The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Chandler REDD mic next to a vintage U87 Condenser Microphones
View Poll Results: Should I give in to gearlust?
Get the REDD!
35 Votes - 41.67%
Stick with the 87!
49 Votes - 58.33%
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll

Old 16th August 2018
  #301
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Hey all. Just got back from a trip...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwhistle View Post
B sounds much better to me, like 100x better. A is very unflattering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanderwestcoast View Post
After listening through ear buds I think the REDD is mic B. It is perhaps a little clearer and open sounding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrunkThanAMug View Post
Mic A is most definitely the REDD. I much prefer it to Mic B (not that B was bad at all). I just prefer a more modern/detailed/hifi sound.
Interesting!! Thanks for listening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheu78 View Post
Dear Dan,
mind you I have only heard the clips quick and dirty on earbuds..
I have the impression that mic B simply have more bass, maybe more proximity.. (although I didn't notice a change in the room,, or not much..but again.. were earbuds).
the "spittiness" sounds about the same to me on both A and B, although when you listen to both they sound different, but only in the low-lowmids..

I'd say it's the same mic with different eq or settings or proximity..

maybe I'm totally wrong and my ears are completely muffled after a week sailing and being on a plane.. which is actually quite true at the moment..

will try to listen in the next few days on a proper monitoring system and pm you my final thoughts.

anyway I don't like it that much.. to "essy" or "harsh" up there.. prefer other samples you've posted before..



Cheu
Hey Cheu! Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like you had an awesome trip! For sure, I think the 87 better represents my voice than either of these. This is just about the mics - and as you observed, I think it's a closer sonic comparison than the earlier shootouts, because the REDD and 87 have such different sound signatures. However, this is definitely two different mics, recorded at the same distance at the same time with the capsules side by side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spambot_2 View Post
I'd say the difference between the mics was important, not really a big difference in sound but definitely something that couldn't be fixed with EQ and that could ruin an otherwise good take, namely the raspy-ness in the highs with mic A.
The rest wasn't a very big difference, so taking that into consideration one might work better than the other depending on the situation, but I'd say both would work.

I'm not very familiar with the REDD, but if I had to pick one I'd say it's mic B.
Also, if I may ask, could you detail the mic positioning and guitar setup you used to record the clips in your first post of this thread?
Mics apart, I thought it sounded very desirable overall and I can't seem to achieve a result that sounds quite like that.

And, as always, thanks for the shootout, do keep it up!
Hey thanks for the observations Spambot!
With the first shootout - I had the REDD and 87 side by side about three feet away. I was sitting in my desk chair, and the mics were probably at about chest height/roughly in between my head and guitar, both in cardioid. I wouldn't often go the single mono mic route, because you have no control over the balance between vocals and guitar. But I think it worked here because the guitar arrangement moves within a rather narrow and consistent dynamic range that doesn't compete with the vocal at all (I think I also made a mental note while playing to not play too loud over my voice). I think the key benefit with that setup comes from the phase coherency of only using one mic.
Normally for 'real' tracking, I'd close mic my voice and guitar separately and then use SoundRadix Auto-Align to ensure the vocal bleed in the guitar mic is phase aligned perfectly. However, the engineer in me always gets a little frustrated because it rarely sounds as polished as if you had done the parts separately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roger View Post
I didn’t love either - (although B is my pref; nicer “S”s) - mainly coz you sound quite strained on these takes. At first I thought you were singing a couple of semis higher than prev but nope. Same key.
You sounded more relaxed and much better on older takes for whatever reason (is the sound in your cans affecting your performance?!). Do em again and chuck up that 87 of yours alongside these other 2 horrors! Let the 87 shine it’s glorious light on these other 2 shrieky harpies! Haha!
Haha, thanks for the feedback - I must provide the disclaimer that I will not be using either of these mics for vocals on this song or any of the others on my record. And these certainly aren't the takes that I'll be using. This was totally lazy - I just chucked the mics up to compare them. (I suppose I should probably be more careful seeing these samples will be on here forever, but anyway. Artistic transparency. Lol)
I'm probably going to put up a few extra samples with the 87 for comparison, but you'll notice that it's the total opposite end of the tonal spectrum. Which was actually why I did it this way.
(I think this comparison will make a bit more sense once I send through the results)
Cheers for listening!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
I liked B better. More full sounding than the other. B is a little less harsh as well. Still a little sibilant but not too bad. Haven’t read the responses yet. Didn’t want to be influenced but definitely B from that comparison.

