|
Post by ragan on Jan 1, 2017 23:04:09 GMT -6
What difference do you hear with the NOS Tele tube? It's just sounds a bit "more". A little larger, a touch more "vintage" sounding, made the mids a bit more rich and a just a touch sweeter and silkier in the highs. The PF tube Max shipped it with outperformed many others I tried, but I found a vintage EF Telefunken that definitely added something special. Ooh. I love this mic so "more" is an enticing description. Time to email Bowie...
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jan 1, 2017 23:10:50 GMT -6
It's just sounds a bit "more". A little larger, a touch more "vintage" sounding, made the mids a bit more rich and a just a touch sweeter and silkier in the highs. The PF tube Max shipped it with outperformed many others I tried, but I found a vintage EF Telefunken that definitely added something special. Ooh. I love this mic so "more" is an enticing description. Time to email Bowie... I think that would be a good call. I bought a bunch of old used Telefunkens for cheap. A couple of them sound spectacular... but I have no idea how many hours I'll get out of them. Been wanting to connect with Bowie and get some Good NOS tubes from him.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 1, 2017 23:35:14 GMT -6
BTW - another awesome U67-ish mic is the RMS 269. www.rmsaudioworks.com/RMS269.phpWhen Max decided not to make his mod swap out for the vintage U87 (I was bummed as I also have the inner tube audio U87 mod tube insert - think C12 and U47 have a baby), I bought an RMS269 on a whim. I really wanted the trilogy of a U87, U67 and the InnerTube all in one mic, but it was not to be and ultimately, I turned out HAPPIER. Despite a somewhat insecure feel about the freq response printouts, the RMS269 has turned out to be one of the best mics in my collection. Significantly cheaper than getting a TLM67 and doing the conversion from Max, and ultimately I think I like it better. Every time I break it out, I Love, love, LOOOOVE the 269. Right in the same U67 camp, but a touch more "open" (like many vintage mics always seem to be) than a vintage unmodded 67 but not harsh at all - and less harsh and more sweet up top than a modded 67 IMO. Sounds killer on everything. Absolutely scratched the U67 itch I've had for years. How RMS has evaded being on everyone's radar is a mystery to me....
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jan 1, 2017 23:52:08 GMT -6
BTW - another awesome U67-ish mic is the RMS 269. www.rmsaudioworks.com/RMS269.phpWhen Max decided not to make his mod swap out for the vintage U87 (I was bummed as I also have the inner tube audio U87 mod tube insert - think C12 and U47 have a baby), I bought an RMS269 on a whim. I really wanted the trilogy of a U87, U67 and the InnerTube all in one mic, but it was not to be and ultimately, I turned out HAPPIER. Despite a somewhat insecure feel about the freq response printouts, the RMS269 has turned out to be one of the best mics in my collection. Significantly cheaper than getting a TLM67 and doing the conversion from Max, and ultimately I think I like it better. Every time I break it out, I Love, love, LOOOOVE the 269. Right in the same U67 camp, but a touch more "open" (like many vintage mics always seem to be) than a vintage unmodded 67 but not harsh at all - and less harsh and more sweet up top than a modded 67 IMO. Sounds killer on everything. Absolutely scratched the U67 itch I've had for years. How RMS has evaded being on everyone's radar is a mystery to me.... I've heard great things about the RMS269. It's been on my radar for a while.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 2, 2017 5:09:13 GMT -6
BTW - another awesome U67-ish mic is the RMS 269. www.rmsaudioworks.com/RMS269.phpWhen Max decided not to make his mod swap out for the vintage U87 (I was bummed as I also have the inner tube audio U87 mod tube insert - think C12 and U47 have a baby), I bought an RMS269 on a whim. I really wanted the trilogy of a U87, U67 and the InnerTube all in one mic, but it was not to be and ultimately, I turned out HAPPIER. Despite a somewhat insecure feel about the freq response printouts, the RMS269 has turned out to be one of the best mics in my collection. Significantly cheaper than getting a TLM67 and doing the conversion from Max, and ultimately I think I like it better. Every time I break it out, I Love, love, LOOOOVE the 269. Right in the same U67 camp, but a touch more "open" (like many vintage mics always seem to be) than a vintage unmodded 67 but not harsh at all - and less harsh and more sweet up top than a modded 67 IMO. Sounds killer on everything. Absolutely scratched the U67 itch I've had for years. How RMS has evaded being on everyone's radar is a mystery to me.... It's gotta be very similar to the ADK Z-Mod 67, I would think. I understand the RMS is using the ADK 67 capsule. I can't imagine these two mics sounding incredibly different.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Jan 2, 2017 5:42:01 GMT -6
Last time I was on RMS mics site it was around $1900 for the rms 269... at the time I believe it also had more expensive configurable add ons, if one wanted specific components. Always had them on my list but never have heard enough info to drop the $$$$... I don't need any headaches with restocking or return fees either and most places ( I have found ) charge for the mic demos or rental as well as some wanting a full purchase then in come the return headaches and policies designed to screw the customer.... ( RMS does not screw their customers from my research and I am not implying their company )
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 2, 2017 6:33:01 GMT -6
The whole return policy thing sure gets tiresome as you can't really know how you feel about gear until you've tested it in the environment you are most familiar with:your studio.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 2, 2017 8:59:18 GMT -6
I think any company selling a new microphone should see to having a loaner mic for testing. It should be made available, for say 3 days at no charge, other than shipping. The potential buyer paying for shipping a demo is only fair I think. It a win-win that way. After the 3 day trial, there could be a reasonable rental charge, say $25 a day, for up to 4 days. After that, it's yours.
