U47 U67 my thougths regarding myths

[GermanTech]

Today we live in a world of linear transmisson and super hifi from 1- 100Khz ...... In the 50th and 60th in Germany we had the industrial norm DIN 45500 which says that Hifi means 40-12.5kHz . The working range of the "state of the art" Neumann U67 in 1960 was 30-16Khz with the available ingredients !!! Today we build microphones from 20-20Khz and higher and talk about the warmth of the old tube models. I think its easy to reduce the bandwith of modern Mikrofones by EQ of the DAW´s to the range from 30 Hz (100Hz with bass cut ) up to 16Khz by reducing the highs from 14kHz on and lift the presences around 9khz a wee bit controlled by ear. So we can use each cheap modern tube or FET microfone to get a warm and transparent sound . I do it in this way and with compressor ( the only studio tool in the 60th ) I can get nearly the same warm , full and rich sound . Unfortunatly I do not have the voice of Frankie boy......

 

[kingkorg]

Today we live in a world of linear transmisson and super hifi from 1- 100Khz ...... In the 50th and 60th in Germany we had the industrial norm DIN 45500 which says that Hifi means 40-14kHz . The working range of the "state of the art" Neumann U67 in 1960 was 30-16Khz with the available ingredients !!! Today we build microphones from 20-20Khz and higher and talk about the warmth of the old tube models. I think its easy to reduce the bandwith of modern Mikrofones by EQ of the DAW´s to the range from 30 Hz (100Hz with bass cut ) up to 16Khz by reducing the highs from 14kHz on and lift the presences around 9khz a wee bit controlled by ear. So we can use each cheap modern tube or FET microfone to get a warm and transparent sound . I do it in this way and with compressor ( the only studio tool in the 60th ) I can get nearly the same warm , full and rich sound . Unfortunatly I do not have the voice of Frankie boy......

For example, u47 tube is somewhat microphonic, and many argue (including me) this is the part of the sound. A member posted recently examples of sweeps of only tubes microphonic audio. I used it to create an IR which can be loaded and applied to clean mic. There are absolutely ways to emulate the vintage components and gear. Some like however just the convenience of plugging a mic and start making music.

 

[Ricardus]

For example, u47 tube is somewhat microphonic, and many argue (including me) this is the part of the sound. A member posted recently examples of sweeps of only tubes microphonic audio. I used it to create an IR which can be loaded and applied to clean mic. There are absolutely ways to emulate the vintage components and gear. Some like however just the convenience of plugging a mic and start making music.

Do you share those IR's?

 

[soapfoot]

Bandwidth is easy to measure and quantify.

But it’s not the only thing that makes a good microphone (and I’d argue it’s not even the most important thing)

 

[kingkorg]

Here's impulse response of one of the tubes I thought sounded most musical. Loaded it into Altiverb, and tested just for fun. I found it amusing and interesting ...

Here it is @Ricardus

 

[Horizoneer]

My experience has been that at least for musical instrument recording, the frequency range of mic low to high is almost never what I'm thinking about - beyond something obvious like not using an SM57 if I want high frequency air right at the top of the audible spectrum. Where the peaks and troughs are within that range matter to me, if and where there are any midrange resonances that could pair poorly with a source. The problem* with resonances is they are time based as well, so they reduce the impact of transient sounds.

Depending on the application, what the off axis sound is like matters (hi hat in the snare mic, for example - is is rejected well? The spill I can hear - is it really trashy sounding? I'd take the spill being several dB louder if it sounds nice.) Then there's practicalities like how the mic handles loud sounds, and simply how robust it is to be put in harm's way.

*Sometimes resonances are good, subjectively...

 

[Ricardus]

Here it is @Ricardus

Thanks!!

 

[Electrobumps]

This is true, L/HPF and shelving is such a valuable tool on source materials. A lot of modern cheaper mics have a hyped top end. Which may sound impressive….until you try and balance in a mix and it just won’t sit.

 

[emrr]

Back when everything was band-limited, there was a general theory that the multiple of the lowest and highest frequencies should land somewhere near 400K.

20 x 20K = 400K
30 x 15K = 450K
100 x 4K = 400K
200 x 2K = 400K
Etc. You get wildly off from that in a band-limited world, things start to seem out of balance.

 

[gary o]

The large attechment just in front of the diaphram made a huge difference in sound, attachments like Elvis Presley, Nat King Cole & Jim Reeve were pretty good improvements to the mics, ok Im having a laugh but they are part of the equation. Im also intrigued about the microphonic theory, it sounds a little far fetched for me but interesting....so its like the valve and electronics are picking up vibrations acting as a really bad sounding capsule with very low output and mixing in with the lovely sounding much much hotter signal of the actual capsule...wahlaa 3D effect...doesnt sound feasable surely the ratio between capsule sound and microphonics is too large...but then again fascinating...
I use a software program to split music into tracks it good but not perfect sometimes when it splits tracks part of one track get put on the other, say part of a flute onto vocal track, when the rogue part played on its own sounds terrible but when back together sounds great, same principal I guess, fascinating sorry I went off on one there.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

The large attechment just in front of the diaphram made a huge difference in sound, attachments like Elvis Presley, Nat King Cole & Jim Reeve were pretty good improvements to the mics

+1