[Late Edit] I’m with @Moonwhistle on this. Just listened again and B sounds 100x better. A doesn’t sound good at all to my ears. Very thin and harsh up top. Almost sounds like the capsule is right on the edge of distorting. Would take a lot of work to sit it in a mix.
Hey FC! Thanks for listening. Very interesting!

I'll post some other stuff soon.

Cheers,
Dan
Old 16th August 2018
  #302
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

I don't think either is the greatest match for you.

I think that, overall, the edge that's on sample A is a little bit smoother and less artifacty. Emphasis on little.

I agree with the impression that mic B has a little more low whomp to it, but it also sounds a bit harsher in the upper peaks. The consonants and vowel onsets seem a bit more pinched to me.
Old 16th August 2018
  #303
Lives for gear
 
Funny Cat's Avatar
Such a tease, lol. You don’t have to reveal which is which but at least tell us what Mics we are hearing. :0)
Old 17th August 2018
  #304
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
Will take a listen when I get a moment,
And? Drum roll....

Last edited by Zanderwestcoast; 18th August 2018 at 05:55 AM..
Old 19th August 2018
  #305
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Another aside - @Doc Mixwell suggested that the input of the REDD was still 'hungry' on my voice, and that I should try driving it at higher gain into a hardware compressor. In general, I had thought that if the mic sounded sibilant, turning the gain up would only make it worse and make the sound messier. I was using it on +27dB in the last sample, which I figured was fairly high anyway.

So now I've been experimenting with pushing it all out on +33dB gain, trimming the output gain, and then feeding it into my WA2A compressor. My initial impression: I definitely prefer it at +33 than at +27. It feels less top-heavy. I think it really helps to fill in the low-mids and round out the high end. The sibilants don't hurt my ears in the same way, with less of that glassy 8-9kHz thing. It saturates in a kind of cool, retro way on the loud parts (but no more than the 87). Anyway, I'm still playing around with it and deciding how I feel about it overall.

So, here are a few more clips:
1. The REDD at +27dB (as it was in the previous sample);
2. The 87 and REDD capsule-aligned, one above the other on the same take, with the REDD at +33dB input gain
3. The REDD at +33db input, -5.5dB output into the WA2A, no processing, with a bit of reverb
4. And finally, the same setup as #2 , but with the REDD through the Warm WA2A (the 87 through the UAD LA2A Silver for comparison), and both mics with a HPF at 50Hz, Fabfilter Pro-DS, and some reverb, as I would do were I actually mixing this, so you can hear what it sounds like with some context too.

Let me know what you think of this in comparison. I'm never entirely sure how accurate my impressions are when I'm performing, engineering, and then listening immediately after.

Cheers,
Dan

P.S. When listening, I recommend starting at the +27dB REDD clip, then the side by side comparisons, then the processed clips, so you get a feel for the raw sound first.

Last edited by Kroc; 19th August 2018 at 03:09 AM.. Reason: Removed subtractive EQ on processed samples
Old 19th August 2018
  #306
Lives for gear
 
roger's Avatar
 

The LA2A is helping mellow it out but it’s still got that sickly glassiness. Sounds like a Rode.
Old 20th August 2018
  #307
Has all this attention garnered a record contract yet?
Old 20th August 2018
  #308
Lives for gear
 

Paul G! Not to hijack this thread, but if I understood correctly...

You think pretty highly of the AA version of the U47 FET?

I'll try to listen to Kroc's new vocal clips tomorrow, been super busy at work.