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Jan 2, 2017 9:17:54 GMT -6
Not to rain on everyone's parade but I have never heard a clone or recreation that is actually really in the ball park of a good U67. I found this out the hard way. I have heard most all of them in this thread. I even have 2 clones here that I have compared to a known "good one in Nashville". My clones faired well to that u67, they where just a little harder sounding in the upper mids. Randy and Jeff have heard this mic and we all thought it sounded really nice. Then a friend of mine purchased a U67 sight unseen and it has been a revelation in what a GREAT U67 sounds like. Mine sounds good to great but nothing as amazing as the original U67 of my friends. He and I have tried a number of capsules and transformers in our clones and compared to his original. So far nothing is even close. I don't think it is the body or the head basket because my friend also has one of the TLM modded 67 being discussed here. The TLM actually didn't sound even as good as my original clones I was working on that Randy and Jeff heard.
The next thing I want to try is all original resistors and capacitors. I have sourced them already. But I have a feeling it will be the same kind of result. I think these great sound U67's are a sum of all things and really hard to nail down.
Anyway, I wish it was as easy as some other things to get right. But so far nailing sound of a great u67 is a myth in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 2, 2017 10:28:14 GMT -6
Not to rain on everyone's parade but I have never heard a clone or recreation that is actually really in the ball park of a good U67. I found this out the hard way. I have heard most all of them in this thread. I even have 2 clones here that I have compared to a known "good one in Nashville". My clones faired well to that u67, they where just a little harder sounding in the upper mids. Randy and Jeff have heard this mic and we all thought it sounded really nice. Then a friend of mine purchased a U67 sight unseen and it has been a revelation in what a GREAT U67 sounds like. Mine sounds good to great but nothing as amazing as the original U67 of my friends. He and I have tried a number of capsules and transformers in our clones and compared to his original. So far nothing is even close. I don't think it is the body or the head basket because my friend also has one of the TLM modded 67 being discussed here. The TLM actually didn't sound even as good as my original clones I was working on that Randy and Jeff heard. The next thing I want to try is all original resistors and capacitors. I have sourced them already. But I have a feeling it will be the same kind of result. I think these great sound U67's are a sum of all things and really hard to nail down. Anyway, I wish it was as easy as some other things to get right. But so far nailing sound of a great u67 is a myth in my opinion. Interesting. So you had the Max Kircher mod there and didn't like it? Subjective stuff of course but the very last thing I would characterize the MaxMod 67 as is "hard". The one I have here is lush. Granted I don't have your experience with those specific original U67s. Nor do I, I suspect, have your experience in general. I've always found that the "clones" that simply try to voice a capsule like the total output of the U67 don't get there. That whole de-emphasis-to-bright Neumann capsule thing seems to be where some of the magic lies. That sort of self compression of the hi mids. That's what drew me to Max's 67, the fact that it's actually a 1:1 U67 circuit complete with the unique transformer that he winds. But anyway. Not trying to be an evangelist for it. I just really like the mic
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2017 10:48:34 GMT -6
a friend of mine purchased a U67 sight unseen and it has been a revelation in what a GREAT U67 sounds like. That example does indeed sound special, I've heard it. Can't say I've heard many other originals though. I have my TLM version closer to the 'special unit', still needs some fine tuning.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 2, 2017 11:35:59 GMT -6
Great post dandeurloo. I suspect you may be right, unfortunately. This is why I'm such a strong supporter of the Soyuz 0-17 and 0-19 FET. They are their own animal, yet clearly rival a U67 and U87 respectively. They're in that tonal family, but emphasize the lush frequencies a bit more. Those happen to very pleasant frequencies, so the Soyuz is viable for major league recording. I've been suggesting my realgear friends have a close look at one for many reasons. First, it's brand new, has a warranty, sounds incredible, and they cost around $1,800 and $3,100 on sale. You know exactly what your getting, there's no guesswork, no waiting, no modding, no second guessing and worry.
