|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 2, 2016 18:50:53 GMT -6
Any new thoughts on this mic? It's been on my mind lately, even though I haven't heard it and I can't afford it. Don't know why.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 2, 2016 19:12:55 GMT -6
was that the one Martin tested ?
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jul 3, 2016 0:44:38 GMT -6
Yes, that's the mic that Martin brings up in every thread about every other microphone lol
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 3, 2016 3:00:10 GMT -6
He fell in gear love and only has ears for soyuz:I get it  So there's another thread here with clips ? |
|
|
|
Post by Hudsonic on Jul 3, 2016 6:40:00 GMT -6
This mudder-dugger is a fantastic mic. It stands up and says, "I am a microphone."
It is very quiet, has a real olden style tubesound and the capsulesound is smooth and appealing. It compete well with genuine vintage mics on the terms of lush sound, sparkle-y sound, sound with weight, and laudable subconscious choice---"YES that's it!!" reaction.
This mic has action action. It's sound avoids the dummy trend to have a thick and undefined transformer sound just for the heck of it. Instead, the very high quality Russian transformer stays out of the way and does not affect low end as a bonus.
I am using this mic on female vocalists, cello, piano, stings, woodwinds, and upright bass. It has performed like a champ and I would like to recommend it very highly. Purchase with confidence. YOu will have invested in a very high quality mic. Totally worth its price.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 3, 2016 8:58:23 GMT -6
This mudder-dugger is a fantastic mic. It stands up and says, "I am a microphone." It is very quiet, has a real olden style tubesound and the capsulesound is smooth and appealing. It compete well with genuine vintage mics on the terms of lush sound, sparkle-y sound, sound with weight, and laudable subconscious choice---"YES that's it!!" reaction. This mic has action action. It's sound avoids the dummy trend to have a thick and undefined transformer sound just for the heck of it. Instead, the very high quality Russian transformer stays out of the way and does not affect low end as a bonus. I am using this mic on female vocalists, cello, piano, stings, woodwinds, and upright bass. It has performed like a champ and I would like to recommend it very highly. Purchase with confidence. YOu will have invested in a very high quality mic. Totally worth its price. Thanks for the review. Do you know how it compares to other mics? I've heard it has heritage in the U67 camp, but others say C12. I watched a video last night where it was A/B'd with a U87 and It was crazy close. How utilitarian is this mic? |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 3, 2016 12:06:26 GMT -6
I guess I'm asking because I'd like to know if the Soyuz would overlap with other mics in my locker. I've got an ADK Z mod 67 for that M269 vibe. I can't afford redundancy and really don't want to invest in specialized tools at the moment. I need to be able to pull out this mic for a boatload of applications for this kind of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 3, 2016 13:41:32 GMT -6
Vintage U87's regularly go for around $2.5K. If they sound similar, would be a better fit as a workhorse
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 3, 2016 19:23:24 GMT -6
Vintage U87's regularly go for around $2.5K. If they sound similar, would be a better fit as a workhorse That's exactly what I was thinking watching that video. He was switching back and forth with a U87 and it sounded remarkably close. I wasn't hearing a $1k difference. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 3, 2016 19:25:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 3, 2016 19:56:03 GMT -6
^^Very nicely done video.. Have to say - I'm liking the Soyuz
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 3, 2016 21:53:06 GMT -6
Sounds really nice. You can hear that barky midrange kick in every time it cuts to the U87. I prefer the Soyuz here.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jul 3, 2016 22:21:05 GMT -6
I'd like it even more if he stood still instead of swaying about all over the place!
The sound changes so much as he moves about it almost invalidates the test IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 4, 2016 0:11:12 GMT -6
I'd like it even more if he stood still instead of swaying about all over the place! The sound changes so much as he moves about it almost invalidates the test IMO. Heheh. Yeah I could do without the swaying too. And why are the friggin mics so far apart? We're not trying to do a nice spaced pair here, we're trying to hear the differences between the mics. Those capsules should be as close together as possible. That way they can at least react similarly to the romantic swaying. |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jul 4, 2016 1:24:03 GMT -6
I'd like it even more if he stood still instead of swaying about all over the place! The sound changes so much as he moves about it almost invalidates the test IMO. Heheh. Yeah I could do without the swaying too. And why are the friggin mics so far apart? We're not trying to do a nice spaced pair here, we're trying to hear the differences between the mics. Those capsules should be as close together as possible. That way they can at least react similarly to the romantic swaying. Yeah you're correct about the mics being too far apart as well. A mishmash of more/less proximity, on axis/off axis, louder/softer etc. Just what all good mic shootouts require! 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 4, 2016 4:27:37 GMT -6
All good points, but even taking all of that into account, you can make some pretty realistic, real-world assumptions about the Soyuz, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jul 4, 2016 4:49:31 GMT -6
All good points, but even taking all of that into account, you can make some pretty realistic, real-world assumptions about the Soyuz, right? Put the capsules close together, nail the player's feet to the floor, reshoot the video then call me!  |
|
|
|
Post by mikec on Jul 4, 2016 6:11:30 GMT -6
I've had a Soyuz SU-17 for a couple of months now and love it. No buyers remorse and I don't see it going anywhere. My other high end mic for comparison is a Pearlman TM-250. Both great mics and I feel, for my needs, I have my bases pretty well covered. I think the SU-17 is a little smoother than the TM-250 and the TM-250 is a little more rock n roll but both are great. I also have the Soyuz SU-11 matched pair and so far having only used them on acoustics I've been very pleased.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 4, 2016 9:38:54 GMT -6
All good points, but even taking all of that into account, you can make some pretty realistic, real-world assumptions about the Soyuz, right? I can make a personal one: it's a bit pricey for cardioid only. Just saying that because there are A LOT of incredible mics in these pricepoints, especially from European brands. If you can only afford one, it's a tough choice to make. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 4, 2016 9:49:33 GMT -6
I believe this fet version is $1999. So $500 cheaper than going rate for 87s.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 4, 2016 9:52:04 GMT -6
I believe this fet version is $1999. So $500 cheaper than going rate for 87s. The one in the video is the tube one. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 4, 2016 10:00:10 GMT -6
Ahhh
|
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 4, 2016 10:09:59 GMT -6
... and I'm not talking about the AI version tested in the video. For $2.5K you get a vintage U87. No depreciation purchase, good investment too.
Doesn't take anything away from the Soyuz. We're deep into high-end here, they're all good mics.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 4, 2016 10:56:20 GMT -6
Where are these optional capsules for Fig8? A $3500 card only mic is about as expensive a mic as I've seen. And it's not like an electronic feature set....it's a whole second diaphragm that needs to match....it's typically not quite TWICE as expensive at retail. So....a $3500 is likely a $5500 multipattern. Maybe $6k. I get the whole no moving parts (though a tube will fail long before a well made switch, IME) for longevity...but, that raises the price a LOT by rather than needing a nother layer of metal and mylar and time to tune it....it needs a whole new (gorgeous I might add) capsule shell with a whole new capsule that is literally the same cap--I mean, the dual diaphragm capsule is capable of all three....if you have an omni capsule and a Fig8 capsule--it's literally the same capsule with a slight wiring change....so, if you have to buy three capsules to avoid having a switch....that seems silly. I would think one into such gorgeous metalwork could handle implementing a switch that will hold up well. I don't know that I've ever run into a mic with a broken switch. Gefell uses a ring as switch below the UM70....414 is a little plastic switch (still working fine 30+ years later....
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 4, 2016 11:35:41 GMT -6
Now that a few more people have gotten their hands on the Soyuz 0-19, I think I get to say I told you so ;-)
The Soyuz capsule is based on a u67 style capsule. If I had to describe the 0-17, imagine a vintage U87 with a tube, a little more 3D, smoother highs, warmer mids, kind of a a luscious version of it.
I have the 0-19 FET sitting in my room in a box on loan. It's not as spectacular as the 0-17. My Blackspade UM-18R sounds better, and they're just about priced the same. I'll try it again soon, I've only tried it once and had to move on.
|
|