Chris
Old 20th August 2018
  #309
Lives for gear
I think the REDD simply sounds newer and thus slightly more present with more definition in the bass, whereas the vintage U87 sounds vintage, is a bit softer and warmer. They are very close considering they are completely different mics. A testament to both. I think re-building the U87 would make them nearly indistinguishible. Also I'm willing to bet that when recording you favored the REDD and so were addressing it slightly moreso than the U87, which could account for ALL of the differences I heard.
Old 20th August 2018
  #310
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger View Post
The LA2A is helping mellow it out but it’s still got that sickly glassiness. Sounds like a Rode.
Hmm, I'm wondering if it would be worth trying a NOS EF86. I don't know what the stock Chandler tube is, but I was reading Klaus Heyne's write-up of the new U67 Reissue, where he says that, to match the performance of the vintage version, you need to amongst other things, "replace the Russian tube with a well-selected European old stock Telefunken, Amperex, Valvo, Mullard or similar EF86, to improve fidelity and resolution. OLD stock is the key. No currently-manufactured EF86/806 are any good if you want three-dimension-like resolution"
If so, the same thing might apply here. Anyway, I'm still trying to see what I can do to get the most out of this piece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_G View Post
Has all this attention garnered a record contract yet?
Haha, Paul. I wish!
I'll probably try to figure out how to shop my record around once it's done. Not that I'm in a hurry to sign with anyone in this economy, unless they're good, chill people who really believe in the music. Obviously that would be nice eventually, because self-marketing really isn't my forte. But these days it seems like labels don't really want to have anything to do with new artists until you have a large fanbase built up already.
Hence why I appreciate the feedback from this thread... I basically assume that I have to do everything myself (which I do), or pay someone a lot to do it for me. So the more stuff I have worked out in minute detail, like my vocal chain, the better off I am. And if posting here exposes my music to some people who would really dig it, who wouldn't have encountered it otherwise, then cool!

But that said, you know... if they start handing out contracts downtown again, grab one from Columbia or SubPop for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 View Post
Paul G! Not to hijack this thread, but if I understood correctly...

You think pretty highly of the AA version of the U47 FET?

I'll try to listen to Kroc's new vocal clips tomorrow, been super busy at work.

Chris
Kind of related: I'm not sure I'd want to post it, because it's a goofy/messy performance that I did like five years ago, but I have a clip somewhere that I did back when I was a student through a vintage U47 FET. Actually had a really cool vocal sound. Very big, open and vibrant, with a smooth but detailed midrange.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psykostx View Post
I think the REDD simply sounds newer and thus slightly more present with more definition in the bass, whereas the vintage U87 sounds vintage, is a bit softer and warmer. They are very close considering they are completely different mics. A testament to both. I think re-building the U87 would make them nearly indistinguishible. Also I'm willing to bet that when recording you favored the REDD and so were addressing it slightly moreso than the U87, which could account for ALL of the differences I heard.
Definitely! I agree that it's a much closer comparison this way. And I definitely like the sound of the REDD much more this way. I think it could possibly work better than the 87 for live vocal/guitar tracking, with a figure-8 mic on guitar, to bring out extra detail.
I was definitely trying to get the best out of the REDD, and to figure out how to make it sound 'better' than the 87. But I was also aware that I didn't want to shortchange either mic. I think the 87 sounds best when I'm super close (probably a little more so than here), to really bring out the detail, or you lose some top and bottom and it starts to sound more muffled.
I basically had the 87 pointed upward, and the REDD hung above it pointed downward, with the capsules one above the other. I tried to 'aim' my vocals in between the two. I did this because I thought it would create less of a discrepancy than side-by-side and be a fairer overall comparison, because I'm more likely to hit the same area of the polar pattern.

Cheers,
Dan
Old 20th August 2018
  #311
Lives for gear
 

Man, that LA2A "sound", makes a WORLD of difference when you are using the REDD. On the last two "processed" clips, I preferred the REDD! (a tiny bit).

I guess now there's (some) hope for my MXL's, gotta get that LA2A thang.

Just kidding around (well mostly) on that last sentence. But your vocals sounded "back to normal" AKA great!

I hope you get that "Major" success, you deserve...

Chris
Old 21st August 2018
  #312
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 View Post
Man, that LA2A "sound", makes a WORLD of difference when you are using the REDD. On the last two "processed" clips, I preferred the REDD! (a tiny bit).

I guess now there's (some) hope for my MXL's, gotta get that LA2A thang.

Just kidding around (well mostly) on that last sentence. But your vocals sounded "back to normal" AKA great!

I hope you get that "Major" success, you deserve...

