[mcp6453[_2_]]

I just watched a video in which Telefunken claims that their own VF14K (made in
Connecticut, USA) is absolutely identical to the original VF14. How credible is
that statement? It's fascinating that a U47 recreation is available, but I
wonder how much the recreation is like a U47 when it was new.

Fletcher convinced me to sell my U47 to a famous producer a number of years ago.
I wish I hadn't done that. At least it has gone on to do great things.

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 wrote:
I just watched a video in which Telefunken claims that their own VF14K (made in
Connecticut, USA) is absolutely identical to the original VF14. How credible is
that statement? It's fascinating that a U47 recreation is available, but I
wonder how much the recreation is like a U47 when it was new.

See, the problem is that the VF14 isn't really a very good tube overall for
that sort of application. I suspect it was picked because it was the quietest
thing available on the surplus market at the time. Neumann goes on to run it
with reduced filament voltage which extends tube life considerably but does
not help linearity.

So... since the VF14 in the U47 is not really optimal for the job and is
operating sort of out of the normal operating envelope, you'd have to not only
copy the VF14 in such a way that it met the original specifications, you would
also have to do it in such a way that it met some of the operating requirements
that were never originally specified with the tube.

What Telefunken is doing is repackaging an NOS glass tube that has similar
characteristics (and I suspect I know the one they have picked) and
putting it onto a goofy VF14 base. Not having heard it (and having some
biases about the U47 that are unpopular today), I can't say how close it is.

I _can_ say that if you take an EF14 and alter the filament supply voltage,
it sounds just to me like the VF14. So this is still a reasonably-priced
replacement for existing mikes.

However.... I think the nuvistor and solid state options for the U47 sound
a lot better than the original VF14... and Neumann thought so too, or they
would never have introduced them. I'd suggest that an EF86 would probably
sound fine in a U47... it won't have the same top end character but I'd call
that an advantage.

Fletcher convinced me to sell my U47 to a famous producer a number of years ago.
I wish I hadn't done that. At least it has gone on to do great things.

I'm not really a fan of the things, but you can take heart in the fact that
they are probably worth less now than they were when you sold them. When
the Japanese economy went bust, a lot of these prices started dropping although
still not anywhere down to normal levels.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 1/20/2012 10:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

What Telefunken is doing is repackaging an NOS glass tube that has similar
characteristics (and I suspect I know the one they have picked) and
putting it onto a goofy VF14 base.

If that's true, then it's "repackaged" in CT, not made in CT.

However.... I think the nuvistor and solid state options for the U47 sound
a lot better than the original VF14.

My U47 was Nuvistor. Before the producer bought it, he did a shootout with many
other microphones, including some U47s with VF14.

I'm not really a fan of the things, but you can take heart in the fact that
they are probably worth less now than they were when you sold them. When
the Japanese economy went bust, a lot of these prices started dropping although
still not anywhere down to normal levels.

The word needs to get out to the people selling them. Every one I see is in la
la land.

I've got my eyes on another old Neumann, but I'm having trouble pulling the
trigger. It hasn't sold in a couple of months, so there must be something wrong
with it that I can't see.

If you were going to buy a "new" U47, not that you would, would you buy a
Telefunken, Peluso, Wunder, or some other brand?

And why does no one talk about the Lawson L47 any more? The one I had was one of
the finest sounding microphones I ever heard. To my ears, it smoked the U47. The
guy I sold it to (dumb me again) uses it every day as his go-to microphone for
vocals.

[Steve King]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 1/20/2012 10:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

What Telefunken is doing is repackaging an NOS glass tube that has
similar
characteristics (and I suspect I know the one they have picked) and
putting it onto a goofy VF14 base.

If that's true, then it's "repackaged" in CT, not made in CT.

However.... I think the nuvistor and solid state options for the U47
sound
a lot better than the original VF14.

My U47 was Nuvistor. Before the producer bought it, he did a shootout with
many
other microphones, including some U47s with VF14.

I'm not really a fan of the things, but you can take heart in the fact
that
they are probably worth less now than they were when you sold them. When
the Japanese economy went bust, a lot of these prices started dropping
although
still not anywhere down to normal levels.

The word needs to get out to the people selling them. Every one I see is
in la
la land.

I've got my eyes on another old Neumann, but I'm having trouble pulling
the
trigger. It hasn't sold in a couple of months, so there must be something
wrong
with it that I can't see.

If you were going to buy a "new" U47, not that you would, would you buy a
Telefunken, Peluso, Wunder, or some other brand?

And why does no one talk about the Lawson L47 any more? The one I had was
one of
the finest sounding microphones I ever heard. To my ears, it smoked the
U47. The
guy I sold it to (dumb me again) uses it every day as his go-to microphone
for
vocals.

I had the chance to compare several voices both male and female head to head
on a VF14 type U-47 and a Lawson L47. I preferred the Lawson by a wide
margin. Of course, that could have been partially due to the U-47 capsule,
which was, I think, an original.

Steve King

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 wrote:
On 1/20/2012 10:33 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

What Telefunken is doing is repackaging an NOS glass tube that has similar
characteristics (and I suspect I know the one they have picked) and
putting it onto a goofy VF14 base.

