Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tim Campbell]

I must say that "Resolution"(formerly Studio Sound)magazine in the U.K. has given incredible reviews to Gyraf products (of which I'm associated)without ever a hint that we should do anything for them in return. Zenon Schoepe, the editor, has even gone as far as helping us with business contacts and never even asked for a cup of coffee for his trouble. And it's a great magazine that industry people can recieve free of charge.

[Barry Hufker]

Studio Sound has always been a class act.  I've said before they are the magazine for the adults in the audio world.  Long after the children have put their audio toys up for the evening and gone to bed, Studio Sound (Resolution)is what the adults stay up to read.

[seedyunderbelly.com]

That Peluso review is amazing.
It is written as if it were impossible to obtain a good sample of 47's in L.A.
and

-as if we are not left with the recordings of those "when they were new"  47's,

and

-as if we have not observed what happens to them over time-  pick your decade(s) of observation and notice the difference/time..

and

-as if the Peluso is even in the ballpark of a great 47...

The Siemens differences to the "Standard Neumann/Telefunken" were not even alluded to.  Did they mod that particular mic? Was it a Siemens  with a different tube or tranny?  (appeal to numbers/authority)

[John Monforte]

If you read Mix reviews, you will find many products that don't advertise there. Having said that - it is still possible to say that they take better care of those who do advertise, although there is no evidence presented here to indicate that.

I read Barry's piece. He said there are differences despite many similarities and that he generally liked it. Its a position that sounds totally defensible to me. While he may not be comparing to a perfect U47, he at least made some effort to find a good specimen and described what that was so the reader could better decide if he is controlling his variables well. I know of other such reviews where the author did not go to such lengths, or at least did not say anything more than "compared to an original U47".

The more general problem is that while everyone is trying to emulate the sound of the U47, everyone purports to know what that benchmark is and what it sounds like. I hasten to mention that the "genuine" mic has, over its lifespan, had two different capsules made from two different types of materials, two or three methods of mounting the capsules in the headshell, two different output transformer designs, two body lengths, and if you count the manufacturer approved nuvistor replacement, two different tubes. Some of these different aspects overlap, resulting in dozens of different permutations of an "authentic" U47 that inarguably sound different. Add to this sixty years of wear and tear with parts replacements and component upgrades along the way and you just have to ask the question just what is a U47 and what does it sound like? That gives Barry's target a larger bullseye.

Many of us would agree which of the permutations would be the most desirable (eg, Longbody chrome-top K47 with VF14 and BV8), and it is totally conceivable that a new mic can be manufactured to copy that and come closer in sound than other genuine Neumann U47s that are not equipped that way. Yet those other Neumanns are also considered to be "correct" while any reproductions can never be more than reproductions.

We should not be so quick to condemn manufacturers for tying to emulate what we all seem to like so much. At the very least, it serves to reduce the demand for (and thus the price of) the real thing for those who want exactly that.

[Klaus Heyne]

John Monforte wrote on Mon, 02 March 2009 13:27

...I hasten to mention that the "genuine" mic has, over its lifespan, had two different capsules made from two different types of materials, two or three methods of mounting the capsules in the headshell, two different output transformer designs, two body lengths, and if you count the manufacturer approved nuvistor replacement, two different tubes. Some of these different aspects overlap, resulting in dozens of different permutations of an "authentic" U47 that inarguably sound different.

Your argument seems elegant on its surface but not deep enough to convince, in my opinion.

Any studio professional who reviews a mic and feels bold enough to compare a copy to a legend should have ample knowledge of the legend. The fact is: anyone who has heard a dozen or so genuine U47 in any of the permutations you mention will still recognize the Gestalt of what a U47 sounds like at its core, and be able to evaluate it against a copy mic.  I go further: assemble a Nuvistor-Early Transformer-K47 bastard, make a mount out of Legos and it will still sound like a U47!  Besides, you overblow the variations: 90% of all remaining U47 have a BV8 transformer, 75% to 80%  a VF14 tube and close to 100% the original, ring-shaped capsule mount (give or take a few dozen of the very early 1948/49 mics still in circulation.)

Quote:

Many of us would agree which of the permutations would be the most desirable (eg, Longbody chrome-top K47 with VF14 and BV8), and it is totally conceivable that a new mic can be manufactured to copy that and come closer in sound than other genuine Neumann U47s that are not equipped that way.