Chris


Thanks Chris!!
I just hope I can spread a bit of love and positivity with my music. (And hopefully sell enough albums to make creating it financially sustainable)

The WA2A is a super useful piece! It definitely has a 'smoothing' effect. Works really nice to fatten up something like an SM7b too. For less than $700 used on eBay/Reverb you can't go wrong. Plus, from the comparisons I've heard, it seems to do a slightly different thing to the Teletronix reissue - it's darker and perhaps a touch less detailed/dimensional, smoothing the transients more, almost like it has a shorter attack time, and seems to impart more low-mid info to my ears. Where the Teletronix is maybe a little more transparent, but perhaps wouldn't provide the same benefits in this situation. If you look up 'WA2A vs LA2A' on YouTube, the first result is a good example of what I mean by that (where they test those two units next to the CLA-2A plugin), because the vocal samples are SUPER bright as well.
Suffice to say, I wouldn't sell the Warm if I got the 'real deal'.

This last test certainly isn't a scientific A/B, because I'm using a plugin LA2A emulation on the 87. But in a real world situation, I never need to tame brightness with the 87, where I do with the REDD. So it's probably a little more fair in that respect.
Old 21st August 2018
  #313
Lives for gear
 

Very cool! Chris
Old 21st August 2018
  #314
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 View Post
Man, that LA2A "sound", makes a WORLD of difference when you are using the REDD. On the last two "processed" clips, I preferred the REDD! (a tiny bit).

I guess now there's (some) hope for my MXL's, gotta get that LA2A thang.

Just kidding around (well mostly) on that last sentence. But your vocals sounded "back to normal" AKA great!

I hope you get that "Major" success, you deserve...

Chris
If you can find a used one I'd recommend an Anthondy DeMaria ADL1000. Replace the 12BH7a tube with an RCA and you'll be very happy. Great compressor for vocals, acoustic guitar, snare drum, bass guitar, hand drums, etc That tube is responsible for the makeup gain and has a very big impact on the sound. Most complaints about the ADL1000 are likely due to the Penta Labs tube that comes stock. The behavior of the stock tubes is great in the other areas of the circuit, but that Penta Labs 12BH7a is not the best sounding tube for makeup gain to say the least. Definitely want something a bit more open and clear sounding like a NOS RCA or a higher end Phillips. Not the place for a Mullard or other common tube choices in my opinion.

Also make note that the ADL1000 has the less common XLR pin configuration (pin 3 hot I think it is), so you'll need to make a special input cable that swaps pins 2 and 3 otherwise your polarity will be reversed. Once you figure all the little quirks in the design I've mentioned, it really is one of the best La2a style tube opto comps, with a great character all its own.
Old 28th August 2018
  #315
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quick update: I believe I have found my perfect vocal mic - the 2018 U67 Reissue!

I just tried it, and it's the exact vocal sound I've been chasing for about eight years going straight into Pro Tools with no processing at all. I'm holding myself back from talking it up too much (this stuff is super subjective, of course), but it just sounds 'right' to me in the awesomest way possible. I don't even want to EQ it at all. It seems to just capture the source the way it sounds in the room in a very flattering, larger than life way. I think I actually like this mic even more than my U87. It sounds great on acoustic guitar too.

Furthermore, I decided to give this mic a shot anyway after reading various things about the reissue and how to really get the 'magic' and 'sex appeal' of the original vintage version, you need to replace some of the (as always, 'inferior') modern parts to avoid a 'thin and congested sound'... I call total BS. I don't doubt the methodology of the people saying those things, and I'm sure a perfect vintage specimen might have some kind of extra mojo in certain situations. However, to my ears, this microphone sounds significantly BETTER than the vintage 67 I was singing through a few months back. That mic was pretty good, and we chose it over the studio's U47, but this one sounds bigger, thicker, and smoother, with the same magic in the midrange.

I'll post some clips sometime.

Cheers,
Dan
Old 28th August 2018
  #316
Lives for gear
 

Wow-Congrats!

If you have seen my posts, I admit to be convinced by Klaus's writings.
(not that I'm any kind of expert!)

But...

I do believe in "variances", even in the most well engineered microphones.
And it sounds like you got an incredible microphone there!

