Best U67 clone: MA-200 or CM-67

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

What relationship does the Modern TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik brand have with the vintage Telefunken company?
Honest question mate.

Honest question with no possible answer...

Its like this -- a couple three decades ago the historic TELEFUNKEN didn't feel like doing it anymore or perhaps it was their owner [Daimler Benz] that didn't feel like doing it anymore so they stopped... a couple of decades later some of their people put together an arrangement to bring the brand back to life and now have a company based on the "historic" company that licenses the name to various manufacturers who now build much of the same stuff that the "historic" TELEFUNKEN built back when they were the "historic TELEFUNKEN" [TV's, radios, iPod docks, etc.].

Somewhere in a parallel North American universe a guy with a large collection of "vintage" microphones needed some plastic parts for his historic TELEFUNKEN microphones... namely the switch assembly for a 251. So... he had it built... and then had body housings built... and then he got the drawings for the original CK-12 capsules and started to build them... and so on and so forth... which leads us to today when the "modern" TELEFUNKEN is building microphones [which the "historic TELEFUNKEN" never did] that are as "historically accurate" examples of the "historic" microphones as is possible in modern times.

The name "TELEFUNKEN' [outside of North America] is licensed from the new version of the historic TELEFUNKEN company and there are now full sets of replacement parts for "historic" TELEFUNKEN microphones... but the original ["historic"] TELEFUNKEN never made a mic [tubes? - yes... mics? - no]... so I don't know where that leaves us in terms of direct lineage to the past but we certainly care about it.

There are historic TELEFUNKEN books and literature and logos and tube books and all kinds of stuff at the TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik office in Connecticut that I don't believe TELEFUNKEN Holdings GmbH has [or probably cares about]... and we are building product as closely as can be done in 2010 to what was done from 1947 to like 196~... but never did though they marketed those mics very effectively.

I guess its confusing... but at the same time TELEFUNKEN didn't turn into the things that AKG and Neumann did so maybe its a good thing the "brand" hibernated for 40 something years... and yes, we are going to be pushing some envelops like some of the historic companies did [historically that is] but not in the same "cost cutting" ways that the companies that made the historic TELEFUNKEN mics have done but in a "pushing the quality-technology envelop" sorta way.

Shit I hope this makes some sense.

Peace.

[anguswoodhead]

Very intersting - that helps me to have a lot more respect for what you guys are doing.

So correct me if I'm wrong....
The cheaper mics like the AK47 etc have a higher 'Asian' content than the 'high end' U47 / 251 / C12 etc?

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

So correct me if I'm wrong....
The cheaper mics like the AK47 etc have a higher 'Asian' content than the 'high end' U47 / 251 / C12 etc?

The "Asian content" [hope you don't mind if I steal that phrase] in the U-47/48, ELA M 25_ series & C-12 is VERY little and only because it became unprofitable for US and EU manufacturers to make things like resistors and capacitors.

The "Asian content" [or as I stole from Mike Deming -- "Globally Sourced"] portions of mics in the "R-F-T Series" like the AK-47 and ELA M 260 and M80 include the body tube [which is US made on the AR-51] and the grill screens, the bottom rings, the internal body struts, power supplies and the capsules [on the entire R-F-T Series].

The cables on the R-F-T series are Gotham [Swiss], the amplifiers on the R-F-T series are made in Connecticut [with parts that are probably Asian] and the output transformers are made in the US for the ELA M 260, the M80 and the AK-47... the output transformer on the AR-51 is made at Haufe in Germany... from the historic drawings as it is the same output transformer you will find in one of our new ELA M 25_ series or C-12's or more importantly, "historic" ELA M 25_ mics and C-12's.

We're trying to do what we can to serve the marketplace while staying in business [because it would be really difficult to stay in business depending on mics that start at $8500 and go up from there... as proven by the "historic TELEFUNKEN"]... so we have an affordable range of microphones that we like to think are unique in their tone and have a relevant place in modern recording studios [next to any of the other excellent microphones that are being produced today by a plethora of knowledgeable and highly competent companies].

[jjblair]

Originally Posted by channelcat

You should talk to Dave Pearlman about his TM-LE. He can tweak it however you want it. We've been told that ours is definitely reminiscent of a very nice U67.

Sorry to fan the flames kiddles!

Stu

No doubt by somebody who's never used a proper U67.

[ioaudio]

FYI:

in my opinion haufe (still) makes nice high quality transformers, so i´m not saying that the small t14/1 is bad or something, but pls note the following discrepancies:

Originally Posted by Fletcher

... the output transformer on the AR-51 is made at Haufe in Germany... from the historic drawings as it is the same output transformer you will find in one of our new ELA M 25_ series or C-12's or more importantly, "historic" ELA M 25_ mics and C-12's.

Originally Posted by Oliver Archut@psw

The T14 was original made by Hiller and used for a short period of time in the C12 and a few 250/251 had this transformer too. After Hiller company closed in the late 50s early 60s, the T14/1 was introduced by Haufe and that was build in the same manner for over 25 years and then changed in design to cut cost. Haufe still offers it for a few buck (about Euro 25 or so) but it is not the same than the historic one.

--->PSW Recording Forums: Klaus Heyne's Mic Lab => AKG C12VR to C12 Conversion- Easy? Cheap? Recommended?

-max

[Fletcher]

...and much like Carnhill went back to the original drawings for AMS/Neve [AMS/Neve, namely Robin Porter, had been having problems with the low frequency headroom / distortion figures from the more common versions of their "Neve-esque" transformers you'll find in the knockoffs like Vintech stuff... Robin/AMS-Neve had them go back to original specifications] - Haufe went back to the original drawings / specifications for TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik.

Oliver knows his stuff and a whole lot of history, no doubt about it [and more importantly, I consider him a friend and I believe the feeling is indeed mutual]... but he doesn't know every aspect of everyone's business.

And yes, TELEFUNKEN is using a T14/1, I shouldn't have been as brief as I was. My bad.

[ioaudio]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

but he doesn't know every aspect of everyone's business.

nobody does.
but if you surf the link above, you will see a pic showing the differences of the transformers in question, using smaller L Lainations for the t14/1 instead of the U Core as used by the older t14.
so in contrast to carnhill´s recreation this one uses a different core compared to the original, even if it´s made by haufe.

[Fletcher]

... and Neumann used a different transformer before they landed on the BV8 for the U-47. Models change, times change, requirements change , suppliers change, designs change.

At some point when you're in the "recreation business" you have to land on one specific revision and go from there.

Most U-47's and all U-48's employ the BV8. TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik microphones employ the BV8, but there was a different transformer used in the microphone's original release in 1947.

Yes, the Hiller was made differently from the Haufe. We chose the Haufe because they're still in business, and the transformers were obtainable. AKG made the change for whatever reason they did, TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik has followed that change as closely as possible.

At the end of the day, if TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik had the Hiller T-14 recreated [which would have been very difficult as we do not have drawings for the Hiller] then someone could very well have made the same argument that the Haufe wasn't employed. There are ways to indict any and every product that has ever hit the market.

Klaus Heyne [also a dear friend] makes his living by modifying the old designs... Jim Williams will be happy to tell you that he can make everything ever made better [and in a LOT of cases (like most of them) he's right].

At the end of the day a manufacturer, ANY manufacturer has to weigh options and make decisions. Just like anyone has to weigh options and make decisions [for example, you made a choice to get into audio instead of law, though I think you might have made a very good lawyer, this is indeed the path you chose]... the decision was made in Connecticut to employ the Haufe T14/1.

So far, I've not met anyone who has a problem with that decision, and no matter what decision was made there would always be a version that was not "historically accurate" vis a vis the "other" version.

All due respect, the proof is at the output of the microphone. I would welcome you to plug in a "recreation" microphone next to an original and give it a listen. I've been around C-12's for a lot of years... what TELEFUNKEN makes now sounds like a C-12 to me but as always, YMMV.

Peace.

[anguswoodhead]

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...nterested.html

Hear Ben's U67 clone over here.

[DONNX]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

.. Haufe went back to the original drawings / specifications for TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik.

Oliver knows his stuff and a whole lot of history, no doubt about it [and more importantly, I consider him a friend and I believe the feeling is indeed mutual]... but he doesn't know every aspect of everyone's business.

And yes, TELEFUNKEN is using a T14/1, I shouldn't have been as brief as I was. My bad.

Good News Fletch..! I am glad to hear that. Haufe is a good choice for Tele Elektroakustik mics. German Trannies in German designed mics. thumbsup

What other mics does T funk have that incorporates Haufe transformers?

And it would be nice to see a T Funk U67 reissue. Those beat up abused molested U67s on the used market just disappoint and they still want $6500. Ahhh Okay.

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

.
All due respect, the proof is at the output of the microphone. I would welcome you to plug in a "recreation" microphone next to an original and give it a listen. I've been around C-12's for a lot of years... what TELEFUNKEN makes now sounds like a C-12 to me but as always, YMMV.
Peace.

And somewhere along the line, you have to think about how different an old mic and a new "recreation" will sound when plugged into a Mackie..and then plugged into a Neve... (an old Neve and a recent one.)

If that doesn't make you slightly more nuts than you already are in chasing chimera down a rabbit hole, add the other variations like which tube you use in a tube mic (I have a friend with a U 67 and two tubes. One makes the mic sound quite good. The other makes it sound amazing.) and what DID that vintage mic sound like 35 years ago versus now, and you can forget you really didn't WANT to drink the manufacturer's Kool Aid, but you did and now you're sort of...involved.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[cheu78]

I just wanted to let you know (if you're interested) that I posted some short clips tracked with a Neumann U67 and the new Mahalia in this post:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-p...icrophone.html

tracked at the same time for both ac gtr and vox through the great Avedis MA5 's !

of course YMMV,

Bests,

Cheu


P.S.: I don't want to post them here also, in order to not waste space on the GS servers..

[rob S]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

Henry Ford created the modern practice of "economy of scale" [not the car, but a way to build them "affordable"

Actually Olds came up with assembly line.
Ford gets the credit as the model T was so popular.

[dave thomas]

Originally Posted by alexamk

The closest would be a Neumann TLM67!

Hi Alex, actually that's not the case the U67 was a tube microphone and the TLM67 is a solid state microphone that runs from phantom power.

A tube and transformer will generate much more musical, even harmonics than the IC transformerless output circuit of the TLM67.

The maximum output level of the TLM67 is -1dbu while the original U67 has an output before distortion > than 14dbu.

There was a 1973 AES paper that compared tube circuits, to class "A" discrete (transistor) circuits to IC circuits. The double blindfold listening test showed that the tube circuit could be pushed 20db further past the onset of distortion before the listeners reported it as sounding overly harsh.

The class "A" discrete circuit could only be push 10db and the IC circuit 5db.

In our CM67se we use a tube circuit with a extremely fast transient response and the Peluso/Verner version of the K67 capsule. Verner Ruvalds was a physicist for Neumann and retired to Chicago where he met John Peluso and with John's expertise at computer modeling and Verner's knowledge of capsule physics they tamed the hf rise of K67 capsule so in our microphone circuit we do not require the U67 HF de-emphasis.

Our CM67SE is not a exact copy of clone of the U67 but it pays homage to the original U67 and provides what I believe from my 45 years of experience as a Pro Audio tech and recording engineer a microphone that can be used in any situation the U67 was used and provide very favorable results. We also added the more elegant 9 pattern remote switching rather than the 3 pattern switch on the microphone body.



Cheers, Dave Thomas

[legato]

Originally Posted by dave thomas

Hi Alex, actually that's not the case the U67 was a tube microphone and the TLM67 is a solid state microphone that runs from phantom power.

A tube and transformer will generate much more musical, even harmonics than the IC transformerless output circuit of the TLM67.

The maximum output level of the TLM67 is -1dbu while the original U67 has an output before distortion > than 14dbu.

There was a 1973 AES paper that compared tube circuits, to class "A" discrete (transistor) circuits to IC circuits. The double blindfold listening test showed that the tube circuit could be pushed 20db further past the onset of distortion before the listeners reported it as sounding overly harsh.

The class "A" discrete circuit could only be push 10db and the IC circuit 5db.

In our CM67se we use a tube circuit with a extremely fast transient response and the Peluso/Verner version of the K67 capsule. Verner Ruvalds was a physicist for Neumann and retired to Chicago where he met John Peluso and with John's expertise at computer modeling and Verner's knowledge of capsule physics they tamed the hf rise of K67 capsule so in our microphone circuit we do not require the U67 HF de-emphasis.

Our CM67SE is not a exact copy of clone of the U67 but it pays homage to the original U67 and provides what I believe from my 45 years of experience as a Pro Audio tech and recording engineer a microphone that can be used in any situation the U67 was used and provide very favorable results. We also added the more elegant 9 pattern remote switching rather than the 3 pattern switch on the microphone body.



