|
Post by NoTomorrow on Apr 9, 2019 18:20:22 GMT -6
Congratulations NoTomorrow, and welcome to the forum! Let us know how it goes. In this case, I used the Dizengoff D4 preamp. It's basically the same circuit as the one in the Chandler, so I figured that would help with the comparison. * I just reversed the order and put the SA67 tracks first, and it does seem to sound a little better if listened to that that way!Ok, good choice on the pre. Watching the couple of YouTube videos of the SA-67 I thought I heard just a pinch of the high frequency sizzle..... but I don't hear it on your track. I'm really looking forward to receiving mine now. Hey what tube did you order yours with, the Tung-Sol or the Telefunken?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 9, 2019 18:45:14 GMT -6
Both are impressive but I'd go with the 67 too: more weight and impact: good track too Martin !
|
|
|
Post by drumhead57 on Apr 9, 2019 19:18:45 GMT -6
FWIW; I got my U87s back from the shop recently and compared them to the SA-67s. Again, not the same mic, I realize, but the U87s were a bit brighter than the SA-67s on drum overheads, which I prefer. The SA-67s definitely have a warm and a little bit darker tone, in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 9, 2019 19:22:44 GMT -6
NoTomorrow, mine has the Telefunken Tube.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Apr 9, 2019 19:23:53 GMT -6
^ I prefer the Redd. The 67 sounds a bit murky to me. For Martin's voice, DEFINITELY!! The Redd mic is a champion anyhow, an absolutely amazing piece of work and the most revolutionary new microphone since the U67/M269 IMHO YMMV
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 9, 2019 19:49:14 GMT -6
The Redd is innovative. It has the Redd preamp built in and a drive function that adds warmth and grit the more you turn it. The SA67 is also impressive. It has that ack ack attack on the first transient just like the U67 in the track I posted, and zero added sibilance.
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Apr 9, 2019 20:01:27 GMT -6
NoTomorrow, mine has the Telefunken Tube. Ok cool, thank you sir. I don't know which tube is in the one I ordered..... I'll find out next week
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Apr 9, 2019 21:14:54 GMT -6
I prefer the 67 mic. It has a good round tone. The REDD mic is impressive and engaging at first, but I feel that repeated listens, someone that loves your song or album, would favor the 67 more over time. REDD sounds a bit "pre mixed" and I would think that applying a normal vocal mix chain to the 67 mic would produce similar results, but then you have your own choices during the mix rather than being presented with a finalized sound, which could possibly work out even better, although I am hypothesizing. There's just a basic philosophy that I like to be able to boost highs, and I don't like having to cut highs in a mix. I can't give an academic reason, but it seems to hold up in practice. Yeah, but you were listening to the REDD in a track that had already been mixed. Wouldn’t that make the REDD “post-mixed?” Didn’t Martin say he ended up cutting a bunch of top end off that?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 10, 2019 6:39:23 GMT -6
The REDD track was already finished. I had released that as a Christmas song last year. There was some slight EQ and de-essing back then, but that's a very fair example of what the REDD sounds like. Of curse in a high end studio it might prove to be even better. I’ll take a closer look later on to see exactly what I did.
The SA67 track was done on my original Logic session. Since the original tracks were already mixed it made it easy to just do a vocal with the SA67 and compare how it sounded next to the Chandler.
I did a little HPF on the SA67 track to keep it clean down where there was no signal anyway, but that was about it. I wasn’t trying to do a scientific test, that’s why I said it was quick and dirty if you remember that in my earlier post.
I simply wanted to get the SA67 to sound as good as I could get it quickly at that moment and make a basic comparison. So this certainly isn't the final word.
Down the road, I’m planning on doing a more serious comparison in a major studio with a couple of well-maintained vintage U67 mics, and I think we'll really know where it's at when that's done.
I'm beginning t think the SA67 is an amazing deal. To sound the way it sounds and not spend $3,500-$7,000 or even more if it's a vintage 67 is a blessing for those of us with champagne tastes and a beer budget, (relatively of course).
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Apr 10, 2019 7:11:19 GMT -6
I prefer the 67 mic. It has a good round tone. The REDD mic is impressive and engaging at first, but I feel that repeated listens, someone that loves your song or album, would favor the 67 more over time. REDD sounds a bit "pre mixed" and I would think that applying a normal vocal mix chain to the 67 mic would produce similar results, but then you have your own choices during the mix rather than being presented with a finalized sound, which could possibly work out even better, although I am hypothesizing. There's just a basic philosophy that I like to be able to boost highs, and I don't like having to cut highs in a mix. I can't give an academic reason, but it seems to hold up in practice. Yeah, but you were listening to the REDD in a track that had already been mixed. Wouldn’t that make the REDD “post-mixed?” Didn’t Martin say he ended up cutting a bunch of top end off that? My bad I thought those were both raw vocal tracks for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 10, 2019 7:55:02 GMT -6
monkey man, they were pretty close to raw, not all that much done. I personally hate flat raw tracks. I've heard brilliant vintage U47's sound little better than MXL mics in that context. Even when I post a completely flat test, I add a pinch of reverb. That helps me get a better feel for how mics really sound.
