Print

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

[klaus]

(...) The U 67 amplifier's gain at 16 kHz is specified at 7 dB below its gain at 1 kHz(...)

That correlates to my measurements of the K67/87capsules without high frequency compensation: they are up a whopping 8-9dB @ 8kHz.

I never understood why people thought it would be an improvement of U67 or U87 mics to remove the high frequency attenuation in the processors. Bright only feels better for about ten seconds. After that, you need Advil®.

[aremos]

Does that have anything to do with the U87's "nasal" or "boxy" sound?

[klaus]

Not directly. The nasal sound of the U87 is a product of other aspects of frequency and gain manipulations.

Add to this that in some U87Ai models and years capsule low end can be especially tight, and the high-impedance section was more convoluted than necessary.

All of it contributes to nasality.

[Brian Campbell]

Word from the floor at NAAM is the tube is a current production Russian EF86.
So Klaus was correct in saying Neumann would be unlikely to spend the money for NOS tubes.
I recall Oliver A. saying that the Russian tubes were ok but the ratio of unusable and/or unreliable ones was high. I'm sure that Neumann would have fairly strict QC requirements given the high profile of the U67 reissue.

[aremos]

Is this the only microphone with a power supply that Neumann makes ... and the last one with a PS they made was the U67 (1st generation & 90's reissue)?

[klaus]

Neumann makes power supplies for M147, M149, M150. Can you rephrase your question?

[Nob Turner]

That correlates to my measurements of the K67/87capsules without high frequency compensation: they are up a whopping 8-9dB @ 8kHz.

I never understood why people thought it would be an improvement of U67 or U87 mics to remove the high frequency attenuation in the processors. Bright only feels better for about ten seconds. After that, you need Advil®.

I find this comment interesting, as you modified a U67 for me in the 1980's that came back significantly brighter than when it was stock. While it was great on sax and a few singers, it tended to be too bright for most applications, and after returning it to you once with a request to correct that issue, I eventually sold it.

[klaus]

That a K67 capsule is too bright without attenuation, and that my work on your U67 ended up being too bright for your taste are unrelated. I would never release a U67 without high frequency attenuation.

In your case, it must have been my interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable amount of high frequency content in the balance. According to my records, it's been 23 years since I worked on your U67, and I apologize that I do not recall your dissatisfaction with the top end, to the point that you sold the mic.

But to hear of such outcome is extremely disappointing to me*, even after more than two decades have passed, because I pride myself of following up with my work until every client is truly satisfied with the result - one more reason I give an unconditional warranty on my work.

*It's especially disappointing, because readjusting the attenuation in a U67 is about as easy as it gets.

[J. Mike Perkins]

If you are going to spend $7,000 to buy a new U67, spending another $150 to buy a replacement NOS tube seems like a no brainer.  While the NOS tube supply is not unlimited, thank goodness we are not talking about a VF14 or an AC701.

I can understand Neumann putting a current-production tube in the mic because they want to be consistent from mic to mic, but it's so easy to replace the tube, I don't think this is much of an issue. 

If I buy one, I would probably get 2-3 different NOS tubes to see which one I liked the best.  Assuming the U67 is an accurate reproduction, I bet you this will be a good seller for Neumann.  I hope they keep the mic in production.  Their next re-issue should be the KM84.

[aremos]

Which are those NOS tubes you would purchase?

[soapfoot]

Which are those NOS tubes you would purchase?

I agree that it would be a trivial matter (and a no-brainer) to get a proper EF86 for this mic, and I would choose a Telefunken EF806s

[klaus]

... if you happen to like that tonality. They are certainly tops in regard to longevity and noise.
Others may choose Amperex, Dutch Phillips, still others prefer Mullards, or Valvos.

Unless I forgot one, all of the above represent the extent of NOS EF86 manufacturers. The rest is relabels.

[Nob Turner]

That a K67 capsule is too bright without attenuation, and that my work on your U67 ended up being too bright for your taste are unrelated. I would never release a U67 without high frequency attenuation.

In your case, it must have been my interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable amount of high frequency content in the balance. According to my records, it's been 23 years since I worked on your U67, and I apologize that I do not recall your dissatisfaction with the top end, to the point that you sold the mic.

But to hear of such outcome is extremely disappointing to me*, even after more than two decades have passed, because I pride myself of following up with my work until every client is truly satisfied with the result - one more reason I give an unconditional warranty on my work.

*It's especially disappointing, because readjusting the attenuation in a U67 is about as easy as it gets.

you modified my u67 in the 80's when you were living in SF. it got hotter, brighter, fuller. i loved it in those days - analog days, when everything went to tape, at least twice. as times changed and i was working in the digital medium, i found the mic too bright for most applications. eventually, i sent it to you, telling you that was my issue with it. you returned it to me saying nothing was wrong with it. that's when i started thinking about selling it, and eventually did so. i replaced it with an M49, which i find more often useful than that 67 was.
 
i happen to currently own a u87 that you modded at some point. i LOVE that mic, and in fact used it for a session yesterday afternoon. it's one of the top 2 or 3 mics in my collection in terms of actual use. so i've no issue with your mods in general. it was just that 67 that didn't warrant its financial value while barely getting used here. perhaps you misunderstood my concerns about it when i sent it. in any case, it's long gone.

[klaus]

Thanks for clarifying.
I indeed interpreted the high frequency response of condenser mics I modified hotter in the last century, to compensate for the cumulative high end loss of 24 track recording especially when two of these machines were often linked in the 1980s and 1990s to get 48 tracks.

Best,
KH

[Timtape]

Thanks for clarifying.
I indeed interpreted the high frequency response of condenser mics I modified hotter in the last century, to compensate for the cumulative high end loss of 24 track recording especially when two of these machines were often linked in the 1980s and 1990s to get 48 tracks.

Best,
KH

When two 24 track machines were linked there was no cumulative high end loss as there was no need for dubbing from one 24 track machine to the other resulting in a second generation. It just allowed more multitracks, actually 46, not 48 as each machine had to sacrifice one of its tracks for time code.

Studio analog tape machines while not having  the fidelity of digital machines could still perform quite well if well maintained and aligned. If a machine was down in the top end, a not uncommon occurence,  you found out why and fixed it. In my view, using a microphone with artificially boosted top end, or using EQ ahead of the tape machine, would have been a strange way to address the problem of a poorly  maintained machine.