neumann clones

the cactus is a tube mic with interchangeable capsules, so that would be kind of surprising (the u-87 is a solid-state mic with a fixed capsule). still i've heard from some knowledgeable folks (including dave thomas when he was modding a mic for me) that virtually all ldc capsules are copies or slight variations of the u-67 capsule, the u-47 capsule or the c-12 capsule, which is basically what chessrock said earlier in this thread. there are some folks like milab (i believe, and maybe pearl (?) who make wacky rectangular capsules, which respond differently (different responses to the sides than above).
 
I recently became a Peluso dealer and added some Peluso mics to my inventory. I will not compare the 2247 to an actual U47 since I do not have a U47 here to compare with. What I can tell you is that the 2247 sounds incredible. The lows are very rich and warm, the highs are certainly there, but not overemphsized like on so many current mic offerings on the market. What you will notice with the 2247 is an immediate character and desirable richness to it. The 2247 is very easy to use. So far I have only had time to use it briefly on vocals and on a guitar cabinet and to use a pair as overheads on drums. IN all three scenarios it worked very well. It sounded great on overheads, but the differences between it and other mics and its sonic signature were certainly not as readily apparent on drums. On guitar cab so far ( I have only used it in a high gain scenario as of yet) the 2247 had a huge low/mid range smoothness to it, and it tamed the high sizzly stuff very well. So far it has been one of my favorite LD condensors I have used yet on high gain guitars. It will probably become my second mic right behind my Royer R121for guitars, and my get used equally on cleaner guitar tones. On vocals it is amazing. The clarity is surreal, but there is a huge richness once again. Almost like usable proximity effect without the big shift as the singer moves around. My initial tests also show that the 9 available patterns show go pattern control and good off axis rejection without sounding phasy as you hit the edge of a pattern. Many cheaper mics have especially bad sounding pattern control. The 2247 so far seems like an incredible mic to have in a mic locker. Easily as nice as any of the other mics I have used in a similar price range. I also became a dealer for Red Mics and have done some quick basic comparisons between the Peluso and the Red Type B with the R7 (U47ish) capsule. The Red Type B is a solid state body but sounded very close to the sound of the Peluso. The Type B seemed to have a little more of a high frequency tilt to it, but not in a bad way. The lows and mids sounded very similar, but the type B had a little more "air" to it. This could be good or bad depending on the source signal and desired result.
 
yeah i've heard that the type b is a great value-- especially with the ability to switch capsules. have you tried it with any other capsules?
which 2247 did you try-- the shortbody, the le or the se?
 
kojdogg said:
yeah i've heard that the type b is a great value-- especially with the ability to switch capsules. have you tried it with any other capsules?
which 2247 did you try-- the shortbody, the le or the se?
Click to expand...

i ordered the full floating modified oktava mk 319..hope it is good!
 
So far I have only tried the B7 capsule, and briefly the B6 capsule. Both sounded great on the type B, but I really only paid close attention to the B7 because I was doing a rudimentary comparison between the Red and the Peluso. The Peluso's that I had in at the time were the shortbody version. After talking with John directly I decided to get the shortbodies instead. Hopesfully soon I will have more time to test them all out. I also picked up the redhead for the Oktava MK012 mic. That certainly changes the way it sounds, but I have not tried it on much yet. What I do know so far is that both the Peluso and the Red sounded pretty nice. Personally, I think I liked the Peluso a little better for vocals and electric at least, bt the Red is not far behind. The Blue Mouse sounded good also but I definately preferred the Red and Peluso sound. The Mouse was not quite as rich as the others, but had a more extended top end as well. Not quite as much as my Blueberry or my vintage U87, but was a good compromise. The mouse actually reminded me more of the C12 style capsule than the U47 style.

DISCLAIMER: I am a dealer for both Red Microphones and Peluso microphones now.
 
As a dealer, do you know the scoop on the Redheads? I've read some people saying that they use the same capsule as the Bluebird. I was thinking of picking up one of those or an RTT Lomo head.
 
