Print

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

[klaus]

I understood Kai's post as making two points:

1. We don't know whether the parallel evolution of microphones and recording technology through time was intentional or coincidental.

2. Regardless, mic manufacturers who did not adapt the sound of their mics to changes in recording technology went under or lost sales, whereas those who did, thrived, or had a better chance to survive.

[Timtape]

If we look further we can see, with the appearance of high samplerate recording systems, microphone manufacturers started to build microphones with defined frequency responses beyond 20 kHz, e.g. if you go to the Schoeps website the "Schoeps CMC 6xt U".

Just  commenting on this one point. I believe mics capable of above 20kHz response have been around a long time. B & K have been making measurement mics with diaphragms down to 1/8" diameter for this purpose. I think such mics were around since the 70's for industrial measurement purposes. So I dont think this came about because of higher sample rate recorders, or just because of them.

I believe these days most recording studios either do, or have the capability these days to, record at 96kHz or higher sample rate but I'm not so sure many insist on using mics with defined responses above 20kHz.


 

[David Satz]

Schoeps often receives requests for special versions of their microphones. They're a small company, and they give serious consideration to such requests. The CMC 6 xt exists because a customer requested a CMC 6 amplifier with response to 40 kHz and was willing to place a definite order for a batch of them at extra cost. Schoeps then asked around and found some other customers who were interested in this type of amplifier. So they not only produced the initial batch, but added it to their catalog, placing it along with other amplifier variants that they already offered. For example, amplifiers could optionally have their built-in low-cut filter set for a frequency below 20 Hz, and/or have +5 dB gain instead of unity; special engraving and surface finishes, etc. may also be ordered.

This implies no endorsement by Schoeps of any theory other than "it can be good business to give your customers what they ask for." The company caters to a perfectionist clientele, and if they believed that 40 kHz response gave audibly superior results--or maybe even if they thought that their customers by and large believed it--you'd expect them to make the "xt" their standard model, or a prestige/flagship model. Instead it is simply presented as an alternative for those who want it, along with other special versions.

--best regards

P.S.: Sennheiser is a different case; their chief of microphone design (Dr. Manfred Hibbing) is on the record with several statements about high sampling rates and extended high-frequency response for microphones. If Klaus feels that this isn't too far off-topic already, I could post some of what he's said in interviews and written in an AES paper about it. But I must say that I find some of his statements problematic.

[boz6906]

I, for one, would like to hear more about the rational for higher freq. response mics, above 20kHz.

I've read of experiments showing positive benefits but many of the test methods seemed imprecise.

[klaus]

I've read of experiments showing positive benefits but many of the test methods seemed imprecise.

Even without knowing the methodology of these experiments, I would be surprised if anything conclusive or "precise" resulted. Personal, inherently subjective, interpretation of sound continues to be the guideline for our preferences.

(Unless you call the original experiment how we ended up with the definition of one decibel "precise"...)

[richbreen]

I, for one, would like to hear more about the rational for higher freq. response mics, above 20kHz.

I've read of experiments showing positive benefits but many of the test methods seemed imprecise.

Talk to film SFX editors/designers who need to move recordings down several octaves while maintaining fidelity, and without moving aliasing artifacts into the audible band.

[boz6906]

Very good, your point is well taken.

If one needs to manipulate a sample by lowering the pitch, having the f/s very high would keep the artifacts above audibility.  I've encounter that very problem; needing a nice explosion I lowered the pitch of a gun shot... then had to high-pass to remove weird rattily sound...

So clearly there is a need to record at higher f/s for many professionals.  But does it lead to a better musical experience for a straight acoustic recording?

I have seen research using same music sample as A, with B sent through 20kHz low pass.  Subjects picked A, the unfiltered sample.

But the tester provided no info on the filter topology, it could have easily been the problem.

[rmburrow]

As, during my long career, I never used an U67, how does its sound compare to the 1st generation of U87's?

If the new U67's duplicate the original, you will leave your U87's in the locker when you hear the U67.  I've used U67's on classical ensembles, the "warm" tube sound is apparent.

Use a wind screen at all times for vocals.  I don't use my condenser mics on vocal, period.  Protect the capsule; big money to replace.  I assume the WS67 wind screen is extra.

As for the tube, the JJ Electronik EF806s has a dark anode.  Would be interesting to know the manufacturer of the EF86 used in the reissue.

Neumann was smart to start building tube mics again.  Hopefully the new U67's sell since buyers will get a new proven mic with a warranty.

[klaus]

Use a wind screen at all times for vocals.

Maybe not at all times, but when it's windy or when extreme circumstances call for extra capsule protection.

The WS87 lops off high frequency and transparency of sound. Besides, with time, it sheds foam which must not be allowed to settle on the capsule's surface.

The better idea for vocals: a stocking screen with a double layer of nylon hose as spit barrier.

[aremos]

Received the U67 reissue and after 1 hour of recording the mic started with a hum & no signal coming in!
Turned it off for 1/2 hour then turned it back on & has been working so far.
Any thoughts?

Called Sennheiser & they wanted me to trouble shoot my power source, power cable, preamp, etc. Told them that that protocol has been used by other mics, etc. Their response was to send the mic in - if I wanted to.

BTW, Mic sounds very nice.

[klaus]

It may be the newly designed power supply, but that is mere speculation. If you have another U67 supply, you could, on a temporary basis, plug your new U67 and observe the result.

You could also do the reverse test: plug another (original) U67 into the new cable + power supply.

[aremos]

Thanks Klaus.
Unfortunately I don't have either an extra PS or 67.
But my dealer is taking care of it already.

[klaus]

Please report back if you find out what the problem's cause was.

[aremos]

I just received my second U67 reissue & the EXACT same thing as the first one (received 13 APR) happened!:
After 1+ hours of recording the mic started with a hum & no signal coming in! Turned it off for 1/2 hour then turned it back on & has been working so far.
The first one has been working fine since that happened.

Has anyone else had this problem?

[Kai]

Now you have 2 power supplies and can switch to find out if the problem follows the microphone or the PSU -  if the problem reappears at all.
Does this problem show up when you plug the PSU into a certain wall outlet or use a certain power cable?