Want A U47?

I really wonder that too!

But personally, if I was spending $3500 on ANY mic, it certainly wouldn't be ANYTHING SPA didn't touch; at least not until I had 1 or 2 in my mic cabinet!!!
 
I was just wondering about the S.P. mic and there's a thread going on just that. At $1500 it ain't cheap but I have a feeling it's going to be a hell of a mic.
 
Never heard one, but I've been told by people who are *seriously* into microphones that the Horch is one hell of a mic. Possibly better than the original, certainly more reliable and consistent. As you probably know, some of those U47s are merely very expensive kick drum microphones by now. And hardly anyone sells a good one anymore.

I'd like to know where Horch get their capules, though.
 
Never believe that ANYTHING will sound like a U 47. The tubes in a U 47 where left over military tubes from Germany field radios during WW II. They have not been made in over 50 years, and there are basically NONE left in the world. You can spend more on the (extremely rare) NOS tubes that are out there than you would spend on most high end microphones. Without the tube, you can not recreate the sound.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
I would have liked a U47 as well however, the prices for them are rather steep. Instead, I purchased a Soundelux E47. Just got it today so I don't know anything yet but I am certainly hoping for some good vocal tracks. I have some important vocal recordings planned in the next few weeks and I will see (or rather hear) whether or not my money was well spent. Anyway, it sure looks cool.
 
...NOT a U-47

This is definitely NOT a U-47.

The tube used in a U-47 is a VF14, a battery-radio tube from the 30'ies. A bit expensive now.

The tube used, the AC701, is a very different entity. It was used - with the U-47 microphone capsule, the M7, to make the Neumann U269 microphone - a local German variant over the U67-theme.

Rendering this is much closer to a disguised U269.

Jakob Erland
Gyraf Audio
 
Re: ...NOT a U-47

gyraf said:
This is definitely NOT a U-47.

The tube used in a U-47 is a VF14, a battery-radio tube from the 30'ies. A bit expensive now.

The tube used, the AC701, is a very different entity. It was used - with the U-47 microphone capsule, the M7, to make the Neumann U269 microphone - a local German variant over the U67-theme.

Rendering this is much closer to a disguised U269.

Jakob Erland
Gyraf Audio
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said, but great to have you here. By the way, I love your site. One of these days I am going to start making some of that stuff.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Light,

Thanks.

We have a really decent DIY tube mic on the site - based on an EF86 tube and the AKG CK12 capsule. Conservative design, and off course transformer balanced.

A bit like an U47 circuicy with an U67 tube and ELAM capsule :-)

Jakob E.
 
and after all that :)

Over here we will almost always use the Lawson 47 in preference to the vintage 47.
Before we purchased the Lawson we did compare it to the Soundelux, which the Lawson beat hands down, with a sound closed to the original, sweeter, with lower self-noise, and all that at a much lower price as well.
We are fortunate to have a pretty extensive mic collection here, but I really do believe that both the Lawson 47 and the 251 are the best value mics currently available.
 
I just got the Soundeluxe E47. So far I think it sounds wonderful. I am certain, though that slight variations between microphones will produce near fanatical devotion to one brand over another and, to each their own as the saying goes. But, though some swear by Vintage Neumans, or Soundeluxe, or Lawson or what have you, I seriously doubt anyone would consider any of these microphones "bad" sounding.

Most importantly though are the differences in the source material, preamps, signal processing etc. The variations are endless and as such, I am at times astonished by the devotional accolades showered on one brand and denied another without even the slightest admission that one does not necessarily sound "better" than the other just different.
 
Yeah, I knew that just because it has a U47 look on the outside that doesn't mean it sounds like a U47 or that the designers were trying to make it sound like a U47...

Fletcher says the one he saw at a show had a 414-type capsule.

Kris Singh on RAP says he has the Horch and it has a C12-type sound to it... He says it's cleaner sounding and has a nicer low-end than his C12.

Anyway, I'd buy and try a Horch anyday as I'm really into uncommon, "non-vintage" mics, but I have no 3500 bucks!
 
One little add-on, as I'm old enough to remember "vintage 47's" when they were new:

The vintage 47 sound is not due to the tube. Of cause a good (and the right) tube helps, but the critical factor is the diaphram.
Did a good vintage 47 have "that" sound straight out of the box?
NO!! It did not. It always was a good microphone, but key to its spacious top-end sound - which makes it so especially great for vocals - is an effect unforeseen by the engineers who developed the microphone at the time. Age had an effect on the the diaphram, and that effect creates ithe 47's unique sound.

This is also why there is such a difference between vintage 47's, as unfortunately there are more average sounding ones than really brilliant ones. (and in a 47's case the average still sounds good compared to most). The best 47's I have encountered are those that belonged to the BBC or NDR in Germany, who always kept their tube mics on - creating a unique and constant environment for them.
 
If you always keep a tube mic on it should be less likely to feel the effects of moisture. Also remember that circuit boards and components on them expand and contract as heat buildup occurs.

So if you turn a mic on and let it get hot, then turn it off you have let the process happen twice. Expansion occurred when the components warmed up, and contraction occured when they cooled down. Over time this can cause components to wear out and need to be replaced.

Theoretically, keeping a mic on all the time would be as good or better for the mic than keeping it off in a box. The only negative effect I could see would be the excess buildup of "nastyness" on the diaphram due to dust, although that is going to happen anyway if it is used as a vocal mic because of spit and humidity in that your breath could cause.

Beez
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top