Wunder CM7 vs Beesneez T1 vs U87i vs Beesneez James

[Guest]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

a little shootout between 4 mics

You can't position the mics this way and call it a shootout!

[anguswoodhead]

Well.... technically you're correct but.....
I couldn't think of a better way to do it.
The singers were singing into the centre of the cluster.
You?

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by Nashville Cat

You can't position the mics this way and call it a shootout!

Why ?
This type of mic constellation is often used for comparing mics on voice.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

This type of mic constellation is often used for comparing mics on voice.

Unfortunately! You can't get a true result this way.

Just set the mics up as you would do with a single mic. Don't use any pop screen! Then the singer has to sing into the mics with a different distance for every mic! Why? Because you have to find the sweet spot by ear for every single mic which isn't the same distance. Usually...

The problem with those shoot outs is that too many variables blur the result. One or more mics will always be treated unfair and people on the internet start to think oh this mic is great or this mic sounds terrible.

If someone wants to buy a mic there's only one way. Test the mic in real life even if that means you have to visit a studio or even go on a plane to see the desired mic.

[Piedpiper]

It's true. Proximity effect plays a huge roll and is different for each mic. But as long as you understand this you can still get a sense of certain issues such as how a mic handles sibilance which is very important to me. I'm sure that the Wunder would sound a lot fuller a bit closer, for instance. I know that is also their intention with that mic.

Bottom line is there is no such thing as a truly ideal shoot out.

[vonrichter]

I only listened to the first vocalist, and the first excerpt.

I preferred "mic #1" on this singer. Based on the way the U87 sounds in another Angus shootout, I'm going to guess that #1 is his U87.

I'll guess that either 3 or 4 is the James based on the examples I've heard of that mic on male vocals.

No clue for the rest.

[steveschizoid]

Angus, I thought I'd bring this one back since I noticed you are selling your T1.

I don't really understand why everyone likes the U87 so much; I had an ai briefly, and it sounded pretty lame to my ears - given the $2000 (used) price tag. I understand the older ones are different, but even in this shootout, I would have chosen the T1.

In my recent experiment in heeding conventional wisdom, I bought an ai and stacked it up against a Brauner VM1. The ai went up for sale the next day.

Out of curiosity, why are you selling your T1?

And, on a hopefully unrelated note, did you, Ben, and your families come through the flooding OK?

[anguswoodhead]

Hi Andy - thanks for asking.
I fared ok in the flooding - Ben not so well.
He has been set back a few weeks on delivery of mics.
A lot of his parts suppliers didn't fare to well either which has also slowed things down.
But everyone is rebuilding and going on.

Re the clips....
The U87i had a hint more low end which is what people like I think.
No doubt the T1 has the best mojo in the mids - to my ears anyway.

I have just had a 2 week family holiday in New Zealand which was awesome but we maxxed out our credit cards.
Desperately need some cash.
I tend to use the Mahalia more these days so the T1 is on the market.
Free postage anywhere in the world.
AU$3,500.
I might even be able to throw in a Lulu Fet with the deal.

BTW - I would like to get an U87i but would never buy an Ai.
However the Mahalia sounds AMAZING on female vocals so I'm in no hurry to do so.

1 more thing about the U87....
I had a good chat to Gunter Wagner about the U87 a while back.
Basically his opinion was that the U87 sounds 'ok' on everything - a great all purpose mic.
But if you take the time you can always find an alternative that will sound better.
I call the U87 the SM58 of LDC's - LOL

[Wunderkap]

I just saw this thread for the first time and thought I'd chime in. I do not know the exact vintage of the CM7 in this thread but from the photos, it must be an earlier one. The most noticeable thing is that we have not been making them with a round top grille for over 3 years. Our grille top is now flat like an old U47. (the photo even on our own website is about years old and shows the round top)

Also the oak box has had finger joined corners for the last 3 years. So we can narrow down this threads CM7 to being a 2003-2007 mic.

This absolutely does not mean anything negative about the mic in this thread but it does not represent the current specs. The biggest change being the M7 capsule details, both backplate and diaphragm. There are also some subtle changes throughout the rest of the mic also.

The next generation 2008-2010, flat top/ finger joined corners all are about the same

One last important point is the health of the vacuum tube. This is about the only variable that can affect the mic as it ages. The other components are pretty rock solid and do not drift over the years but if the tube is starting to go, it can change the sound of the mic pretty dramatically. This can even affect a brand new CM7 that has suffered a minor fall.

These are the things to look for when checking out a used CM7 for purchase.
I hope this info helps.

W)

[anguswoodhead]

Thanks Mike
We bought the CM7 new off Awave in Aust March 2008.
Last of the old ones - bummer. :-(

[gearsuser]

Hello,

I hope this is the right place for a question regarding the noisefloor of the Beesneez James Tube that I encounter.
I have got a James Tube right here to check it out ( after trying the Jade Tube and Arabella GT).
Doing an intimate Piano plus Vocals song I noticed that the noisefloor of the James is quite hard to tolerate.

I run it through my BAE 1073 DMP and noticed that the output of the James is rather moderate. So I have to set the gain to at least 45db and no attenuation on the output level.
When my voice (distance some 20cm from the James) reaches levels of about -18db to -6db on the meters in my Daw Samplitude the noise between my lines (when I'm not singing) is very audible and around -60db.

No compressors or other things inserted.
A gate will not be a good the solution with a noisefloor so high and so few instruments in the song.

My other mics do not show anywhere near so much noise at the same settings of the BAE Brent Averil (Gefell Mt71S, Rode K2, Neumann TLM).
In rock songs the noise gets burried in the playback, but in such songs as a ballad it is a problem.

The noise floor will still increase when I will add a few more James sources (accoustic guitar,...) and add a compressor and dial in some eq.

Since there are quite a few James Tube users around here I am curious if this is a known problem?
The noise is not a sizzling sound or fluctuating one. And it is spread across the entire frequency range.
I hesitate to believe it is a broken tube.

Any feedback is appreciated!

Best regards and thanks in advance,
Rak

[Piedpiper]

hesitation or not, it's sounds like a bad tube...

[Johnkenn]

I think this should probably be an advertisement for the James...I didn't really hear $3800 difference in some of the others...

[gearsuser]

Hi Piedpiper,

well, I will see... an hour ago I arranged to get a replacement tube from the beesneez distributor.

Do you happen to own a James that you can confirm that this signal - noise ratio is not common to a James and therefore you suspect the tube? I never had a broken tube that had a noise this smooth and constant: No surges or crackles... just an even noisefloor.

But you're right; let me first swap the tube before judging and grumbling :-).

Tonight I spoke to Ben and he mentioned that the James was aimed at 'rather stronger' sources and that there is a tiny mod that can be easily done to further reduce the noisefloor if neccessary.


Regards,
Rak

[Piedpiper]

I don't own one but I would be surprised if it was designed to exhibit a problematic level of noise. IME, tubes vary in their noise level quite a bit without being "broken" per se, and that "normal" type of noise, which can increase after burn in, can be a constant type of noise, rather than an erratic popping, etc..

[johnnybregar]

This should probably be a new thread. I just got a James Producer (via the upgrade offer) and was shocked at how noisy it was. I had another AT7 so I threw it in and noticed a huge difference. So I ordered an NOS Mullard from Christian. I have not received it yet so I don't know for sure on this - but one thing is for sure - the tube that shipped in the James sounded like a white noise machine in the background. It is a GE JAN 12AT7, and I guess I am a little disappointed that Beesneez is not putting a little better/quieter tube in their mics.

I did email them about the noise and to their credit they are shipping me two more tubes to try as well as a capacitor to do a small mod to bring up the output gain.

The mic sounds quite good - like the SS but with just a little more meat/cream. All in all I am happy with it, and if the new tubes bring down the noise floor I will be using it a lot.

[gearsuser]

Hi johnnybregar,

that sounds just like that problem of mine. Haven't received the new tube yet which should be another original At7WC. I was told that a WC version should be less noisy. (I'm curious if you will end up using a different tube after all than the one are sending you now. And if it will change the output, noise in general and sound). And will you then still do that mod, and what will the results be? Many questions :-)


But before derailing this thread any further I agree that it is a good idea- as you suggested -to start a new thread on 'Beesneez James Studio and Producer Series Experiences'.
Since I have only just joined Gearslutz I'm not quite sure where such a topic would go: Is it 'So much gear, so little time'? and is the title ok?


I would also like to ask you some more questions, such as if your old James SS did have a different capsule (K47). I can see from the specs on the Beesneez Website that everything in the James SS and James Producer Line is exactly the same. Just a better body with grill and case.
Or is the difference you experience between those two due to the different body/grill. More beef and cream through a new body?
I mean 700 more is quite a price difference if you just want the same sound but could do without the case and without a much more beautiful look.

Let's do another thread or just PM (if that's ok with you)?
Thanks for your reply and regards,
Rak

[mics]

Originally Posted by johnnybregar

I guess I am a little disappointed that Beesneez is not putting a little better/quieter tube in their mics.

I did email them about the noise and to their credit they are shipping me two more tubes to try as well as a capacitor to do a small mod to bring up the output gain.

The mic sounds quite good - like the SS but with just a little more meat/cream. All in all I am happy with it, and if the new tubes bring down the noise floor I will be using it a lot.