Looking forward to the clips.
Chris
Old 29th August 2018
  #317
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroc View Post
I think I actually like this mic even more than my U87. It sounds great on acoustic guitar too.
Why wouldn't you like the U67 more than your U87? The U87 is not in the same league as the U67. U67 is always mentioned as one of the top vintage mics. The U87 is more of a midline work horse, for me it is just an average mic at best. The U67 also costs twice as much money so I hope it is better. Many top gearslutz have already bought the reissue 67 cause it is definitely very very close to the vintage one.
Old 29th August 2018
  #318
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Sometimes the best test of a mic is to record music with it.

.
Old 29th August 2018
  #319
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 View Post
Sometimes the best test of a mic is to record music with it.

.
Ain't that the truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bforest4 View Post
Why wouldn't you like the U67 more than your U87? The U87 is not in the same league as the U67. U67 is always mentioned as one of the top vintage mics. The U87 is more of a midline work horse, for me it is just an average mic at best. The U67 also costs twice as much money so I hope it is better. Many top gearslutz have already bought the reissue 67 cause it is definitely very very close to the vintage one.
The 67 is incredible, and I love it heaps already. However, I will say, I think the main take-away from this thread is that you should always try stuff! Price often has no correlation to how good something sounds.
Just because everyone else loves a vocal mic doesn't mean it'll sound good on you. E.g. I bet a C800g wouldn't suit me at all.
Actually, I used a vintage U47 two months ago with original M7 and VF14 through a vintage Neve 1066, and it sounded kind of thin (that's like, what, $20k worth of vocal chain?). The best part about using the right tools (regardless of price) is that it makes your job easier.

But also:
Soundgarden's Superunknown...recording info?

And also, Jeff Buckley's "Grace" album was done with an 87 on vocals - spectacular vocal sound. Or some of Justin Timberlake's stuff, too. I love the 67 sound, and it definitely feels like a step up for my vocal production, but I still wouldn't knock on the 87. It's a fantastic mic too. I still wouldn't be unhappy if I was stuck on a desert island with only the 87, and I could still make records with just that mic.
Old 29th August 2018
  #320
Although i'm still quite suspicious of the new u67, because on all examples I've heard i still think it sounds a bit like an Ai but the midrange bite of the reissue might not necessarily be a bad thing. One thing that kind of bothers me with the u67 is that it's almost to smooth and the rolloff makes it sound allot more vintage then say the 269c which to me sounds allot more modern.

Anyways, congratulations @Kroc it's always awesome to find "the one" mic that you feel is realizing the sound you had in your head!
Old 29th August 2018
  #321
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post

Anyways, congratulations @Kroc it's always awesome to find "the one" mic that you feel is realizing the sound you had in your head!
To weave this one on a little, I reckon that 'sound in your head' isn't actually a sound. It's a feeling. A specific feeling. More so than a specific sound. And then you hit a mic that kicks out that feeling and it goes bang. Mics are feels. Rant over.
Old 29th August 2018
  #322
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post
Although i'm still quite suspicious of the new u67, because on all examples I've heard i still think it sounds a bit like an Ai but the midrange bite of the reissue might not necessarily be a bad thing. One thing that kind of bothers me with the u67 is that it's almost to smooth and the rolloff makes it sound allot more vintage then say the 269c which to me sounds allot more modern.

Anyways, congratulations @Kroc it's always awesome to find "the one" mic that you feel is realizing the sound you had in your head!
Hey Crille! Thank you!!

Regarding your suspicions - I guess it all depends on your room and what you're recording. Your mileage may vary. To me, it doesn't sound 'bitey' at all. That's part of why I love it already (in fact, I was mentally preparing myself for the possibility that it might have a harsher 'new Neumann' thing going on). Or, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'bite'. It depends on the frequencies of the voice (I have some musicians friends who just don't like the Neumann sound in general, whereas I love it for my own stuff). But there aren't any frequencies that poke out where I'm like, "Eep, turn that *&@& down!" - I find it very listenable.

What I'm hearing is a lot of warmth in the low mids (but tighter and less boxy than the 87), clarity in the 1-2k area, a smokey 2-5kHz region, good presence above that, and a smooth, airy top that captures all the fine nuance really nicely. I think way it represents 2-5kHz is a big factor in why I like it - I think I naturally have a 'bump' in that area. So mics that boost that don't suit me as much, where they might really bring out clarity in other voices.