Ragan has good ears, and if he says his mic sounds superb, it does. That said, put next to a vintage unmodded U67, we all know it'll be different, but that's not necessarily the fault of Max's design, it's 45 years older and even the same parts were made with the materials available at that time. I think there's no real alternative if you want a vintage mic to sound just like the mics on your reference records, you just have to have the scratch to get one.
It doesn't mean you can't get to the high end less expensively and be done. I watched a video of record being made last week and they had 4 Neumann U87AI mics on it. The record sounded great.
I was lucky to have done a shootout with some mint condition vintage mics at a world class studio last summer, thanks to Jeremy Gillespie. I tried a U47, M49, U67, C-12, Soyuz 0-19 FET, and a Blackspade UM17R. The 47 was flawless, but the 67, which was more sibilant, (but still sounded natural), just worked better for my voice.
One thing I've noticed that separates the Neumanns from the herd is the size and depth and general quality of the pickup pattern. When set to cardiod, the 67 and 87 are both incredibly huge, yet they never veer into sounding like a different pickup pattern. So, you get the perfect blend of room and vocal. Then, the proximity effect is a very natural one and can be easily used to dial in the sound you want.
I remember when I first got back into recording, I tried the Bock Audio 195. It sounded incredible good on acoustic guitar, but for vocals, it just didn't sit right, and felt like it veered into omni mode a little. I sold it for the Blackspade, which was much nicer.
So, although we focus a lot on harshness and sibilance, I think the pickup pattern is way more important than we've been acknowledging. Pickup patterns are different at different frequencies too, so it's incredibly difficult to duplicate the pickup pattern at all frequencies of another mic.
Mic gurus here would probably have a better description than mine though.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 2, 2017 11:46:09 GMT -6
Not to rain on everyone's parade but I have never heard a clone or recreation that is actually really in the ball park of a good U67. I found this out the hard way. I have heard most all of them in this thread. I even have 2 clones here that I have compared to a known "good one in Nashville". My clones faired well to that u67, they where just a little harder sounding in the upper mids. Randy and Jeff have heard this mic and we all thought it sounded really nice. Then a friend of mine purchased a U67 sight unseen and it has been a revelation in what a GREAT U67 sounds like. Mine sounds good to great but nothing as amazing as the original U67 of my friends. He and I have tried a number of capsules and transformers in our clones and compared to his original. So far nothing is even close. I don't think it is the body or the head basket because my friend also has one of the TLM modded 67 being discussed here. The TLM actually didn't sound even as good as my original clones I was working on that Randy and Jeff heard. The next thing I want to try is all original resistors and capacitors. I have sourced them already. But I have a feeling it will be the same kind of result. I think these great sound U67's are a sum of all things and really hard to nail down. Anyway, I wish it was as easy as some other things to get right. But so far nailing sound of a great u67 is a myth in my opinion. Man, this doused my flames for the Max Mod a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 2, 2017 11:49:46 GMT -6
