|
|
Post by EmRR on Oct 31, 2017 7:27:36 GMT -6
And they're 'common' enough to be known, which drives prices. Truly rare stuff always brings less because fewer know to look for it. For instance??? You must know some examples. There's tons of old tube gear that people don't know, every bit as good as the stuff people pay out the wazoo for. It takes UA becoming a company again to make anyone care about vintage UA comps, Coil making new Gates SA-70's to drive up the price of those, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 31, 2017 7:39:47 GMT -6
Funny no one seems to call them ioaudio 67's, 'cause that's his handle and company name and the name on all his previous products..... The DIY kit is called the IOAudio MK67 on the sites where it is sold. I always referred to his kit as the MK U67 which may be wrong, but I enjoy adding the "U." Lol. As for dropping the IOAudio, that's like dropping Neumann and just saying U67. I sometimes wonder what this kit would sound like with a couple of tweaks from Shannon. Maybe just a hair more in the top top end. I'd also be curious if he could make the "linear mode" more like an M269 mode.... I have no money for a mod like this, but it's an idea I toy around with.... maybe after I get my 49. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 31, 2017 7:46:20 GMT -6
You must know some examples. There's tons of old tube gear that people don't know, every bit as good as the stuff people pay out the wazoo for. It takes UA becoming a company again to make anyone care about vintage UA comps, Coil making new Gates SA-70's to drive up the price of those, etc. Yes, I know some... but I want YOUR 'For Instances' in case I may be missing some! |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,086 
|
Post by ericn on Oct 31, 2017 7:54:16 GMT -6
You must know some examples. There's tons of old tube gear that people don't know, every bit as good as the stuff people pay out the wazoo for. It takes UA becoming a company again to make anyone care about vintage UA comps, Coil making new Gates SA-70's to drive up the price of those, etc. Yes, I know some... but I want YOUR 'For Instances' in case I may be missing some! First rule of affordable scarce gear club We don't talk about affordable scarce gear club. |
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Oct 31, 2017 9:40:34 GMT -6
Especially the Josephson. $9'000 is ridiculous. Same with the T-Funks, Bocks and all the other wildly overpriced American mics. The Josephson is perhaps the most state of the art mic of its type in existence for the price of any average Harley Davidson. So no, it's not overpriced, just expensive. I just got to play around with a 725 last night. It sounds great. It was very natural sounding and smooth top to bottom. We had it set up next to a KILLER u67 and the 715 for reference. All of those mics sounded really great on vocals and acoustic guitar. On the female vocal/acoustic we used for testing we all preferred the 715, which shocked me. I thought for sure I would prefer the 67 or the 725. Joesphson makes some really amazing LDC mics (I don't love his SDC's). I honestly don't think I have ever heard any mics as smooth as his. His head basket design and capsules are really amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 5, 2017 19:17:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 5, 2017 20:34:48 GMT -6
Can't wait to try one of these.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 5, 2017 20:40:10 GMT -6
Anyone know if it has the U67 feedback network/tertiary winding transformer situation or if it’s another one of the capsule-voiced-like-the-U67-net-output offerings?
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Nov 5, 2017 21:09:04 GMT -6
Doesn't sound like this is actually a thing. More like a one-off. I think that dudes plate is pretty full as-is. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,086
|
Post by ericn on Nov 5, 2017 21:13:46 GMT -6
Doesn't sound like this is actually a thing. More like a one-off. I think that dudes plate is pretty full as-is. Agreed let's not have Josh bite off anymore than he already has! |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 5, 2017 21:39:12 GMT -6
Just thought it was cool and kind of out of no where.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Nov 5, 2017 23:35:23 GMT -6
The Josephson is perhaps the most state of the art mic of its type in existence for the price of any average Harley Davidson. So no, it's not overpriced, just expensive. I just got to play around with a 725 last night. It sounds great. It was very natural sounding and smooth top to bottom. We had it set up next to a KILLER u67 and the 715 for reference. All of those mics sounded really great on vocals and acoustic guitar. On the female vocal/acoustic we used for testing we all preferred the 715, which shocked me. I thought for sure I would prefer the 67 or the 725. Joesphson makes some really amazing LDC mics (I don't love his SDC's). I honestly don't think I have ever heard any mics as smooth as his. His head basket design and capsules are really amazing. FET mic beats $9'000 super mic... Happening right now in another studio somewhere in the world, $400 Shure dynamic beats $15'000 vintage mic... Yeah, I think I'll buy that Harley instead. |
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Nov 6, 2017 6:25:57 GMT -6
The Josephson is perhaps the most state of the art mic of its type in existence for the price of any average Harley Davidson. So no, it's not overpriced, just expensive. I just got to play around with a 725 last night. It sounds great. It was very natural sounding and smooth top to bottom. We had it set up next to a KILLER u67 and the 715 for reference. All of those mics sounded really great on vocals and acoustic guitar. On the female vocal/acoustic we used for testing we all preferred the 715, which shocked me. I thought for sure I would prefer the 67 or the 725. Joesphson makes some really amazing LDC mics (I don't love his SDC's). I honestly don't think I have ever heard any mics as smooth as his. His head basket design and capsules are really amazing. the 715 is a special beast too!! |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 6, 2017 7:41:45 GMT -6
Case in point, I had two Neumann U47's in my house, borrowed from a friend, and my Blackspade UM-17B, which is in the sonic territory of the U47 and M49. It cost around 2 G's. My wife was tracking harmony vocals, and said, "give me my mic", meaning the Blackspade. It sounded better for her than the U47's. So, once you're at that level, it really is a "which is the better fit" thing, not one of reputation.