This mic has a sweet, syrupy natural sound, to my ears. Obviously it doesn't mute my sibilance any more than my U87 (because it has a clearer sound than that mic), but it doesn't sound inherently sibilant either and it's nothing that Fabfilter Pro-DS can't kick in the butt.
Again, I think it's all about finding gear you can get passionate about! There's no formula to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
To weave this one on a little, I reckon that 'sound in your head' isn't actually a sound. It's a feeling. A specific feeling. More so than a specific sound. And then you hit a mic that kicks out that feeling and it goes bang. Mics are feels. Rant over.
Haha! I completely agree, and I think this is spot on. A big part of my search has been looking for something that just 'sounds like me'. I wasn't even looking for a 'vibe', just a balanced, smooth representation of all the stuff I hear in my own voice. It makes it so much easier to capture a good performance if what the mic is capturing sounds like what you were feeling during the take, and what you heard in the cans. You're not working against the properties of the mic to make things sound 'right'.

By the way, big thanks to @Doc Mixwell for showing me some clips beforehand! It definitely helped me make this choice, and I'm really glad I did.

But also, boo, because now I'll probably want to retrack a lot of the vocals on my record, and it's almost done!!

In terms of how I could take this vocal chain even further down the line... Eventually I'd love to see how this mic pairs with a BAE 1073 (or vintage Neve), put it through 'better' converters than the Apollo (maybe a Burl B2), and then pair it with a high-end compressor for tracking (e.g. a 'real' LA2A or a CL-1B). But I don't even know if that will make the sound any 'better', or just provide different sonic options. I'm pretty sure this will basically give me different versions of what I want to hear regardless of what it's going through.

____________

Okay, here's a sample! There's an acoustic, a lead vocal, and a harmony. Everything here was tracked separately through the 67 into the MA5. The acoustic guitar has absolutely nothing on it, the lead vocal has some de-essing and a little bit of compression (because I was singing super close) but has no EQ or anything else, and the BV also has a little bit of compression. All three tracks have a bit of plate verb. I can post fully raw clips or do shootouts later if anyone would like. Heck, I'll even take cover requests - any excuse to sing through this thing. Ha.

Cheers,
Dan
Attached Files

Stars Go Blue - U67 RI Test 1.mp3 (4.17 MB, 1146 views)

Old 29th August 2018
  #323
Lives for gear
 

She (U67) sounds gorgeous!! Does she have pretty older sister?
Well I guess she does, in your U87 too.

Chris
Old 29th August 2018
  #324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroc View Post

By the way, big thanks to @Doc Mixwell for showing me some clips beforehand! It definitely helped me make this choice, and I'm really glad I did.
You are most welcome, bro! Sounding magical to my ears! Great Work!!!
Old 29th August 2018
  #325
@Kroc that vocal sound is on point! Congratz. Super smooth, upfront, that is the magical sound of the u67 we all love!

What i meant about the midrange is that it sounded allot more aggressive on the reissue then on the vintage u67, and what i feel my u67 sounds like, which is crazy smooth (maybe to smooth ha!?). Just used my 269c today after a couple of months, and boy that is the best vocal sound I've heard. The open topend makes it sound more modern which i like and it isn't as thick around 400hz. Just more balanced i'd say. Splitting hairs ofc!

Anyways, go make some music!
Old 30th August 2018
  #326
Lives for gear
 
Funny Cat's Avatar
Really?!? No EQ on that vocal? Wow! That sounds absolutely sublime. Beautifully captured. The u67 is a KEEPER!!!!!
Old 30th August 2018
  #327
Lives for gear
 
spambot_2's Avatar
Why, that sounded GOOD.
For your voice I too would pick that over a REDD for sure
Now what I'd be most curious about hearing would be the same "when the stars go blue" recorded through the 87 -> M5, but keep the 67 next to the 87 and imagine you're only singing into that, I'm positive that makes an important difference as well.

When you have a moment would you care to reveal the two mics used in the last shootout?
I can't seem to find a reveal in the last couple pages...

