Print

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

[RuudNL]

I was a bit surprised that I didn't read a word about the change in shape of the base below the microphone capsule.
In the 'old' U67 there was a dome shaped piece just below the capsule itself.
In the 'new' U67 the capsule sits higher in the headbasket, but the base where the capsule is mounted on, is flat.
IMHO this could influence the sound. Any opinions?

[Jim Williams]

That will affect the response. I noticed in similar mics with a domed mount that the shape does create reflections, resonances and some nulls too.

Mounting the capsule a few mm higher can overcome some of those reflections. A complete frequency response plot with the differences would also be informative but that isn't likely to happen here.

[klaus]

That (shape of mounting base) will affect the response.

Whether or not, or if, how much the shape of the base affects the sound of the mic is probably hard, if not impossible, to listeners. Unless all that is done, the statement is speculation.

I noticed in similar mics with a domed mount that the shape does create reflections, resonances and some nulls too.

Again, speculation, unless proven. I could as well argue (and probably trace) the exact opposite: parallel surfaces - here, a flat base plate, flat capsule sides, flat top of basket- may create standing waves of a higher audible magnitude than the somewhat random reflections off a curved surface (as with the old base).

But the reason I mentioned only the capsule-height differences in my review, and not any acoustical effects of the U87Ai base used in the Reissue vs. the old U67/87 curved one: I did not hear any. And what I heard was the focus of my review.

Mounting the capsule a few mm higher can overcome some of those reflections

How would you know? It might as easily affect just the wavelength of the reflection, with little decrease in its volume, or may result in nothing audible at all. For me, it was the latter. So I left it out of the review.

A complete frequency response plot with the differences would also be informative but that isn't likely to happen here.

No, indeed, "here" we listen to detect subtly of sounds, rather than running test tones or protocols.

[Jim Williams]

I have done some tests that exposed the reflection effects. It was so audible the capsule had to be raised up 5 mm to overcome it. It was on a Rode NT-2 that I designed for Rode back in the mid 1990's.

No, I didn't bother with frequency sweeps as I don't have the anechoic room to do that here.

[duskb]

Klaus,
Thank you for taking the time to research this mic. I bought a reissue for my employer in October and by and large, in a very unscientific test as compared to an original, I had a hard time hearing any difference. This is not to say that we didn't detect a difference but when blind listening any difference we thought we heard was quickly negated when hearing the next one. If I had more time I suppose I could have dug deeper but it was a moot point. At that point we owned it so we had to accept it for what it was. It is not a bad sounding mic.

This thread made me aware of something though. I personally own three vintage 67s, one with an earlier serial which sounds quite different than the other two. It actually sounds different from any 67 I've heard. I like it better. More creamy in the low end and a bit more soft on the top. Almost like a blend of a 47 and a 67. The finish is different too. It looks as if it was sprayed with a lacquer. I've seen other early 67s with the weird finish before. All serial 19xx and earlier. The reason I ask is I was unaware of impedance strapping for these mics. Maybe the difference has to do with two of them being strapped differently than the other. How do I check to see where the impedance is set and how easy is it to change it? Is the difference I'm describing a version issue or something else?

[klaus]

Hello Dusk,
If any of the three vintage mics were strapped differently, the output would be considerably different as well: 4-6 dB

But you can visually check as well: in the space between connector barrel and the tip of the tube is a rectangular brown circuit sub-board with "200" and two "50" imprinted. It's a bit hard to see because several colored wires are obscuring the board.

If the mic is set to 200Ω, a single wire, usually clear, as in the photo attached, loops between two solder points on the same side of the sub-board.

If the mic is set for 50Ω, there will be two wires soldered in parallel from one end of the board to the other.

But my hunch why your mics sound different: different capsule generations! Take a picture of each and upload it.

P.S.: I am happy that you are happy with your Reissue. As I mentioned in my review, the biggest variable, the current series K67 capsule, is inconsistent, and can range from superb to harsh and unmusical.

[RuudNL]

After reading your in-depth analysis of the U67 re-release (my thanks for this!), A question remains: is the U67 reissue worth its money, or are there better alternatives?

[klaus]

At the current street price, I believe the U67 Reissue beats anything comparable in price, and with a few judicious steps it can easily be moved into the world class of the vintage U67.

[ameyerson]

As an owner of 2 of the reissues I have to admit I don't disagree. My listening test is not nearly as intricate as yours. Usually when I evaluate a new mic I start by using it as a cello spot mic in an orchestral setting. I feel the cello is a perfect instrument balance wise to give me a clear idea of how the mic responds. I've done it with so many mics now that I have a pretty good sense of how it works. Also there is no instrument that affects me emotionally like the cello. When it sings I feel it in the hairs on the back of my neck
I agree with the pinched upper midrange and the lean low end. It's a subtle shift and took me a while to get it.
On the other hand I really like the way the mic sound set in Omni. It seems to balance out tonally in Omni so when the situation is right I'll do that.
Love to get your hands on these, Klaus.
Best,
Alan

[klaus]

(...) I feel the cello is a perfect instrument balance wise to give me a clear idea of how the mic responds.(...) there is no instrument that affects me emotionally like the cello.

I am not the first to note the similar timbre and expression of a cello and the human voice. It's therefore an excellent instrument to judge a mic, as Alan notes. It is enviable to work in a recording environment where cellos are common. The rest of us will have to do with voices, sometimes our own...

[Delete me]

The rest of us will have to do with voices, sometimes our own...

I resemble that.

[Derek Samuel Reese]

Strictly speaking of the 1963 Neumann u67 cable, was there a serial number for this ? like a Neumann ec4 cable ?
I have been searching for a back up cable for my 1963 u67, but when i search a lot of other variables come up.

[klaus]

As mentioned in my review, the U67 cable delivered by Gotham for the U.S. market was a U.S.-made Belden product. To my knowledge, it has long been discontinued, but with some luck you can still find it on eBay or Reverb.

[Derek Samuel Reese]

This cable doesn't have a name ?
I am only speaking of the Neumann cable, not Gotham

[klaus]

That is a great cable, made for Neumann for its 2xx mics. It will not have the particular sound characteristics of the Belden, but it has excellent mechanical properties and  the double Reussen layer shielding with the highest RF rejection possible. This material was widely used by Neumann for delivery to the German Broadcast System.

Just make sure the pin configuration is right for the U67 pin-positions, or transplant your U67 connectors over to that cable material.