 
I disagree again. There were two basic transformers used in this mic, both sound spectacular and none can be easily reproduced today.  Same goes for the M7 or K47; no copies from anyone so far satisfy. I don't need to mention Nuvistor mics- that crime is already sufficiently punished in the market place with resale prices of roughly a VF14's worth below the rest.
It's also futile to start an argument that the chrome or longer body on that mic sounds better. They don't. They just look nice.


Summing up, I think it is lack of diligence or experience to argue that, because of some variations and (gentle) aging encountered in vintage mics, one is excused from undertaking a rigorous comparison between the vintage stakeholder and any of its aspiring copies.
There IS a common, and universally pleasing sound coming from a healthy, stock, U47, C12, ELA M, U67, M49, variations of original components not withstanding. That fact is also nicely reflected in the current market value of these veterans.

[Martin Kantola]

This is my favorite quote:

"Practically speaking, the Peluso is much easier to set up. Its cable is easier to connect..."

Having used a Peluso 2247 once in my studio, I couldn't help noticing the cheap Chinese connectors, wondering how long they would last and how safe they were to use with the voltages involved.

Won't even get into the subject of sound, but IMHO the review in question has absolutely no credibility left, it's just too much...

Martin

[John Monforte]

When I wrote my comments I expected that some people would hear things I did not say, like Klaus did (and I am sure others did too). I am ready for this response. No venom directed at Klaus - he was just the first to trigger this.

Some things I did not say:

I did not say long body or chrome had a sound. I simply said it was a variation (and these are sort of thing clones try to replicate, no?).

I did not say "Longbody chrome-top K47 with VF14 and BV8" was the best, I just used it as an example. Put your own idea of what is best and use that for your example.

I did not say that any of these aspects, from BV8 winding down to chrome polish has been satisfactorily replicated to anyone's standards of authenticity.

I did not say that a nuvistor was good. But it is true that a nuvistor U47 could and might be used as a benchmark comparison against a clone. (Not that I am saying that is a good thing to do, OK? But it is done by testers/reviewers.)

For that matter, I did not say that any of these variations, including the transformer, resulted in less than "spectacular" (Klaus' words) sound. For that matter, Klaus, do you think that no one, including Oliver, can replicate either transformer? I would like to know what you think there.


But I did say some things.

I did say that there are significant sonic variations that occur in the various "genuine" Neumann U47s. Do you disagree with that?

I did say that wear and replacements can change this sound, even if it is a benchmark or not. Do you agree? These exemplars can and have been used as benchmarks. Not that I am saying that doing this is right.

I did say that, if attempting to replicate the version that you the reader think is the "best" (my eg. notwithstanding) it is "conceivable" (my wording exactly) that it might be closer to the sound of your target than another "official" or "genuine" Neumann U47. Think genuine "your favorite" vs. its polar opposite. Barry H's target is NOT a point, it is a blob.

What I am saying is: A genuine mic is one where the builders (internal or external to Neumann) build to Neumann specifications and are paid with checks signed by Georg Neumann GMBH. Good copies are built to the same Neumann specifications but they do this on their own. There still may be bad copies that are winging it, OK?

I am saying here that it might be possible for someone to faithfully execute at or above that manufacturing standards or  criteria deemed acceptable to Neumann, yet not do so by Neumann's request and never receive renumeration from Neumann. These mics will not legally carry a Neumann logo. They still might actually be good. Someone would need to review that. They would need to present their case and describe their procedures and defend their positions to the satisfaction of the reader. That is what this thread is really about.

Or is the logo necessary for a sound? I do not think so.

So far, I stand behind my comments, but I am prepared to revisit that and admit error if that is warranted.

I am not picking on Klaus here. There are other things that I said and did not say. I am willing to refute or reconsider those things too, as appropriate.

[Schallfeldnebel]

Maybe Barry Rudolph should have written the Peluso was as useful for him as a real U47. Personally I do care lesser and lesser what kind of equipment I use. By optimizing microphone placement and mixing balance, I can get nice results with nearly any microphone or piece of gear. I cannot afford a U47, probably I would be very happy with a Peluso, or maybe not. Barry Rudolph is a very experienced engineer.

Erik Sikkema

[Eric H.]

I couldn't agree more on the classical recording style. However, on the pop recording style, where natural acoustics is removed on purpose and overdub is the law, the equipment is a much bigger part of the final sound.