And of course thanks again, these comparisons are no substitute to trying mics but having an idea of their character is helpful.
And since we have so different voices this will hopefully placate my very strong desire of getting a 67 myself...
Old 30th August 2018
  #328
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post
@Kroc that vocal sound is on point! Congratz. Super smooth, upfront, that is the magical sound of the u67 we all love!

What i meant about the midrange is that it sounded allot more aggressive on the reissue then on the vintage u67, and what i feel my u67 sounds like, which is crazy smooth (maybe to smooth ha!?). Just used my 269c today after a couple of months, and boy that is the best vocal sound I've heard. The open topend makes it sound more modern which i like and it isn't as thick around 400hz. Just more balanced i'd say. Splitting hairs ofc!

Anyways, go make some music!
Thank you Crille!! :D
Haha, it's really nice when you plug something in and it's like, "That's the sound!!!" - otherwise, I get super neurotic and find it hard to just focus on the music if I think it could sound better.

Cool about your 269c! I haven't ever tried one yet, but hear they are great.

It's interesting to hear your thoughts about the vintage versus the reissue. I've only ever used one vintage U67 (with a Telefunken EF806S), and I understand that there is a lot of variation between them (yours may well have a totally different sound). But the vintage one I tried sounded brighter, and the midrange and consonant/transient handling actually sounded more aggressive than with my reissue. A little more 1kHz and 5.5kHz. Not in a bad way at all - it sounded great. And they do sound very close. I posted a clip a few pages back if you're interested in comparing yourself. We used it on two tracks that will be on my record (that's actually what led me to try the reissue, because it showed me that the 67 sound works for me). But I did EQ the mids a little more when mixing those vocals to make them a little more laid back.

It isn't a fair comparison at all though, because I used the vintage mic in a super dead vocal booth two months ago through a different preamp into different converters, any of which could have skewed the frequency response (e.g. My room isn't totally dead, which probably makes the transients a little more diffuse). Who knows what kind of life that mic and its capsule had had, also.
That said, both of them will be featured on lead vocals on different tracks on my album.

Side note: According to Klaus's writeup on the reissue, there are definitely things you can do to make it sound more like a well-maintained vintage unit, if you feel like you're missing some mojo:

"* replace or modify the capsule, to add highs, reduce sibilance and mid-range congestion, improve low-mid texture and low frequency extension
* replace the Russian tube with a well-selected European old stock Telefunken, Amperex, Valvo, Mullard or similar EF86, to improve fidelity and resolution. OLD stock is the key. No currently-manufactured EF86/806 are any good if you want three-dimension-like resolution
* replace the power supply with an original NU67 or any intelligently-designed modern type, to improve dynamic behavior and fidelity
* replace the stock cable with a Belden 3344 for its unique sex appeal and high frequency clarity
Addressing these items in a Reissue U67 will cost less than $2000 in 2018 dollars. After that investment, you would then have a microphone with the exact same sound signature of a superb-sounding vintage U67." [Google 'U67 Reissue Klaus Heyne writeup' - it's the top link]

I have heaps of respect for Mr. Heyne and I don't doubt his methodology, but I don't personally want to 'fix' anything about the sound. I don't hear any of the perceived shortcomings that he mentioned with my mic, and I think I would be disappointed if I added any more top end. The only thing I'd perhaps try eventually is putting in an NOS EF86. But other than that, I have no interest in wasting time and money trying to fix something that I already love the sound of, when I could just go and make music instead!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 View Post
She (U67) sounds gorgeous!! Does she have pretty older sister?
Well I guess she does, in your U87 too.

Chris
Thanks Chris!! Haha, I think my U87 is getting jealous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
You are most welcome, bro! Sounding magical to my ears! Great Work!!!
Cheers Adam!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
Really?!? No EQ on that vocal? Wow! That sounds absolutely sublime. Beautifully captured. The u67 is a KEEPER!!!!!
Thanks dude! Yep, not even a highpass filter! I am well and truly smitten!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by spambot_2 View Post
Why, that sounded GOOD.
For your voice I too would pick that over a REDD for sure
Now what I'd be most curious about hearing would be the same "when the stars go blue" recorded through the 87 -> M5, but keep the 67 next to the 87 and imagine you're only singing into that, I'm positive that makes an important difference as well.