Having used U47's and a couple of U67's, the 67 was clearly the better fit for me, as "perfect" as the U47 was. The Soyuz 0-17 is in the U67 zone sonically, so that too might be the better choice. That was until I got to try the Chandler REDD, which ended the conversation for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 6, 2017 9:12:55 GMT -6
I just got to play around with a 725 last night. It sounds great. It was very natural sounding and smooth top to bottom. We had it set up next to a KILLER u67 and the 715 for reference. All of those mics sounded really great on vocals and acoustic guitar. On the female vocal/acoustic we used for testing we all preferred the 715, which shocked me. I thought for sure I would prefer the 67 or the 725. Joesphson makes some really amazing LDC mics (I don't love his SDC's). I honestly don't think I have ever heard any mics as smooth as his. His head basket design and capsules are really amazing. the 715 is a special beast too!! Yeah, I think you touched on a different point altogether. Of course certain mics will suit some material better. The Josephson C715 is a C37 derived capsule and is known for sounding good on females, and like the C37A on sibilant voices where other condensers fail, and again is not cheap compared with many other FET mics. But the headbasket and large core transformer design contributes to this utility and the cost of construction, since these parts have to be specially sourced. The C700A partly, C716 and C725 have CK12 type capsules, which do not sound the same at all. But the C716 and C725 have the same anti-resonant headbasket. So if one needs a CK12 capture with its bigger top end phase shift and lower proximity effect, in a multipattern tube mic that is perfectly tuned for pristine smoothness in its brightness and an off-axis response with a lack of nasty coloration, it would be hard to beat the C725. Most of the CK12 style mics made today are a little hard or sibilant and both new and the originals may be too colored or not have enough resolution for certain applications. Not saying I can afford this mic, just that it is worth the price asked and probably couldn't be sold cheaper anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Nov 7, 2017 8:28:51 GMT -6
the 715 is a special beast too!! Yeah, I think you touched on a different point altogether. Of course certain mics will suit some material better. The Josephson C715 is a C37 derived capsule and is known for sounding good on females, and like the C37A on sibilant voices where other condensers fail, and again is not cheap compared with many other FET mics. But the headbasket and large core transformer design contributes to this utility and the cost of construction, since these parts have to be specially sourced. The C700A partly, C716 and C725 have CK12 type capsules, which do not sound the same at all. But the C716 and C725 have the same anti-resonant headbasket. So if one needs a CK12 capture with its bigger top end phase shift and lower proximity effect, in a multipattern tube mic that is perfectly tuned for pristine smoothness in its brightness and an off-axis response with a lack of nasty coloration, it would be hard to beat the C725. Most of the CK12 style mics made today are a little hard or sibilant and both new and the originals may be too colored or not have enough resolution for certain applications. Not saying I can afford this mic, just that it is worth the price asked and probably couldn't be sold cheaper anyway. The Josephson crew wants to be The Most specific mic builders on the planet, yet I have found their designs are super versatile as a result. They always invent new sounds with these mics. That is another reason why its hard to choose. Users of their products always want more of them. These microphones never will be about beating up on each other. They are so different, as are the spectrum of sounds in the world. So they are more like seasoned teammates playing for the best coaches, |
|
|
|
Post by miscend on Nov 8, 2017 20:37:52 GMT -6
I will say the new Telefunken U47 delivers its promise. It's a real U47, and sounds incredible. But yes, at $9,000, it's an unusual purchase. I don't know who their target customer is for those. They are Telefunken in name only. They have nothing to do with the original company that built the U47. They are using a lot of the same techniques that DIY builders are using to recreate the microphone. Although I believe their 47 is a lot closer than their 251. |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 8, 2017 21:09:41 GMT -6