|
|
|
Post by 000 on Apr 25, 2019 21:22:03 GMT -6
Received tracking on this yesterday - should be here early next week! Very excited to check this one out.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 27, 2019 9:32:26 GMT -6
I’ve had the SA67 for a little while now. I haven’t done a tremendous amount of recording with it yet, but I’m beginning to suspect something’s not quite right with the capsule. There’s a certain cloudiness where there should be openness. Having used Neumann’s for so many decades, I can hear the SA67 has the right transient response, but something about the Heiserman capsule quality or tuning of it is a little off. I’ll look into seeing how to remedy that soon. I know Joshua is working on refining his products all the time, so I’m sure this will all work out in the end.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Apr 27, 2019 9:50:35 GMT -6
Why the capsule and not the electronics? The capsule is more or less a known value, made by a reputable manufacturer. Also, the headbasket size, angle, material and number of layers play a bigger role than many people think.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Apr 27, 2019 11:21:04 GMT -6
I’ve had the SA67 for a little while now. I haven’t done a tremendous amount of recording with it yet, but I’m beginning to suspect something’s not quite right with the capsule. There’s a certain cloudiness where there should be openness. Having used Neumann’s for so many decades, I can hear the SA67 has the right transient response, but something about the Heiserman capsule quality or tuning of it is a little off. I’ll look into seeing how to remedy that soon. I know Joshua is working on refining his products all the time, so I’m sure this will all work out in the end. Wait, so your $1k clone doesn’t sound as good as a $7k original? Shocked. All snarky kidding aside, I can say first hand that transformers can also play a role in the ‘openness’ of that mic. Dont forget about the tube. It can drastically change the sound of that mic.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Apr 27, 2019 11:31:53 GMT -6
Until you’ve swapped parts around, there’s no reason to suspect the capsule over other parts of the audio path.
Another thing to keep in mind is when you used the vintage U67, you were in a good room. You’d need to compare the SA-67 and U67 in the same room with the same signal path to say anything definitive about how they compare.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 27, 2019 12:57:19 GMT -6
All true guys. I do plan to compare the SA67 to vintage 67’s at a great studio soon, but I want to be sure the one I have is right before I do that.
Mine came with the Telefunken EF806 NOS tube that costs extra, and I am familiar with the AMI/Archut transformers. So after the experience of going through 4 different Thiersch capsules, I’m pretty sure the things I’m hearing are capsule related, although of course the transformer and tube are factors.
If I can switch out capsules before doing the shootout, I would then know either way.
indiehouse, it costs $1,500, not 7k, but not 1k either. Stam has hit the bullseye on some of his gear I’ve heard, no reason to think he can’t do the same with mics.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Apr 27, 2019 13:10:12 GMT -6
Also, let’s not pretend that pedigree and prestige aren’t the lion’s share of that $7k price.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Apr 27, 2019 18:33:01 GMT -6
Also, let’s not pretend that pedigree and prestige aren’t the lion’s share of that $7k price. Agreed, totally with you. I was just being a little facetious.
|
|
|
Post by 000 on Apr 27, 2019 19:23:30 GMT -6
Sennheiser also knows how to work with dealer profit margins as well.
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Apr 28, 2019 9:02:33 GMT -6
Even if it's look like a Jaguar, it's still a Hyundai. !!!!! But some peoples are glad to get the Hyundai and enjoy the drive !!!!
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Apr 28, 2019 9:05:01 GMT -6
Also, let’s not pretend that pedigree and prestige aren’t the lion’s share of that $7k price. You still got to build that prestige and pedigree to be able to claim these. !!!! Not to many did it.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 28, 2019 9:36:11 GMT -6
The value proposition is hopelessly confused by profit and speculation. These high current ticket price classics likely only cost maybe a few hundred in parts. I see someone on gs asking 10,000 euros for a very nice c12 clone: it’s a clone for christ’s sake : silly. Or one can get an excellent modern very authentic reproduction from stam for like $1500 or if it’s your special order $750. Seems like a great value proposition to me
|
|
|
Post by 000 on Apr 28, 2019 16:01:34 GMT -6
Also, let’s not pretend that pedigree and prestige aren’t the lion’s share of that $7k price. You still got to build that prestige and pedigree to be able to claim these. !!!! Not to many did it. Or you can just buy it with money right? Are any of the old Neumann guys even still around?
|
|
|
Post by stam on Apr 29, 2019 8:17:05 GMT -6
Hi Martin
I am happy to fix this for you and I am working on a solution for you.
It is definitely a capsule related problem. All other parts have been auditioned to this microphone and they sound identical to the original and you have the original tube.
Unfortunately Heiserman is not as consistent as we would hope with capsule manufacturing but I am working on several solutions and will send you a new mic with the best I can do. I even sent some capsules to Neumann experts and they were not impressed to say the lest.
Does this mean the SA67 is no close or an identical copy to a U67? No, we can still match it with some secret tweaks and finding the right capsule. We have had over a 50% rejection rate on Heiserman capsules in the past year, either broken, bad frequency response or simply not good enough.
I promise you I will send you a new mic and you can return this one to us after you get the other one that I am sure will make you much happier.
Thanks Josh
|
|