what I said. This is all fun to nerd out and obsess about stuff - I love to do it so much I started a message board about it. But it really all comes down to performance and performer. Why is that offensive? Honestly, it's not inaccurate in context, but "here", that statement is not in context. Offensive is a bit strong of a word, but it is dismissive, simplistic and obvious, and a repeated condescension that has been stated a thousand times, on many forums. like cowboy said, it's not lost on a single person here that the piece of music and the performance is the single most critical factor to success. The "it's the song/performance" argument in the context of a pro audio forum, is a hand grenade thrown into an otherwise good discussion, and is tantamount to saying... "light doesn't matter, it's the eyeballs that are really important here..." ?? I'm interested to talk to as many people of similar interests as i can, that's why i'm here, GDIY and other places, to learn and share as much as i can beyond the obvious, being part of these forums has already made me better as a musician and engineer, better communicator, more humble and tolerant, there are some seriously amazing people around here, i'm curious to see how far being a part of this world can take me, and how much i can learn before my head hits a ceiling(i bet never, thats why it rules!) I mean Bob Ohlsson is here! so i'd say this idea goes beyond the song/performance and the performer, and fits right into a "pro audio" context. To be clear, no disrespect intended, not meaning to stir shit, i'm just being honest.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 3, 2014 10:49:50 GMT -6
I'll clear it up then. My intention was not to be condescending. I think it's good to remind ourselves of this from time to time.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 3, 2014 13:45:46 GMT -6
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 3, 2014 13:45:46 GMT -6
I think the choice of gear falls into the "producer" category, analogous to a movie director. Imagine a film being shot, the performance is fantastic, now… did the lighting crew light the face properly, did they use enough camera angles, what kind of lens fits the mood, and on and on. Choosing gear is similar, and sometimes, you need the good stuff, sometimes not. When you do in fact need top of the line gear, I think a substitute weakens the outcome, regardless of the performance.
I mentioned before that one of my my favorite vocal sounds is Lyle Lovette's Road to Ensenada, where he used a U67 and a C24. Would it have been great with different mics, possibly, probably, but at that moment, at that time, in that space, that setup helped bring froth some magic, I believe.
Do you guys know of any good examples of a U47 being used that I can listen to? I'd like to become more familiar with it.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 3, 2014 15:26:45 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 3, 2014 15:26:45 GMT -6
Any Sinatra record ? I think gear is like beauty : its attributes are in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jul 3, 2014 18:16:01 GMT -6
I wasn't offended JK. I'm easy going as can be. You'd bout have to take a shit on my console to piss me off. I was just stating an obvious point. Pretty sure everyone who is a regular on this board knows the importance of a good performance. That's always first.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 3, 2014 19:34:51 GMT -6
100% agree. The Mic tone can agree or disagree with a voice, but the Mic can never make up for the differences in performance. I may be wrong but I think any serious recordist knows this. Most of us work with talent that is capable. After that, the issue DOES become the equipment. Is so and so right for this? Is it right for that?? The ball is in our our court at this point to screw it up or make it good. I personally am guilty of taking a perfectly good take and screwing it up because I put up the wrong equipment. I'm not saying that any one mic is across the board better than others. There are those however that work on pretty much everything. Those are the mics it seems we always talk about and want. A 47 is certainly in that camp I think. Sure, but my question is.. Once you get above a certain level of quality, does the gear matter? I don't think so. I think that is overblown, gear geek forum or not. I think different gear can get you different tones that are cool, but you aren't going to fix poor placement, tuning or technique with a more expensive mic or a clone that is closer to the real thing... See what I'm saying? I said it before and I'll tell it again.. When I took a deep breath, thought about it, and ended up selling half my gear.. I started using the remaining gear in much better ways. I learned how to use each piece in a multitude of ways rather than geeking out and buying single pieces for sole duties. The majority of learning was done with the mics. I screwed up early on and got GAS.. I read so much about how a certain mic was used for a "chesty male" or another one was for a "shrill female" and yet another one for a "nasal person", etc. I mistakenly "learned" that I needed a different mic for each situation.. Unfortunately I spent too much money and time playing with new gear and never really learning the stuff I already had. I'd place the "nasal person mic" in front of the nasal person and BOOM.. I still got nasal tracks. Same went for pretty much every other mic and their supposed perfect matches. The other problem was modification addiction (no offense Tony.. ). When I'd hear these tracks come out pretty much as they always had despite having what I thought were perfect matches, I'd resort to other excuses.. I'd read about a mod to a mic and everyone in the thread was reporting "night and day differences" or "sounds like a new mic" or "sounds like a mic 10X the cost!!!" and I'd tell myself that "the mod will fix it", and I'd do it.. aaaaand... Letdown. Sounds just as chesty or nasal or throaty as before but now with more clarity! That's when it dawned on me that the gear can't make up for my ego bullshit and I have to be better. And that's the story of me. Now I just use my C12 clone on every single voice. I move it, EQ it, compress it, and force the singers to do better, and my vocals tracks have never been better. Now when I get a nasal singer.. I move them closer to get more loudness curve and just do a couple little EQ cuts. When I get a chesty singer, I move them back a couple inches to lessen proximity. Singer too throaty? Move the mic up and point it down a little to get the singer to point their face upwards and open that throat up. The truth is, I know this mic inside and out and I'd rather just use it, get a good take and move on before I spend hours auditioning a different mic that might sound good on a single test take when all the stars align but sound mediocre for the rest.