Great post dandeurloo. I suspect you may be right, unfortunately. This is why I'm such a strong supporter of the Soyuz 0-17 and 0-19 FET. They are their own animal, yet clearly rival a U67 and U87 respectively. They're in that tonal family, but emphasize the lush frequencies a bit more. Those happen to very pleasant frequencies, so the Soyuz is viable for major league recording. I've been suggesting my realgear friends have a close look at one for many reasons. First, it's brand new, has a warranty, sounds incredible, and they cost around $1,800 and $3,100 on sale. You know exactly what your getting, there's no guesswork, no waiting, no modding, no second guessing and worry. Ragan has good ears, and if he says his mic sounds superb, it does. That said, put next to a vintage unmoved U67, we all know it'll be different, but that's not necessarily the fault of Max's design, it's 45 years older and even the same parts were made with the materials available at that time. I think there's no real alternative if you want a vintage mic to sound just like the mics on your reference records, you just have to have the scratch to get one. It doesn't mean you can't get to the high end less expensively and be done. I watched a video of record being made last week and they had 4 Neumann U87AI mics on it. The record sounded great. I was lucky to have done a shootout with some mint condition vintage mics at a world class studio last summer, thanks to Jeremy Gillespie. I tried a U47, M49, U67, C-12, Soyuz 0-19 FET, and a Blackspade UM17R. The 47 was flawless, but the 67, which was more sibilant, (but still sounded natural), just worked better for my voice. One thing I've noticed that separates the Neumanns from the herd is the size and depth and general quality of the pickup pattern. When set to cardiod, the 67 and 87 are both incredibly huge, yet they never veer into sounding like a different pickup pattern. So, you get the perfect blend of room and vocal. Then, the proximity effect is a very natural one and can be easily used to dial in the sound you want. I remember when I first got back into recording, I tried the Bock Audio 195. It sounded incredible good on acoustic guitar, but for vocals, it just didn't sit right, and felt like it veered into omni mode a little. I sold it for the Blackspade, which was much nicer. So, although we focus a lot on harshness and sibilance, I think the pickup pattern is way more important than we've been acknowledging. Pickup patterns are different at different frequencies too, so it's incredibly difficult to duplicate the pickup pattern at all frequencies of another mic. Mic gurus here would probably have a better description than mine though. If you don't end up buying the Soyuz, I'm gonna be pissed. You need that mic. It's calling to you. Save your pennies, stop buying plug-ins, leave old strings on your guitars a bit longer, and save the dough to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 2, 2017 12:13:49 GMT -6
Give me a little time.. ;-) I just bought a new computer because I needed thunderbolt for a my new Apollo, so I need some recovery time!
I also really want to help they guys here out a little. It's so easy to get fixated on getting the sound of a great vintage mic, that we run in circles, buying and modding a half dozen mics and still not being exactly where we want to be. I know from experience ;-) I was messing around with various capsules and designs for two years. I learned, but it was painful.
The obvious conclusion? You can't get a mod or clone 100% the way you want, assuming what you want is it to sound the same as the original. They've been trying to clone a Stradivarius for centuries, and still don't have it.
Where I land is this, a mint U67 would be my desire and benchmark. If I could do a comparison of a Soyuz 0-17 and a Max's mod U67, I'd pick the winner and be done, knowing where to set my sights. If I can't afford either, get a Warm U87 for a while.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 2, 2017 12:31:44 GMT -6
Not to rain on everyone's parade but I have never heard a clone or recreation that is actually really in the ball park of a good U67. As background - I've used ALL of Capitol's U67's at once (16+), and even with the level of maintenance they have, many sound different.....and some are magic, and some are just dark. So... I'll take you one further Dan. I've found that it's a rare situation to hear a vintage 67 that sounds like a good/great 67 in 2016/17. Why? #1 - so many, many of them have been modded, and therefore (to me) sound nothing like real 67's. And... #2 - so many have been maintained poorly, and have lost the magic mojo. Or maybe they never had it to begin with? That's why - #3 - It's VERY, VERY difficult (perhaps more difficult than finding any other vintage mic in good condition short of a good M50) to find a great one.