I do not know the whole story behind the redheads. The cheaper capsule that comes stock on the type b may be the same as the bluebird, but mine does not have that capsule. What I do know is that when my order was shipped to me the return label was addressed from BLUE :)
 
I have no good mics – yet, but every 6 months or so i get all hot under the collar and do some intensive research on what I might get if my slim wallet will open wide enough to allow me to spend some money on a pointless hobby. (whoops, state of mind sneaking through there.)

M-Audio sputnik is what i lust after at the moment in this category. Read the reviews, from people who have, or have used the real deal vintage whatever mics. This is about US$ 600 i think, twice that price where I live dammit....

I know some people hate these reviews, but i don't care, i sit here all day reading them when I should be working (maybe there is a link between that and 'slim-wallet syndrome').

http://remixmag.com/recording_hardware/remix_maudio_sputnik/

http://www.audiomidi.com/aboutus/reviews/haynes_sputnik.cfm

http://www.m-audio.com/images/en/reviews/02.07.Sputnik.TapeOp.pdf

Here is a sentence from the above TapeOp review. (I get the impression TapeOp is a pretty reputable pro mag, someone will maybe correct me if I'm wrong.)

"But don’t let the hype repulse you—this is the most superexcellent
affordable microphone that’s ever been made in the
history of the Universe, I’m not kidding you."

Here's the product page, there are some review quotes on there too.
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Sputnik-main.html

It must at least be worth consideration if you're in the market. The mic next down my lust list is the CAD Trion 8000, some good reviews on this as well.
http://www.studioauditions.com/gearreviewdetail.php?GearReviewID=95

I'm sure there will be someone who cruising these boards, vulture-like, who will dive down to tear at the bloody carcase of my opinions, I hope so in fact. Hey, can I help it if I'm feeling both negative AND poetic at the same time?

good luck kemo sabe (hmmm... hope thats not a culturally insensitive term)
 
the dairy giant said:
I have no good mics – yet, but

<<snippage>>

good luck kemo sabe (hmmm... hope thats not a culturally insensitive term)
Click to expand...

Damn! Did that CIT kill the thread?:facepalm:

Think I'll capture the input, do some further research and post it back as a spreadsheet.
Who knows, with all this time on my hands mic-modding might just be in me future.
 
The one thing I have learned is that frequency response curves mean very little about how a microphone sounds. With todays processing power you could re-create any microphones frequency response curve and it would NOT sound the same. It's how the mic responds to certain frequencies, not just the amount of them. If it was this simple, then mics like the Line-6 that can do a good job of re-creating the tonal response would be more popular than they are. They can recreate certain features, like presence peaks, or little odd dips in a graph, but move the vocalist off mic a touch, and they can't recreate what happens then - it's a mechanical thing. A microphone can look like another, but a Neumann has a tone, plus a physical response to where the source comes from. Like they can hear the sound that comes down your nostrils when you sing, not just your mouth - and this off-axis sound is mixed in. Other mics with identical frequency response just don't do the same. Most of the Chinese products source their diaphragms from a very small number of specialist sources, so the only differences are electronics. Neumann capsules are made differently, they look different, feel a bit heavier in the hand, and that is what makes them sound like they do. They're not, obviously, the best for every voice - that's why we have choice. If I had some money to spend, then for me - I'd buy 2 AKG 414s, not one Neumann - because for me, they'd get more use. I have never seen a Chinese clone of a Neumann U87 - lots of look-alikes, but is a Rode a clone of an 87? Never. It's just a big microphone. I have some stereo large format Chinese mics that look very similar to some European older ones - where two capsules sit one above each other. They can be swivelled, and have omni-fig 8-cardioid patterns. They sound nice, and work well. They sound nothing like the older originals that used this design. Clone indicates an identical copy, and very few mics are clones. The Shure 58 copies that are everywhere are not clones either, because in every way they are not as good - by miles in this example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top