|
|
|
MK-U47
Jul 3, 2014 19:49:40 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 3, 2014 19:49:40 GMT -6
I may be wrong but I think any serious recordist knows this. Most of us work with talent that is capable. After that, the issue DOES become the equipment. Is so and so right for this? Is it right for that?? The ball is in our our court at this point to screw it up or make it good. I personally am guilty of taking a perfectly good take and screwing it up because I put up the wrong equipment. I'm not saying that any one mic is across the board better than others. There are those however that work on pretty much everything. Those are the mics it seems we always talk about and want. A 47 is certainly in that camp I think. Sure, but my question is.. Once you get above a certain level of quality, does the gear matter? I don't think so. I think that is overblown, gear geek forum or not. I think different gear can get you different tones that are cool, but you aren't going to fix poor placement, tuning or technique with a more expensive mic or a clone that is closer to the real thing... See what I'm saying? I said it before and I'll tell it again.. When I took a deep breath, thought about it, and ended up selling half my gear.. I started using the remaining gear in much better ways. I learned how to use each piece in a multitude of ways rather than geeking out and buying single pieces for sole duties. The majority of learning was done with the mics. I screwed up early on and got GAS.. I read so much about how a certain mic was used for a "chesty male" or another one was for a "shrill female" and yet another one for a "nasal person", etc. I mistakenly "learned" that I needed a different mic for each situation.. Unfortunately I spent too much money and time playing with new gear and never really learning the stuff I already had. I'd place the "nasal person mic" in front of the nasal person and BOOM.. I still got nasal tracks. Same went for pretty much every other mic and their supposed perfect matches. The other problem was modification addiction (no offense Tony.. ). When I'd hear these tracks come out pretty much as they always had despite having what I thought were perfect matches, I'd resort to other excuses.. I'd read about a mod to a mic and everyone in the thread was reporting "night and day differences" or "sounds like a new mic" or "sounds like a mic 10X the cost!!!" and I'd tell myself that "the mod will fix it", and I'd do it.. aaaaand... Letdown. Sounds just as chesty or nasal or throaty as before but now with more clarity! That's when it dawned on me that the gear can't make up for my ego bullshit and I have to be better. And that's the story of me. Now I just use my C12 clone on every single voice. I move it, EQ it, compress it, and force the singers to do better, and my vocals tracks have never been better. Now when I get a nasal singer.. I move them closer to get more loudness curve and just do a couple little EQ cuts. When I get a chesty singer, I move them back a couple inches to lessen proximity. Singer too throaty? Move the mic up and point it down a little to get the singer to point their face upwards and open that throat up. The truth is, I know this mic inside and out and I'd rather just use it, get a good take and move on before I spend hours auditioning a different mic that might sound good on a single test take when all the stars align but sound mediocre for the rest. Good post.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 3, 2014 19:52:46 GMT -6
I'm not saying that people shouldn't audition a bunch of gear and find some cool stuff, I'm just saying that knowing a single mic 100% is always better than knowing ten mics 10% each, if you get my meaning. I think forums like this are great places for people to get honest opinions about gear they are interested in owning, but I also think that sometimes folks get carried away with the details, as I let myself do many years ago.
|
|