When you have a moment would you care to reveal the two mics used in the last shootout?
I can't seem to find a reveal in the last couple pages...

And of course thanks again, these comparisons are no substitute to trying mics but having an idea of their character is helpful.
And since we have so different voices this will hopefully placate my very strong desire of getting a 67 myself...
Hey thanks Spambot!!
I'll PM you the other shootout results.

For sure I can put the 67 and 87 side by side. My pleasure - I'm happy to hear these comparisons have been useful for you. I think it's definitely productive to discuss this stuff.

Cheers,
Dan
Old 31st August 2018
  #329
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroc View Post

The only thing I'd perhaps try eventually is putting in an NOS EF86. But other than that, I have no interest in wasting time and money trying to fix something that I already love the sound of, when I could just go and make music instead!
Hey Dan
fyi I've had a couple re issue 67's working non stop for a few months.
Ive tried a bunch of good nos tubes, various amperex,valvo, tele grey plates, etc.nos psu,cables
ended up sticking w the stuff it came with although I'm liking the s2 jumper removed overall.they sound better than the last vintage 67 I had[and subsequently sold to a friend]
Old 31st August 2018
  #330
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroc View Post
Hey Crille! Thank you!!

Regarding your suspicions - I guess it all depends on your room and what you're recording. Your mileage may vary. To me, it doesn't sound 'bitey' at all. That's part of why I love it already (in fact, I was mentally preparing myself for the possibility that it might have a harsher 'new Neumann' thing going on). Or, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'bite'. It depends on the frequencies of the voice (I have some musicians friends who just don't like the Neumann sound in general, whereas I love it for my own stuff). But there aren't any frequencies that poke out where I'm like, "Eep, turn that *&@& down!" - I find it very listenable.

What I'm hearing is a lot of warmth in the low mids (but tighter and less boxy than the 87), clarity in the 1-2k area, a smokey 2-5kHz region, good presence above that, and a smooth, airy top that captures all the fine nuance really nicely. I think way it represents 2-5kHz is a big factor in why I like it - I think I naturally have a 'bump' in that area. So mics that boost that don't suit me as much, where they might really bring out clarity in other voices.

This mic has a sweet, syrupy natural sound, to my ears. Obviously it doesn't mute my sibilance any more than my U87 (because it has a clearer sound than that mic), but it doesn't sound inherently sibilant either and it's nothing that Fabfilter Pro-DS can't kick in the butt.
Again, I think it's all about finding gear you can get passionate about! There's no formula to that.



Haha! I completely agree, and I think this is spot on. A big part of my search has been looking for something that just 'sounds like me'. I wasn't even looking for a 'vibe', just a balanced, smooth representation of all the stuff I hear in my own voice. It makes it so much easier to capture a good performance if what the mic is capturing sounds like what you were feeling during the take, and what you heard in the cans. You're not working against the properties of the mic to make things sound 'right'.

By the way, big thanks to @Doc Mixwell for showing me some clips beforehand! It definitely helped me make this choice, and I'm really glad I did.

But also, boo, because now I'll probably want to retrack a lot of the vocals on my record, and it's almost done!!

In terms of how I could take this vocal chain even further down the line... Eventually I'd love to see how this mic pairs with a BAE 1073 (or vintage Neve), put it through 'better' converters than the Apollo (maybe a Burl B2), and then pair it with a high-end compressor for tracking (e.g. a 'real' LA2A or a CL-1B). But I don't even know if that will make the sound any 'better', or just provide different sonic options. I'm pretty sure this will basically give me different versions of what I want to hear regardless of what it's going through.

____________

Okay, here's a sample! There's an acoustic, a lead vocal, and a harmony. Everything here was tracked separately through the 67 into the MA5. The acoustic guitar has absolutely nothing on it, the lead vocal has some de-essing and a little bit of compression (because I was singing super close) but has no EQ or anything else, and the BV also has a little bit of compression. All three tracks have a bit of plate verb. I can post fully raw clips or do shootouts later if anyone would like. Heck, I'll even take cover requests - any excuse to sing through this thing. Ha.

Cheers,
Dan
great song, beautiful recording. Thanks for posting! mc
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump