U47 "ish" mics

keith.rogers said:
I think if you really want a 47-ish clone that gets close, IMHO, you have to get a tube mic.
Click to expand...
If you've been on the free-ads here on HR, I grabbed a WA-47 tube snatchman was selling so I'll post a few thoughts for fun gear-nerd-novice hobbyist adventure. a 47ish Tube.mic ..keith!

first hour :
Physical appearance is great.
The shell and headbasket very 47ish, (some say this is easiest to copy; the physical is done well.)

Original U47 short body spec 60 d / 200 length....the WA 47 is 60dia , 254L.

Its a hefty weighted mic. Might need a stout stand.

The Accessories, most common complaint con seems to be the mic-holder mount. It looks fine to me but I admit it looks like its made by the same OEM as other mics, same color , same clips as a MXL Heritage clip and vintage metal popfilter I have. The wood box is nice but not something I'll use, the power supply will be looked at when I get it all plugged in and skins off.

5 star on looks and design. ....getting some ear tests next and my fun is looking inside the guts a bit. I wont babble too much about it.
 
plug in was interesting.
at first there was so much noise, I thought "this doesnt work for me". then I thought, its Tube , let it warm up...so left and came back and still it was so noisy just idle. I spoke and sang into it and it sounded ok....but the noise was too much.
I captured it on the BlueCat noise oscope plugin.

having a NOS 5751 sitting within arms reach I popped it in and took a magnifying glass over the internals to look for a bad solder or something. Nothing bad found. I popped in the tube I happened to have left over from the LA610's I test drove awhile back.
GE USA 5751 jan1968, green label with faint gray decal lettering..
Retried it thinking if this aint it, ,,,,,powersupply?
But no worrys...the BlueCat showed what my ears heard , a huge noise floor drop.

sang a little McCartney line or two, very very nice, through the KT2A with 3db and smooth. ...and quiet noise floor.

mp3 is 10second, 0-3 JJ5751, 4sec-9 other tube
 

Attachments

  • WA47 noise tube.png
    WA47 noise tube.png
    91.7 KB · Views: 6
  • WA Tube noise gone.mp3
    412.2 KB
Last edited:
It's a shame the new tubes even with well reviewed mics like the WA-47 are still not good. I understand that tube manufacturing is nothing like it was back in the 60s, even 70s, but it does make you wonder how this equipment is going to be maintained long term. I know this isn't the same level of problem as having all our mission-critical chip manufacturing in "who knows where" but, still, is it impossible to get consistently good, new tubes at some cost? The WA-47 is not exactly a cheap mic, though in the tube realm, probably close. Well, I ramble, once again.... (I guess I'll go pop open a mic and see what's in there and start looking for a backup.)
 
the year of the mic shows 2019.
is 3yrs long enough for a tube? maybe the shipping? I dont know tubes that well...er.. at all really... and tube mics even less.
Swapping a tube..no problem. Its really odd I had a 5751!! weird.

The SOUND of VOCAL tests,,,
I am aware my elder-ears and headphone monitor setup (Grace 901+ Beyer 880 2050ohm) is what I use for playback.
Even more, these mic vocal tests are always strange because when singing, I hear the internal head sound + the mic, and on playbacks the internal-head sonic signature is gone...and all my vocal mic test playback sound thinner due to that physical thing on every mic track, every mic.

this WA47 is pretty good in the sensitivity range for my room too at 10mv/pa aka -40db.
I had a MXL 890 thats was like 28mv/pa and it picked up stuff in the attic and outside!

The internal mic parts are not cheap, and spec'd out transformer and wima caps etc...so its not unknown cheap parts, this is same as higher end caps and parts. No one makes the famous tube so no one is making a perfect copy.... so where does this go?

The price for me used was really really good, used. Its in MINT shape..(.so snatchman selling some more gear on the Free Ads here has my 5 star rating.)

The power supply sockets and cable seem very well done, not cheap at all These are metal and solid cable XLR and 7pin. Comparison is relevant and I dont know component level builds. Some post the cable 7pin isnt long enough...Im in a closet, so its almost too long for me. Its a smaller power supply which I prefer. Its a 115vac, its got a blue light bulb I dont need. I just need it to work and that takes time I guess to run to failure...maybe forever? I dont run a studio so usage is low.

oh well back to comparing some noises and sounds of the WA47 to the SM7/SM58. I might add some more to this post but thats about it for me on this piece of gear.
 

Attachments

  • WA47 SM7.png
    WA47 SM7.png
    1,012.9 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
I shipped that one back to try another, that turned into WA47tube..
The FET version was same quality as I recall, and with the FET theres less issues to read about, if any. right?
A few people really liked that one, as a whole, with the pricing, the multipattern....the same capsule as the WA47tube.
 
CoolCat said:
plug in was interesting.
at first there was so much noise, I thought "this doesnt work for me". then I thought, its Tube , let it warm up...so left and came back and still it was so noisy just idle. I spoke and sang into it and it sounded ok....but the noise was too much.
I captured it on the BlueCat noise oscope plugin.

having a NOS 5751 sitting within arms reach I popped it in and took a magnifying glass over the internals to look for a bad solder or something. Nothing bad found. I popped in the tube I happened to have left over from the LA610's I test drove awhile back.
GE USA 5751 jan1968, green label with faint gray decal lettering..
Retried it thinking if this aint it, ,,,,,powersupply?
But no worrys...the BlueCat showed what my ears heard , a huge noise floor drop.

sang a little McCartney line or two, very very nice, through the KT2A with 3db and smooth. ...and quiet noise floor.

mp3 is 10second, 0-3 JJ5751, 4sec-9 other tube
Click to expand...

I had the exact same thing happen with the brand new one I got from Sweetwater.

The tubes they bought in bulk had a high failure rate that sometimes even happened after being demoed at Warm Audio.. and became bad along the way in transit.
I ended up getting a Sylvania 5751 and that low end rumble went mostly away.

I have yet to use it in a session though ... it is just sitting there mocking me.
 
Interesting about the tubes. Bad batch?

My recent experience and noise floor "home-made test" is LDC WA47 isnt much different than my SM7b noise floor, which surprised me.

I expected a lot more noise than the SM7b. Opinion is based in my room, with the mic on and gain set to use; its not some technically perfect resistor load test or any real noise floor test....its just a plugged in mic, in idle, and listening to the noise...er... looking at it with the BlueCat plugin.

MXL V67G has the same floor too, but really if a bass or drums was in playback the mic noise floor isnt a problem ..the noisy tube was pretty huge! wow. And the SHure SDC are equally in that realm...so its probably limited by my room, more so than the microphone self noise.

Listening to some short vocal tracks theres some clarity in the WA47 some sparkle,, but the SM7b also does fine, the MXL V67G does ok, and the latter two have maybe a little more lower mid boom to my ears and this is all raw, no eq done as would be done.

I feel pretty good about the WA47 has the sonic-family of the 47, probably as much as others. like Sylvia Massey says in the youtube "its close enough". All the masses of videos and posts by real studio use is its fine.

The Telefunken at $8000 to $10000 seems to hold the top "copy" spot, with their own metal tube cover etc...and a version of one of the transformers...etc... U47 capsules changed over the years, I read so this WA47 was made after the K47....drilled hole patterns and all that Capsule detail.

its all strange, this audio designed gear
 
Reading this tube mic build stuff, the ART T4 popped up.

While it doesnt have the capsule and transformer and wima's & solen caps, or the Gotham cable with Neutriks. There is a lot of commonalities as the
Headbasket, Body exact and the Shock Mount and Power Supply seems nearly identical...ok its identical.

The ART T4 seems to have some happy owners too but it seems several went to upgrade it right away to a new transformer and K47 capsule, some didnt.
Price wise its cheaper new,

Somethings not the same though ART T4 is 36mv/pa vs WA47 10mv/pa.

Strange the exact same power supply, shock mount and body dimensions...albeit black.
 
I don't fine that strange at all. It sounds like Warm is doing what all the tweakers on RecordingHacks would do. It would be a simple thing to take the same basic parts as the ART T4, change the circuit board and capsule and produce a completely different sounding mic. Why go through the hassle of have a mic body machined, a different shock mount designed and power supply made?

Carroll Shelby did that with the AC Cobra. Take an AC Ace, throw in a V8, change the suspension, tranny and brakes. Presto! AC Cobra!
 
Im not sure who came first ART or the WARM, or <enter namebrand> whose copying whose parts from what factory?
Some gearheads might even know what China road they are made on.
I do like the MXL shockmount better, it has the pinch mechanism to spread the mount on and off and a larger contact surface, while the other uses small bands for contact and the "clip approach". I got the larger MXL Metal Vintage pop filter for the WA47, as its a fat-boy diameter...

It doesnt matter to me really, but the WA47 cost of their focused effort on the capsule clone 47, drilled holes and micron coating etc..
add in the internal parts of the highend transformer .and there would be a cost increase of some value. Its like the SM7b costs more than the SM58, in parts alone its obvious why it costs more.
All I know is I couldnt build one!

EARS
I wonder if theres a video HD shootout of Original 47's from like new-old stock to 10yrs to 40yrs old to 70yrs old...does it get burnt out or burnt in? Like WARM builder said "which 47 do you copy??" I guess everyone can drill the holes to print exact, and the pvc ring was a failure and rotted away and even Neumann dropped that ...it can be a black hole no doubt trying to repaint a Mona Lisa of microphones. The power supplys? does it make a huge huge difference or not? is it worth spending $5,000 for subtleness.....or the best duplicate version seems to be TeleFunken at $8,000. My expectations would be too high I suspect. Anyway the Sylvia Massey video made impact and the many videos and the WA47 can sound great or be made too...so can others.

FWIW..my 2cents to date
The last few days I pop on my headphones and listen to tracks Ive done with the WA47, and other mics, and though the mics sound noticeably different, they all would get some eq and dynamics in the end making the difference even smaller. Once again for my ears and hobby-ears..on vocals .its kind of a bummer because there isnt a huge huge difference. Like when I spent $1500 on a US strat and the Mexi sounds great too, no huge huge difference.

Cup half full..My SM58 does so well, for me. It has clarity and midrange and doesnt have the low low bassy radio dj sound to remove in a mix.
The bassy-LDC solo sound is great, but in a mix and to remove noise the high pass filter is ON anyway, and you know? SM7b, Shure SDC, MXL V67G, WA47, WA47JR... they all have their thing. I read the Bono dude said they spent hours in the studio trying to get the big mics to sound like his voice on a 58....I get that now. The WA47 performed clean, low low noise, clarity was great too but it costs 10x's the SM58 also. The SM7 sounded blurry and bassy compared to the SM58, HPF helped and EQ would be done....MXL V67G is so so quiet, and its a sound, for some might be the best, not really for me....acoustic guitars Id take all of them over the 58, to get some sparkle, the SDC's I have were the worst noise floor and had sparkle I liked and the pair I bought used were so cheap and sound very similar to the SM81.

The ISA One is just an awesome preamp with clarity and low noise and functions. The KT2A adds noise floor of course but at 2-3db cuts its pretty subtle....cranking up the reduction and gain the noise takes off and not to my liking. I could do without it...but it does add some slight roundness, albeit adds some noise floor. Seems it was better on my bass guitar and less noticeable on vocals.

I dropped some cash on a the Metal Vintage filter , WA47. Not only does it look cool like EMI's, its so much more attached than my floppy gooseneck popfilter...it was expensive though but fits on all 2" type diameter mics.
The MXL V67G heritage series comes with one that fits smaller diameter mics like V67G and WA JR....

ADD:

about a month later....

Ive done some time with this WA47 and this mic is really impressive.

5 STAR in build, cost, sound.

why?
1) I dont have to eq it. Handles my ssss's well anyway
2) Its got a great level of sensitivity for my room, pretty silent in idle
3) its a really clear sound with some personality and per some who own real ones, this WA47 is close , like many of the other clones, will ever get without the age & exact obsolete parts. ..47-ish
4) got a great deal used here on the HR free ads !!...$600.

Massey- and her 70yr old U47...WA47 perspective put simple.


WA47>ISA One w/KT2A> Reaper...nice vocal chain. no plugins required......except maybe auto-tuner for sour notes. lol
 

Attachments

  • WA47 filter.png
    WA47 filter.png
    549.9 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
I’m old enough to remember valves (tubes) in domestic kit. One. Of my friends, old then and I was maybe 20 had a huge box of them and we hired equipment. Some of it revealed bad tubes by easily noticed artefacts in vision and audio equipment. His job was to identify tricky equipment then find tubes that worked well enough. The failures might work in other less stressful kit. These were often mass produced tubes with wildly varying characteristics from supposedly the same product. Noise, poor gain, microphony and early failures were everyday faults in brand new products. Now we are down to small batch production, failures are expensive. I bet lots of the failures get out into the market. If you recreate 1950s production lines with 1950s products, you really cannot expect 2020 standards of performance. Buying a tube/valve has never ever been a case of buy one and finding it perfect. Buy three and get one really good one. Needing a matched pair means you need a box of them so you can go through and mix and match.

It‘s a little sad people want to use old technology but expect contemporary standards of performance from a patently flawed product that has never had guaranteed performance first plug in. As a trainee I remember the huge boxes of failed, poor and suspect valves we had in the workshop. The failed would be thrown into the skip, along with the poor box. My job then was to take the suspect ones and test them to determine if they were dead, or poor, and the suspect box could start again. Hundreds and hundreds from radios, amplifiers and TVs. One that perhaps caused picture disturbance might actually be fine in an amp with different needs. We were so happy with transistors but faults converted from plug in fixes for so many faults to ones that needed real workshop time which cost more. People do seem to expect so much from these devices.
 
How many of those old tubes that were never used or tested are now being sold for $$$$$$ because they are "NOS". It was made 50 years ago, so it must be a primo device. The other side of the coin is that so many of these tubes are being used because of their distortion, the very thing that was undesirable in the first place.

The world of music and audio is pretty strange sometimes.
 
My friend’s dad had boxes of his old valves in his shed. Many in the original paper sleeves. He’s been selling them over the past two years since his dad died. NOBODY bought valves for stock, you bought them individually when you needed them. The old ones you carefully popped in the sleeve, just in case you needed them for emergencies. You never did. People are buying these things believing they’re the holy grail in audio, tv, test equipment, and other retro devices.

I‘m left wondering if the increased distortion products from old tubes is now what some people now believe is the ‘tube sound’ that the original users were trying to get rid if?
 
rob aylestone said:
My friend’s dad had boxes of his old valves in his shed. Many in the original paper sleeves. He’s been selling them over the past two years since his dad died. NOBODY bought valves for stock, you bought them individually when you needed them. The old ones you carefully popped in the sleeve, just in case you needed them for emergencies. You never did. People are buying these things believing they’re the holy grail in audio, tv, test equipment, and other retro devices.

I‘m left wondering if the increased distortion products from old tubes is now what some people now believe is the ‘tube sound’ that the original users were trying to get rid if?
Click to expand...
I do know that in some (very few) instances, the distortion was desired. Paul wanted his bass to distort a little bit when running it through the REDD console. Same with the entirety of “Good Morning” from Sgt. Peppers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top