Print

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

[afterlifestudios]

I’m curious about 50ohm setting on these mics for v76 as well.  But as far as line level impedance bridging/matching goes, it really matters what kind load you’re output transformer expects, and what kind of load the input of the next piece of gear presents.
 
Instead of strapping loading resistors on the outputs of 1176’s and other outboard, I just put some on the patch bay. That way you can easily patch it independing on the signal chain are currently using.  Sometimes your 1176 output will already be seeing a 600ohm load (patched to tape machine for instance), and sometimes it will be seeing 10k ohm (a/d converters).  You don’t want a 600ohm termination resistor as well as a 600 ohm input of the next device.  So having flexibility is key, which is why I put some loading resistors on the patch bay, not on the unit.

(Sorry if this thread is drifting too far, Klaus.)

[David Satz]

The 150-Ohm setting should be avoided in my opinion. It was meant to work around two defects of older preamps and mixers, but at a definite cost. Meanwhile those defects are far less prevalent today than they were in the late 1950s: [1] input overload (because the particular preamps or mixer inputs had been designed for ribbon and other dynamic microphones) and [2] input impedance below the 1 kHz minimum.

If either of those problems exists in a given case, it is far better to place a resistive pad directly at the input of the equipment that has the problem, rather than to hobble a perfectly good microphone for the sake of equipment that's not up to the demands of modern recording. If you pad the signal "after the cable" rather than "before" it, the microphone signals in the cable will be 6 to 10 dB higher in level depending on what comparison we're making exactly. That's a big advantage when RF interference or hum are a possible concern, e.g. for the type of live concert recording that I do, where there are never any retakes for the recording engineer's sake.

If you expect to use preamps with input transformers, especially if they have a large voltage step-up factor, the 200-Ohm setting may be preferable--but again, we are catering to design limitations here, because in the design of some such preamps, an assumption was made that the microphone's driving impedance would always be in the 150-200 Ohm range, and no allowance was made for a driving impedance as low as 50 Ohms. That's unfortunate in hindsight, but there are some otherwise very good preamps that follow it, unfortunately. They may deviate audibly from flat high-frequency response, and from clean impulse response, if driven by a source impedance much lower than about 150 Ohms. Sometimes this misbehavior can be cured with a benign modification of the preamp's input circuit, but that solution isn't always available.

Since my preamps don't have these restrictions, and are quiet at the gain levels I normally use, I prefer the 50-Ohm setting for my few remaining microphones that have output transformers. It has less chance of clipping the input of any preamp, and it protects the microphone's output stage better from the vagaries of cables--especially long ones which I occasionally have to work with, and/or cables with high capacitance.

--best regards

[Derek Samuel Reese]

Cables do have a sound.
I tested three different cables for my U67.
I first started by listening to each cable over the course of a week by singing and talking.
Then i began recording my results so I can compare them.
This wasn’t scientific i matched three different vocal takes with three different cables and matched the levels the best i could.
Repeating the same few phrases.

Microphone details-
I have a 1963 Neumann U67 with a 1978 K67 capsule which Klaus brought back to life, along with a vintage 1963 NU 67 psu that has been checked by a tech and given a clean bill of health.
I am using a 1968 Telefunken EF806s tube.
My S2 wire on my u67 is not connected.
The u67 was flat (HPF and pad switch Not engaged)

I used the internal mic preamp on an Apogee element 24 interface .
Recorded in Logic X at 24 bit 96 kHz.

Here are the results I heard-
1-Gotham GAC 7 was what came with my u67, rich low frequencies slightly congested mid’s and not enough high frequency presence, a dark sounding cable.

2-1992 reissue also had a rich low end and a nice mid frequency but also lacked in the upper frequencies but i also heard less dimension or width in this cable when compared to the belden and GAC 7

3-Belden was exactly everything Klaus said it was, a match made in heaven.
The low end was tight thick and round and the mid frequencies really had a beauty to them zero congestion,
while the high end frequencies were so silky without being overbearing and no sibilance at all.
Absolutely refreshing.
So I will be selling the GAC 7 and the 1992 reissue cables and most likely purchase another Belden for backup.
Thank you so very much Klaus, because of you I went ahead and bought the Belden and the reissue cable to test and there’s no turning back now.
It was worth my time and money.
Sure you can use eq to get whatever results you want, but for me i wanted the source to be as good as i could possible get it before cutting and boosting.
Ps- the only cable I couldn’t get my hands on was the EMT cable, so I have no idea what that one sounds like.

[RadarDoug2]

How do you get dimension and width from a mono source? I find your conclusions extremely unscientific and unlikely.

[Derek Samuel Reese]

When comparing all three cables, the reissue did not have the same width as the GAC 7 or Belden.
You can hear width on a mono source,
It doesn’t have to be stereo in order to hear how narrow something sounds.
This was my opinion after a week of evaluation, the reissue was the only cable that sounded thinner than the rest.

I mentioned that my test wasn’t scientific, but if you were here listening you would agree.
I’m also not out to try and convince anyone. I am simply reporting my findings and I’m very happy with the results and what I chose :-)
I was going to upload the audio tracks I did but your allowed Only 512kb so I would have to reduce the size which in turn affect quality so what’s the point really.

[RadarDoug2]

In the audio band, cable is cable. If you are using 30 metres or less, in a professional environment, the cable is very unlikely to affect the sound. But dont take my word for it, do the math.

[Derek Samuel Reese]

In the audio band, cable is cable. If you are using 30 metres or less, in a professional environment, the cable is very unlikely to affect the sound. But dont take my word for it, do the math.

I hope Klaus chimes in here lol (I won't! KH)
So you are basically saying that the week of testing I did where I heard differences in each cable was my imagination ?
Or what Klaus has reported in his Reissue tear down article referring to the differences in sound between the four cables he tested was also his imagination ?

Im not sure what math your speaking of, but I can tell you that there is a difference big time.
And if you can't hear width in an audio signal, wether it is acoustic guitar or a human voice, then I question your ears because you said "How do you get dimension and width from a mono source" ?

That tells me: either you are not understanding what I mean, or you can not hear dimension and width in a mono audio signal.

[RadarDoug2]

The week of testing you did, how much of it was double blind testing?
Were you in charge of the changeovers?
Did you test on your own?
How long did it take you to change over between cables?
Did you ingest anything between changes?
Was the testing over a period of time more than two hours?

[Derek Samuel Reese]

I stated in my very first paragraph that this was not a scientific test, just a basic vocal recording repeating the same few words with three different cables.
All testing was done by me.
i waited an hour for the mic to warm up, then recording my vocal, power it down and waited an hour before changing cables, i did this for each cable.
I did not eat or drink between vocal takes.
The vocal is 27 seconds each so total time with the mic warming up and cooling down would be 6 hours 1 minute and 35 seconds.

RadarDoug2: this is an easy enough test that you could duplicate very easily, I'm not sure why you are in such disbelief ?
I would have never sold my GAC 7 cable if I didn't hear a difference.
I would suggest that you do your own test, since you remain skeptical.

[gtoledo3]

The skepticism comes from the terms being used, which, in my opinion, are not applicable in this context.

When attempting to communicate about these issues, it may be more constructive to work within recognized definitions of terminology, and within what can be explained through real world phenomena. Using that as the foundation, you can have some hope of getting down to real causal factors.

[Derek Samuel Reese]

Fair enough, i will leave it at this-
I will use other words to describe what i heard- the reissue cable did not sound as full as the other cables, to me it lacked emotion.
I personally chose the Belden cable because it sounded better to my ears.

[gtoledo3]

It is a difficult topic for many reasons, but one thing that seems to lead me to some interesting observations is to listen to the quality of the noise floor...bringing it up to a level where it can be easily heard. Be careful with monitor levels, etc.

If the actual sound of the noise floor shifts in a truly discernible way, sometimes it can seem to correlate with perceived differences in the audio output. The frequency distribution of the noise floor can have some interplay with the perceived sound quality of programatic audio. What I personally find interesting about that way of listening, is that sometimes it leads to realizing that certain things can sound cool, but may be inferior in some other way.

I think that aside from that, if you are actually auditioning audio through a given system, it leads to quicker and most solid conclusions to use a constant, looping source, whatever it may be, as opposed to sources that are unique each time, whether it be in performance or minor variances in distance from the mic.

Anyway, these comments aren’t aimed at any particular cable brand, or maybe even particular piece of gear, just general statements.

[htiek]

Klaus,
I just purchased the new Neumann U67 Reissue. All I can say is: What are you talking about? This is a sublime microphone. Did you review the same mic?

"I already had an idea where the Reissue’s shortcomings might lie."

Sounds like you went in with an agenda and a prejudice. Did you stop to consider that at the modern day Neumann factory they may have a different idea than you do, about how to tension the capsule membrane. I realize that you repair and modify these mics for a living, and that many consider you to be the foremost expert on Neumann microphones. I don't know what it is that you're hearing, but it it ain't what I'm hearing.

[klaus]

Klaus,
I just purchased the new Neumann U67 Reissue. All I can say is: What are you talking about? This is a sublime microphone. Did you review the same mic?

No, I did not review the same mic as yours, but a different sample of the same model. And obviously one that was quite a bit more bass-starved than yours. I am glad you found a winner, and you should have left it at that, rather than generalizing beyond your specific experience by vilifying mine.

"I already had an idea where the Reissue’s shortcomings might lie."
Sounds like you went in with an agenda and a prejudice.

I think selectively quoting one sentence out of many in the same paragraph that gives it context is irresponsible. Read the parts you left out in my review: it details that I knew about quite a few buyers who had reported a bass-starved Reissue, way before I reviewed one myself, confirming the culprit.

Yet, as I wrote, replacing that particular K67 with another solved the problem, so it's not systemic (which I also mentioned). In addition I keep emphasizing frequently, and in various forums that the bass-starved K67/870 phenomenon is NOT universally found in all new mics, but is hit and miss.

Please let me know if you think I could express my personal and ongoing experience with the inconsistent quality of new K67/870 capsules in a more factual way.

[soapfoot]

We also like our pair of U67 reissues and find them comparable in subjective performance to our three vintage original U67s... once we put a proper pair of EF86 in.

We used mesh-plate Valvos.

They're truly fantastic, in my opinion, after the tube swap. Importantly, our sequential-serial pair are a better match than any 2 of our other 3, so we use them a lot on piano and for drum overheads.