Cheers, Dave Thomas
Advanced Audio Microphones

Yep, good elaboration on the tube (and tranny) versus class A solid state versus IC circuit matter. This also puts the better dynamic range (at least on paper) of modern TL mikes in a somewhat different perspective.

Although arguably of less importance, I'll add that de-emphasis on a deliberately bright capsule is not quite the same as using a flatter capsule with a flat circuit.
But granted, you did mention it and you did say yours is not a clone, either.
And hey, not to take away from an undoubtedly fine sounding mike. Tube to boot.




Henk

[kidvybes]

Originally Posted by dave thomas

In our CM67se we use a tube circuit with a extremely fast transient response and the Peluso/Verner version of the K67 capsule. Verner Ruvalds was a physicist for Neumann and retired to Chicago where he met John Peluso and with John's expertise at computer modeling and Verner's knowledge of capsule physics they tamed the hf rise of K67 capsule so in our microphone circuit we do not require the U67 HF de-emphasis.

Dave...if my memory serves me well, didn't you state in a previous post that your CM-67 shares the same CF circuit/tube/transformer configuration as your CM-12, but utilizing the AK67 capsule instead of the AK12? (different body/headbasket as well)...

[dave thomas]

Originally Posted by kidvybes

Dave...if my memory serves me well, didn't you state in a previous post that your CM-67 shares the same CF circuit/tube/transformer configuration as your CM-12, but utilizing the AK67 capsule instead of the AK12? (different body/headbasket as well)...

It good to speak to you again. I haven't checked in for many months but we sold out of all microphones today and our next shipment does not arrive until next week so I found myself with a few hours to answer some Gearslutz inquiries.

Also, my wife broke her ankle last week so our mobility is restricted. We are home tonight and not going out to our usual Saturday dinner at the Dream Cafe' and listen to some of our favourite local artists perform.

All our LDC tube microphones share the same CCDA circuit with the CF output stage, as well as the same power supply and cable.

The CCDA circuit is one of the reasons you don't need the de-emphasis because the ultra low output impedance of the CF stage can react much more quickly to transients than a plate output circuit.

The other reason is the capsule we used which is based on the CEK367 developed by John Peluso and Verner Ruvalds, a retired Neumann physicist and friend of John's has a db or two less sizzle up at 8-12khz than the original K67.

With John's computer modelling skills and Verner's intimate knowledge of capsule physics they were able to tame the K67 and with today's CNC milling machines these capsules can produce much more accurate metalwork for the backplates at a much lower cost.

Once I optimized the first CCDA circuit and heard it results I just couldn't go back to building single stage plate output circuits.

The circuit is not a traditional Cathode Follower but what is known as a Constant Current Draw Amplifier. Now, this circuit has been around for decades and used in very HiFi tube gear that I serviced in the early 70's but Brian Fox told me the CCDA description is quite recent.

The head amp uses one half of the 6072a and the CF output stage uses the second half of the 6072a which is a dual triode.

2-stage circuits are used in the Neve 1073 and the Trident Series 80 preamps plus Bill Putnam drove the output transformer in the LA2 from the cathode. The circuit remains class "A" so it has a true tube/transformer sound unlike the newer Neumann's where the output transformer has been replaced with IC's.

The reason the ciruit it is called Constant Current Draw Amplifier is that when the first stage's waveform goes positive the second stage goes negative and the current draw from the power supplies remains constant.
A designers dream!!!!!

The power supply doesn't sag on a big transient plus today's power supplies with their solid stage regulation are much more consistent than those made back in the day.

With the CCDA circuit there is no load on the plate of the first stage so it has a better transient response and self bias can be used without a cathode bypass capacitor.

The only difference between the CM12 and CM67se is we use a slightly different transformer and of course a different capsule.

The body and head grill are also different and the CM67se has a -10db pad an LF roll-off.

Again, I am not interested in re-inventing the wheel but want to catch the essence of the U67 while improving the headroom and functionality and reducing the cost without compromising quality.

The CM67se has a 9 pattern power supply so you have more options.

It has taken us a while to get this into production but results from the first few we have sent out to Montreal, Nashville and Australia have been more than positive.

Does it sound exactly like a U67? I guess that depends one on the U67 in question as they are lots of variations in microphones that are 45 years old.

However, in my experience and some of my Grammy winning friends it close enough for "Rock & Roll".

I built the first prototype of CM67SE for Jaquire King who wanted to use them over the drums and in front of guitar amps.

Cheers, Dave

[dave thomas]

Hi Ty, you are absolutely right.

The U67 was made from 1960 to 1971 the year I built my first studio.

The U67 was designed to work into a 1K load. Now, the input impedance of a Neve 1073 is 1.2K, an API 512 is 1.5K and a UA610 is 1.6K.

Also, the output impedance of the microphone can be switch from 50 to 200 ohm which changes the loading and output level.

Today, more modern transformerless preamps from Mackie to Millenia have much higher input impedances and load the output transformer differently.
The Mackie Oynx has an input impedance of about 2.6K and there are some expensive tranformerless preamps with a 6.8K input impedance or higher.

This is something we have had to address with our designs and we choose to use a much lower output impedance from our tube circuit to compensate for transformerless preamps and find a happy medium between new and old.

Also, who knows how the original parts have changed value over the nearly 45 years since the last U67 was manufactured.

"Fifty years ago, carbon composition resistors were widely used in pro-audio electronics. Because of the low stability of the resistance value, this type of resistor is no longer used in modern high precision applications. For example, the resistance value can change up to 5% over a shelf life of one year. With heavy use the value changes even more: up to 15% for a 2000h test at full rating with 70°C. Soldering can cause a 2% change. The reason for this instability is inherent to the design of the resistor. The carbon composition contains materials with different heat expansion properties. When the conducting carbon particles and the nonconducting binder heat up or cool down, stresses arise in the resistor body. The mechanical contact between the conducting particles will change, and this leads to a change in resistance value. Also noise properties are not good due to the mixture of different materials. The noise level increases when current flows."

If we had a 20% difference from the original design in a resistor in the audio path it can easily cause a 2db difference.

This is just the resistors and in my experience of servicing tube gear since 1965 capacitors were even less stable. So, for reference you would need a completely re-capped U67 with all new resistors to sound like it did when new plus even a new Neumann K67 will be different than one made in the 60's. So, with this wide variation in components and preamp input impedance....what did the original actually sound like?????

The tube has a symbiotic relationship with the transformer in the plate output circuit so changing the tube as you have noted can dramatically change the sound. This is why we choose the CDDA tube circuit that has been so successful in our CM67se and other tube microphones because of its much lower output impedance requiring a less critical tube choice.

As, you noted we would be just chasing our tail trying to re-create and exact U67 so we choose to build a microphone that has the essence of the U67 but using a more modern tube circuit that will work with old and new preamps.

Thanks for pointing out the differences preamp make with older vintage microphones designed to work with a typical 1K input impedance.

Cheers, Dave

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

And somewhere along the line, you have to think about how different an old mic and a new "recreation" will sound when plugged into a Mackie..and then plugged into a Neve... (an old Neve and a recent one.)

If that doesn't make you slightly more nuts than you already are in chasing chimera down a rabbit hole, add the other variations like which tube you use in a tube mic (I have a friend with a U 67 and two tubes. One makes the mic sound quite good. The other makes it sound amazing.) and what DID that vintage mic sound like 35 years ago versus now, and you can forget you really didn't WANT to drink the manufacturer's Kool Aid, but you did and now you're sort of...involved.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[dave thomas]

Originally Posted by SeniorityFedup

I'm curious to know any ones opinion on the cm67 also. Anyone actually owns it or heard it?

Joe West, at Gasoline Studios in Nashville has two of them as does Jacquire King. Dan Legrandre in Montreal has one and just used it to record vocals for a Roch Voisine recording and had previously use original u67's.



Dan told me it was close enough for "rock & roll".

Cheers, Dave Thomas

[dave thomas]

Originally Posted by tubehead

One thing that's always been curious to me is how the mesh type and shape of the head basket contribute to the microphones response. It seems that clone mics usually brush by this and focusing on the guts. Maybe it's more cost effective to stick with what the Chinese body manufactures already have on the shelf in lieu of paying them to develop a more reflective copy of the original mesh and head basket shape.

The shape of the head grill makes a difference so you need a trapezoidal head grill and one that doesn't resonate too much but the original mesh seems to make little difference according to a 1970's AES paper I read where Neumann compared different head grill materials and spacing and were measuring no more than 1/4db differences at 15khz.

I see DIY guy removing the inner screens and noting that it makes a difference in the sound. It does make a difference in the level as those inner layers of mesh reduce the overall SPL reaching the capsule (not a bad thing in my opinion). So, they are more likely hearing level changes not frequency changes.

Cheers, Dave Thomas

[kidvybes]

Originally Posted by dave thomas

It good to speak to you again....

...Thanks once again Dave, for your detailed response!...your in-depth answers are always interesting and helpful...I appreciate your forthright approach when answering questions about your designs...I own, use and recommend your mics, as they do sound great...I'm not at all surprised that they're being implemented on some very high-profile artist projects these days...clearly, you have been one of the manufacturers instrumental in establishing moderately priced microphones that perform much above their affordable pricepoints...thank you for that, and I wish you continued success!

[popmann]

I just wish companies would quit claiming "esscence of"...."inspired by"...it's like a Steve Vai Ibanez 7 string is "inspired by a Strat"--doesn't make it sound like a strat.

You raised headroom? so it doesn't distort a little when I belt into it? fail.

You removed the feedback responsible not for removing highs...but remove high when there are too many? Meaning with the same high shelf applied after, it can be made MORE bright and airy than one that "doesn't need compensation". Fail.

Did you also extend the low end response to make it sound sexier solo'd? Which was intentionally rolled to make up for the crazy rock and rollers singing right INTO the mic...actually, the whole design was...

I know it's a harder road, but take the high one. Call it what it is...at best...a nice good new mic design. Get the, into the hands of good musicians to make you clips and go from there.

[popmann]

You and I both know if you made a copy of a U67/M269, it wouldn't sell to the home market of new engineers. Sexy and NOT like the head it's in front of sells.

[kidvybes]

Originally Posted by popmann

I know it's a harder road, but take the high one. Call it what it is...at best...a nice good new mic design. Get the, into the hands of good musicians to make you clips and go from there.

...I have to agree, that if the mic isn't a blatant all-out "clone" of a vintage design, it may be best to not label it with the vintage nomenclature...that's just seems like a problematic process from the get-go...I had previously commented while recommending the Stellar mics (which share much the same componentry with the AA tube mics) here on GS, that they don't have direct associations with specific classic models...

...but when you take that alternate route, what do you think the first question is from interested AE/gearheads?..."what classic tube mic does it sound like?", or "is it more like a 47 or a 67?"...ultimately, everything is derivative of something before it, and whatever route you take, all roads converge...people seem to need to put a label on it, even if the designer did not have that intention...take the Mojave MA-200 for example...I've never heard David Royer refer to the U67, but that's what everyone says when describing this mic (his original mod that the MA-200 is based upon actually referenced the U47 circuitry)...so, either route has it's potential issues...

...what I can tell you from my experience with Dave's mics and the Stellars as well, is when you put them in a blind shootout against whatever mic you want, including those with the classic nomenclature, they hang!...so call them what you will...I call them the intelligent and affordable, sonically capable option, all egos aside...

[dandeurloo]

I under stand the "essence of" it gives a point of reference. It helps when you see something new and are mid session and want to try it but can't waste a ton of time trying to figure out if something will be appropriate or not for the application.

As far as naming products I am way burned out on the "numbers". That goes with every piece of gear. I hate talking about gear and having it sound like I am rattling off a list of phone numbers. So, I am with you on that one! Creative people like us respect creative names for gear as well.

Also, It's no secret I believe in AA mics. I do really respect the position Dave has taken and that he isn't trying to do straight knock offs. He is doing changes that he believes improves the performance and sound to the mics. Which can be 2 very different things. Dave has also been kind enough to introduce me to a few other great pieces of gear other then mics. Ward Beck pres and eq's for one thing, they sound great. So I have benefited in a number of ways from his years of experience in a studio.

With that said, AA mics don't sound exactly like the vintage mics (which I also love and use), but a twist on them. If you are a guy who has a bunch of vintage mics already and love them then you probably wont need any of Dave's mics, but if you are still building up your mic locker and want great mics and value, AA mics are well worth a look.

That being said a number of my friends who have borrowed my AA mics have all purchased there own. A number of them have numerous grammy's and have worked on massive records.

I wish Dave would take a crack and something like a 269. I used one and was blown away by its sound. No way I can actually afford a vintage one.

[popmann]

I fully understand the challenges...but, here's the thing, the answer to "which vintage mic does it sound like" should be "which ones have you used and really liked"? And there's a discussion to begin. The problem is if they THINK they want a 67 because they heard a record once that they read used a 67...it's not relevant telling them it sounds like one...because they don't know what one sounds like. And trial periods are king. Pearlman is willing to...as are other mic makers. If they won't hook you up with a trial to see? Buy from someone else.

The "not needing" the negative feedback...raising headroom...extending lows (I'm projecting that)...makes it utterly MISSING the "essence" of 67s for close mic'ing a voice at least.

Which to be utterly clear...may mean Dave's mic is BETTER. I don't mean to imply at all anything negative about the mic...Id rather have MICS OTHER than a 67 for lots of things...LOTS of things...

Not to digress...but, IK's "white" compressor is a fabulous, smooth "two knob" (re:easy to set) compressor...it also sounds very little like any T4 cell unit I've used, including the one it's claiming to be component modelled after. Doesn't make it not a nice smooth compressor...and mixing in only software probabaly well worth the $99. Despite their generic "Opto" actually sounding more like the T4 units, IME...harder sell though--those knobs to have to understand..."I read an LA2A is great on bass"...so, I just want it understood, I have not used this mic, and make no claims for or against its intrinsic quality.

[dave thomas]

In my world I don't think improving the headroom and removing the de-emphasis (hf limiter) is a fail.

I also don't use the de-emphasis or (hf limiting) as I think that is the job for the engineer and not the microphone.

The bottom line is you can use the CM67 to cut a vocal and with a bit of compression from a LA2 or Tube Tech C1 or equivalent, a tweak of EQ then punch it into a pre-recorded U67 track the producer would be happy.

No one other than a collector or Gear NUT listening to microphones in solo would be able to hear the subtle difference.

The reason for the tweak of EQ is as I stated a U67 with 45 year old parts could be all over the place and the newer CM67 will most likely be a couple of db brighter at 12khz just because all the components are within tolerance.



Client's that have used original U67's have been quite happy with the CM67 and quite willing to pay for one which is all I can hope for.

I am really much more interested than having a microphone that will catch a performance without any hiccups than matching an original U67 in every detail which is probably impossible with today's higher quality components.

I never had the luxury of comparing microphones during most of the recording I did during my tenure at Ocean in Vancouver. I recorded a record once with flute and sax player Paul Horn. Every track he recorded was first take and Paul would say, "I can do it again but it wouldn't be any better just different". Paul was first flute on the Carson Tonite show and played on sessions with folks from Miles Davis to Joni Mitchell. Even though I have been a pro-audio tech since 1965 I am much more interested in capturing the performance as accurately as possible than finding the perfect, microphone coupled into the perfect, preamp, in the perfect room with the perfect monitors.

I build microphones to provide folks the ability to capsule performance accurately for a reasonable price.

Like the U67 you can get in close on the CM67se and Janis Joplin the microphone without it melting down. It has a HP filter to reduce the proximity effect when you eat the microphone and a -10db pad is provided if you are my friend Joe "Shithead" for the Vancouver Punk Band DOA and scream into it at 2" out. Joe has a very cool full frequency scream.

Not to digress but I once recorded the Desert Rose band led by Chris Hillman (bass player for The Byrds) we use an LA2 on the bass track and it sounded awesome. However, I have heard well designed clones of the LA2 that sounded just as good. The LA2 because of the optical gain reduction circuit has a low attack that lets you hear the attack of the bass string before the compression is engaged.

I listened to the BeeZ NeeZ compared to the U67 and I could cut back and forth between those tracks in a mix quite happily and the head grills don't even match. That to me is close enough for "Rock and Roll" with the artists I work with. The slight difference I hear is probably a result of the different head grills. There is just a little more "air" or openness in the U67 to my old ears which 2db at 12khz would probably correct.

To match that particular U67 my guess is you would have to audition several U67 microphones to find one as close as the BeeZ Neez.

Anyway that's what I hear from my experience but remember my ears are 65 years old this year so I don't hear much above 12khz.



Cheers, Dave

Originally Posted by popmann

I fully understand the challenges...but, here's the thing, the answer to "which vintage mic does it sound like" should be "which ones have you used and really liked"? And there's a discussion to begin. The problem is if they THINK they want a 67 because they heard a record once that they read used a 67...it's not relevant telling them it sounds like one...because they don't know what one sounds like. And trial periods are king. Pearlman is willing to...as are other mic makers. If they won't hook you up with a trial to see? Buy from someone else.

The "not needing" the negative feedback...raising headroom...extending lows (I'm projecting that)...makes it utterly MISSING the "essence" of 67s for close mic'ing a voice at least.

Which to be utterly clear...may mean Dave's mic is BETTER. I don't mean to imply at all anything negative about the mic...Id rather have MICS OTHER than a 67 for lots of things...LOTS of things...

Not to digress...but, IK's "white" compressor is a fabulous, smooth "two knob" (re:easy to set) compressor...it also sounds very little like any T4 cell unit I've used, including the one it's claiming to be component modelled after. Doesn't make it not a nice smooth compressor...and mixing in only software probabaly well worth the $99. Despite their generic "Opto" actually sounding more like the T4 units, IME...harder sell though--those knobs to have to understand..."I read an LA2A is great on bass"...so, I just want it understood, I have not used this mic, and make no claims for or against its intrinsic quality.

[Larry Villella]

Since it seems like many of the major boutique builders are commenting
on this thread, I have a question. Should the U-67 (M-269, or any other
historical mic for that matter) be the Destination or the Leaping-Off Point?

Larry Villella, ADK Custom Shop, 3 Zigma Audio

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Larry Villella

Should the U-67 (M-269, or any other
historical mic for that matter) be the Destination or the Leaping-Off Point?

Larry - I think if you have the number 67 in somewhere in your mic's name, it should be the DESTINATION point. This is my personal opinion. Now, if you're brave enough to leave the number OFF, then by all means, have at it and enjoy. I'll look forward to listening to it. It's time manufacturer's move ON. Most of the classics are easily covered by a myriad of manufacturer's. But if you're going to cop their number moniker......

C12's and 47/48's abound. The M49 has been come close to. 251 - close. But I still have yet to hear a 67 which is dialed in to the original sound of a 67. Half the people who TALK about 67's don't even know what one sounds like, because so many have been modded to remove the HF deemphasis circuit. IMO, the 67 is one of the more unique sounding classic mics.

BTW, have not heard one of Dave's 67's and would love to. Some GREAT posts and info by Dave above, and I agree with most of what he said - up until the last post about a 67 not needing HF de-emphasis because the engineer should employ it. IMO, if you need to take an EQ to make a mic match, then it is not a clone or close enough match to the original. The beauty of a 67 is that I KNOW what it will sound like if it's stock. I've used upwards of 16 @ one time at Capitol, and they all sounded similar. I don't need to grab an EQ to make it sound like a 67. I've not encountered any other mic I could punch in on a 67 track with - at least not without an EQ as suggested by Dave.

Of course, opinions will vary.....

[popmann]

Originally Posted by Larry Villella

Since it seems like many of the major boutique builders are commenting
on this thread, I have a question. Should the U-67 (M-269, or any other
historical mic for that matter) be the Destination or the Leaping-Off Point?

Larry Villella, ADK Custom Shop, 3 Zigma Audio

M269c=destination.

Why? Everytime I use one...gorgeous in any mix context. Want bright? Boost any up sampled Pultec at 16k. Instant Journey.

Thing is...I don't believe the noob oriented market will buy. They want bright and airy...they're comfortable with concepts like patching in a deEsser during tracking...and micro automation editing to make up for proper dynamic response in the midrange. Even automating EQ on a vocal syllable by syllable...bless Shipley, I'd claw my ears out before I did that all day.

The high deemphasis is, IME, responsible for the ability to mix in insane amounts of air--more than would ever be appropriate. Because it does roll high end off...an EQ circuit would do that...it works, correct me if I'm wrong like the negative feedback in an amp--removing frequencies that get too loud, acting a bit like a frequency dependent compressor.

Sibilance is an electro physical failing of a mic. It's the transient's air physically pegging the capsule. The negative feedback combats that...and in turn allows the mix engineer (or during tracking if you must) adding way MORE high end than a mic that either A)has highs rolled off or B)has unmodified dynamic highs. Because in both scenarios, the transients OR the belting into it cause a spike in high end that will limit the ability to add via static high freq shelf.

But, that's my take. And there are a lot of people who used to be afforded access to such mics and due to the devaluation of recorded music sales...will be recording and mixing in more budget friendly rooms. Even at home. I would imagine there would be a market for such...but, if I pulled a $500 67 clone from wherever magic place...there would be SO many, IMO, on a used market, because new engineers will call it "boring" and "dull"--and potentially claim it sounds nothing like a "real" 67, based solely on records they like where 67s were used.