I will say the new Telefunken U47 delivers its promise. It's a real U47, and sounds incredible. But yes, at $9,000, it's an unusual purchase. I don't know who their target customer is for those. They are Telefunken in name only. They have nothing to do with the original company that built the U47. They are using a lot of the same techniques that DIY builders are using to recreate the microphone. Although I believe their 47 is a lot closer than their 251. What tube do they use in their 47? cheers Wiz |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,086
|
Post by ericn on Nov 8, 2017 21:17:33 GMT -6
I will say the new Telefunken U47 delivers its promise. It's a real U47, and sounds incredible. But yes, at $9,000, it's an unusual purchase. I don't know who their target customer is for those. They are Telefunken in name only. They have nothing to do with the original company that built the U47. They are using a lot of the same techniques that DIY builders are using to recreate the microphone. Although I believe their 47 is a lot closer than their 251. Telefunken was a distributor, they never built a microphone! |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 8, 2017 22:52:08 GMT -6
Micsend, I too find they're overpriced, but I think they're a lot more than a name only thing. People invested time, skill and a lot of money to rebirth a great name, and they have an incredible factory with serious quality control now. I understand that they're bound to do similar things to high end DIY people, but that has to be so because they're building similar things. I personally wouldn't touch their 47 knowing the Chandler REDD exists for half the price, but i understand there may be some clients who have their reasons to get one.
Those mics may be way too expensive, but they are really really good. I haven't heard one single DIY mic come close to their U47 yet. This is long, so maybe get some coffee, sit back, and have a listen, the only mic in the same league as the Telefunken U47 is the $6,000 Bock 251.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 26, 2017 20:11:53 GMT -6
I guess it's not a one off. Seems to be missing a little something on the bottom end, at least compared to my MK U67. Then again, that kit is a touch on the dark side.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Nov 26, 2017 22:37:31 GMT -6
I guess it's not a one off. Seems to be missing a little something on the bottom end, at least compared to my MK U67. Then again, that kit is a touch on the dark side. You think that was a flat take, meaning no eq/compression? Seemed to have more air than I remember my MKU67 having. |
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Nov 26, 2017 22:53:15 GMT -6
Micsend, I too find they're overpriced, but I think they're a lot more than a name only thing. People invested time, skill and a lot of money to rebirth a great name, and they have an incredible factory with serious quality control now. I understand that they're bound to do similar things to high end DIY people, but that has to be so because they're building similar things. I personally wouldn't touch their 47 knowing the Chandler REDD exists for half the price, but i understand there may be some clients who have their reasons to get one. Those mics may be way too expensive, but they are really really good. I haven't heard one single DIY mic come close to their U47 yet. This is long, so maybe get some coffee, sit back, and have a listen, the only mic in the same league as the Telefunken U47 is the $6,000 Bock 251. That was great. Kind of bizarre to me how they didn't spend anytime with the um900. I absolutely love that mic. I did find the 47's to be very different. The flea sounded not that great. The flea 49 sounded amazing. As did the tele 47 and bock 251. I also loved the ma300. I'll take a bock, 2 300's 2 flea 49's and a tele 47. Already have the 900 and a cmv or they'd be on the list as well. |
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Nov 27, 2017 4:39:04 GMT -6
Hey there c0rtland, what are you usually using the un900 in front of in the way of sources? Every time I see a photo of one of these as well as with the umt800 I want to possess them. They are so very pretty to look at, and we all know that the way a mic looks translates literally one to one to how it sounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 27, 2017 6:19:39 GMT -6
I guess it's not a one off. Seems to be missing a little something on the bottom end, at least compared to my MK U67. Then again, that kit is a touch on the dark side. You think that was a flat take, meaning no eq/compression? Seemed to have more air than I remember my MKU67 having. I do think it is flat. It's very similar to a sample I posted a few weeks ago. I agree the MK U67 has a much darker top end and more robust low end, however a few guys here who have original un-altered U67s have said their U67s have a bit more top end. I would venture this SA-67 is more like their SA-87 with a tube. Hey stam can you tell us a little bit about your new SA-67? |
|