Hi Johnny. I just wanted to clarify with you, the tube used in the James is a GE 5 star (the best nos 12at7 available). Unfortunately, there is always a sacrifice when designing a mic. The james does at times suffer from a slightly higher noise floor but in order for us to achieve the desired tone, it is necessary to load the tube a little differently hence forth occasionally a tube will become noisy.

Please don't feel that i am in any way becoming defensive, there are almost 500 james' in the market place and only 8 have been returned for a high noise floor.

cheers

ben sneesby

[johnnybregar]

First let me say that the James is sounding totally amazing right now. I have an NOS Mullard that is quiet and really has some vibe.

That said, the stock tube that came out of it does not appear to be a GE 5 star. It is a GE JAN tube, which maybe is the same as a 5 star, but (and I could be wrong here) even if so, it is like a $12 tube - I don't think it's anything special. Search ebay for them - they are cheap.

The tube that shipped with my James was definitely quite noisy and if the (secondary) OP is experiencing noise with the GE JAN and his replacement which was an Electro-Harmonix, I would still say that a quieter tube is his path to resolution.

Yes, the James has a slightly higher noise floor than some of my other mics even with a quiet tube, but I wouldn't trade this mic for anything at this point. It has mojo for days.....

Here's a link to a quick tune I recorded a while ago, but just replaced the vocal on with the new James Producer:

www.johnnybregar.com/music/dontthinktwice.mp3

[mics]

Originally Posted by johnnybregar

First let me say that the James is sounding totally amazing right now. I have an NOS Mullard that is quiet and really has some vibe.

That said, the stock tube that came out of it does not appear to be a GE 5 star. It is a GE JAN tube, which maybe is the same as a 5 star, but (and I could be wrong here) even if so, it is like a $12 tube - I don't think it's anything special. Search ebay for them - they are cheap.

The tube that shipped with my James was definitely quite noisy and if the (secondary) OP is experiencing noise with the GE JAN and his replacement which was an Electro-Harmonix, I would still say that a quieter tube is his path to resolution.

Yes, the James has a slightly higher noise floor than some of my other mics even with a quiet tube, but I wouldn't trade this mic for anything at this point. It has mojo for days.....

Here's a link to a quick tune I recorded a while ago, but just replaced the vocal on with the new James Producer:

www.johnnybregar.com/music/dontthinktwice.mp3

Hi Johnny, The Tubes on ebay are the ones that John West rejected.

To buy a Jan (joint army navy) tube and weed out the not so good ones, you are looking at keeping every 3rd or 4th tube, this is why it gets expensive.

cheers

[johnnybregar]

Makes sense. Thanks.

jb

Originally Posted by mics

Hi Johnny, The Tubes on ebay are the ones that John West rejected.

To buy a Jan (joint army navy) tube and weed out the not so good ones, you are looking at keeping every 3rd or 4th tube, this is why it gets expensive.

cheers

[hereticskeptic]

Gonna guess, even though this thread is crazy old. Haven't seen the results (not that anyone will trust, or care). Just wanna do it for fun.

1. James
2. T1
3. Wunder
4. U87

[hereticskeptic]

Originally Posted by hereticskeptic

Gonna guess, even though this thread is crazy old. Haven't seen the results (not that anyone will trust, or care). Just wanna do it for fun.

1. James
2. T1
3. Wunder
4. U87

I was completely off. I really expected the U87 to sound darker than it does.

Kind of excited about that!

Not sure that the James is for me, but wish I had the coin to get one of those SS models at the current blowout price, just to audition it here.

Still interested in these mics. Loving the clips of the Elly on the website, as well as the Mahalia clips I've heard. Would be super nice to have JJ Audio and Beesneez mics around these parts.

In due time...

[anguswoodhead]

[binarymilton]

seeing as someone's revived this shootout, I also gave it a listen several years after it was posted...

I feel much like one of the original repliers: on this particular shootout, it really doesn't matter, the differences between the mics are so minimal.

The thing I normally like about theses shootouts is that you can close your eyes and one of the takes will really jump out at you as sounding bad/good/beautiful/ugly/dark/bright/whatever.

You've gone and spoiled all the fun by putting up a shootout where all the mics sound good, damn you tutt

[anguswoodhead]

Originally Posted by binarymilton

You've gone and spoiled all the fun by putting up a shootout where all the mics sound good, damn you tutt

[sfoote]

Nice shootout. Just relistened

[acmeman]

Not sure if anyone else has noticed but you could pick up a great mic
here http://www.gearslutz.com/board/austr...condensor.html

[withintheflux]

For whomever wants a James of their own:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=708484