So......I gave up. There are a lot of good "in the ballpark" mics out there. Some are magical, and some are just approximations. Dan - you are cursed. You have a buddy with a great one, and it's set you on an impossible (IMO) mission. You MIGHT be able to attain your goals because you have a sterling example at your fingertips to compare to, but without that, the chance of really getting a great vintage or clone or recreation 67 is harder than finding a needle in the proverbial haystack. If a guy like Dan who has the knowledge, who has the chops, and who has a killer example can't find a suitable replacement for his clones......what chance do the rest of us poor slobs have? Answer - slim to none. I still love my RMS269 though. <thumbsup>
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 2, 2017 12:37:08 GMT -6
I was lucky to have done a shootout with some mint condition vintage mics at a world class studio last summer, thanks to Jeremy Gillespie. I tried a U47, M49, U67, C-12, Soyuz 0-19 FET, and a Blackspade UM17R. The 47 was flawless, but the 67, which was more sibilant, (but still sounded natural), just worked better for my voice. Now....all that said, I'm comparing to the vintage untouched sonics of a REAL U67. A lot of mics got modded for music in the "tape" era 30 years ago due to their dark tonality, and if you dig that sound, they are an awesome mic. But they are not a real 67 IMO. Most likely modded or some components replaced. Great U67's are the furthest thing from "more sibilant". At this stage, given 20 (seemingly) well maintained U67's to choose from for purchase, I'd be guessing less than 3 are in the realm of great and stock sounding.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 2, 2017 14:46:45 GMT -6
Dang, that's kind of depressing drbill, but good to know. Maybe you can answer a question for me. I wrote Nathaniel Kunkel a few years ago regarding the signal path of Lyle Lovette's "Road to Ensenada". He kindly respond that it was with Massenberg custom preamps, and a mint vintage U67, plus a C24, (stereo C12) on the guitar at the same time. There isn't an example I could find online of that track, or I'd post it, but there's plenty of sibilance. It could probably be argued that's his voice, but there it is. I've lost the email, but I think it was called a "black U67", and I think it was done at Conway Studios. That's exactly the sound I was looking for. Here are the tracks from my shootout, I'd be curious to hear your comments about the mics, especially the 67'. realgearonline.com/thread/5685/high-end-mic-shootout-preview?page=4* drill, to the best of my knowledge, the U67 in my shutout wasn't modded.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 2, 2017 15:31:12 GMT -6
Wasn't it jeremygillespie's studio's U67? He'd probably have some insight.
Also, MJB, I think when you say that Lovett record has "plenty of sibilance", I think we're thinking something different than you mean by it. I just listened to some of it. You can hear the "esses" and it's articulate but it's not anything I'd call "sibilant". The 'esses' are lovely. Clear and smooth. When someone hears "that vocal is sibilant" they're thinking of harsh, stabb-y sibilance. That Lovett recording sounds classic U67 to me. The compression brings out plenty of articulation and sort of 'punch' to the vocal, but it's very smooth.
It's the exact same thing I'm loving about the MaxMod 67. I have a bright, sibilant voice and I've tried a million things tracking it. The MaxMod just massages the esses in such a nice way. It's exactly what I was hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 2, 2017 16:48:53 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure Jeremy mentioned in another post that 67 wasn't modded.
Ragan, you're completely right, the terminology can be misleading. I've stated many times that the "esses" are quite prominent in that Road to Ensenada recording, but they don't bother me at all. So I guess I need another word, because I sure do know what you mean about "harsh, stabb-y sibilance". Even a Thiersch M7 capsule can have some of that.
Maybe Drbill can offer a better description I might use.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 2, 2017 17:22:42 GMT -6
Another problem is that if you want to grab a vintage one, you'll be shelling out in the $10K neighborhood just to roll the dice!!
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jan 2, 2017 17:34:10 GMT -6
Those of you who have tried the Max Mod, have you tried it with different tubes? The stock PF tube Max ships it with sounds nice... but... I tried several old Telefunken EF86 and EF806s tubes and a couple of them transformed the sound quite favorably. Much closer to what a vintage U67 sounds like, to my ear anyways. YMMV
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2017 17:53:59 GMT -6
Have not tried other tubes. That which is different is more different than a tube swap.
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jan 2, 2017 18:07:00 GMT -6
The difference from tube to tube was not subtle... I tried 7 different vintage Telefunken tubes. Four EF86, two EF806s, plus the NOS PF86 that came with it. Each one was different - a couple were not that great, a couple were way too noisy, and a couple sounded extra special. No two tubes sounded the same. I think the tube is often the "magic" component that gets overlooked. With that said, I haven't had mine beside an original U67 yet. Would be interested in doing that. I will say that it is not a sibilant mic at all with the stock PF tube or with any of the Vintage Telefunkens I tried. It's very flattering in that arena.
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Jan 2, 2017 18:25:47 GMT -6
In our testing we have paid close attention to the tube matching in order to try and rule that out as much as possible!
The EF86 made a improvement in the TLM.
My buddy has modded his modded TLM a lot. It now sounds much closer but still not like his AMAZING U67.
He really lucked out with his U67!
|
|