If that's true, then it's "repackaged" in CT, not made in CT.

That's what the Telefunken web site claims, if you go looking closely
enough. It's a perfectly reasonable approach, though.

However.... I think the nuvistor and solid state options for the U47 sound
a lot better than the original VF14.

My U47 was Nuvistor. Before the producer bought it, he did a shootout with many
other microphones, including some U47s with VF14.

The VF14 versions are worth a lot more than the nuvistor ones today. I don't
know why. The nuvistor is an amazing thing, but people like the coloration
from the VF14 stage. I'd rather do without it; the nuvistor is about as
clean as it is possible to be.

If you were going to buy a "new" U47, not that you would, would you buy a
Telefunken, Peluso, Wunder, or some other brand?

The problem is that no two vintage U47s sound the same, so nobody really
agrees on what they are supposed to sound like.

Most of the original U47s out there have brittle diaphragms because the
original diaphragm was PVC that lost plasticizer over the years. Many
people think the "u47 sound" is the sound of a mike with a brittle
diaphragm and a huge high end peak, and some of the U47 copies are intended
to model that.

As far as I know, none of the copies are made with PVC any longer, but
mylar. So they won't sound like the originals but they also won't sound
like a failed original either.

And why does no one talk about the Lawson L47 any more? The one I had was one of
the finest sounding microphones I ever heard. To my ears, it smoked the U47. The
guy I sold it to (dumb me again) uses it every day as his go-to microphone for
vocals.

I don't know, I would actually say that if I were going to buy a U47 clone
I would go with the L47. It's not a clone, really, and in some ways it's
a much better microphone.

The original Soundeluxe E47 also was interesting to me... it had some of
that off-axis U47 stuff going on and it was super bright but not so harsh.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Robert Orban[_2_]]

In article , says...

Most of the original U47s out there have brittle diaphragms because the
original diaphragm was PVC that lost plasticizer over the years. Many
people think the "u47 sound" is the sound of a mike with a brittle
diaphragm and a huge high end peak, and some of the U47 copies are
intended
to model that.

A few years ago, I had Sennheiser restore three U67s that had developed
crackles. I had owned these mics since 1965. Sennheiser replaced the
capsules (among other things).

I have a crackly U47, and I plan to have the same thing done. It will not
both me in the slightest if they replace the capsule with one meeting the
original factory spec (as opposed to the one now in the mic, which, as
you said, has probably gone very brittle). I want the mic restored as
close to "like new" condition as possible, meaning how it sounded in the
'50s and not now.

Bob Orban

[PStamler]

On Jan 25, 7:16*pm, Robert Orban wrote:
In article , says...



Most of the original U47s out there have brittle diaphragms because the
original diaphragm was PVC that lost plasticizer over the years. *Many
people think the "u47 sound" is the sound of a mike with a brittle
diaphragm and a huge high end peak, and some of the U47 copies are
intended
to model that.

A few years ago, I had Sennheiser restore three U67s that had developed
crackles. I had owned these mics since 1965. Sennheiser replaced the
capsules (among other things).

I have a crackly U47, and I plan to have the same thing done. It will not
both me in the slightest if they replace the capsule with one meeting the
original factory spec (as opposed to the one now in the mic, which, as
you said, has probably gone very brittle). I want the mic restored as
close to "like new" condition as possible, meaning how it sounded in the
'50s and not now.

You may want to check into having the restoration done by Microtech
Gefell. They've kept the original diaphragms in production
continuously since WWII.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Robert Orban wrote:

A few years ago, I had Sennheiser restore three U67s that had developed
crackles. I had owned these mics since 1965. Sennheiser replaced the
capsules (among other things).

I have a crackly U47, and I plan to have the same thing done. It will not
both me in the slightest if they replace the capsule with one meeting the
original factory spec (as opposed to the one now in the mic, which, as
you said, has probably gone very brittle). I want the mic restored as
close to "like new" condition as possible, meaning how it sounded in the
'50s and not now.

The problem is that when they replace the capsules, they replace them with
ones that have modern mylar diaphragms in them and are tensioned with
modern methods. So when they do this, it's not the way it was in the '50s.
It might be better (and it will certainly be a lot more stable), but it's
not the same.

Gefell can put PVC diaphragms on them, and so can a couple of the aftermarket
microphone guys. Personally I think this is a bad plan because it puts you
back on the same path to deterioration that caused you to need to replace the
thing in the first place. But you might prefer it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

PStamler writes:

snips

I have a crackly U47, and I plan to have the same thing done. It will not
both me in the slightest if they replace the capsule with one meeting the
original factory spec (as opposed to the one now in the mic, which, as
you said, has probably gone very brittle). I want the mic restored as
close to "like new" condition as possible, meaning how it sounded in the
'50s and not now.

You may want to check into having the restoration done by Microtech
Gefell. They've kept the original diaphragms in production
continuously since WWII.

Paul, that's interesting. Didn't know Gefell did that.

I wonder how those restorations compare to their contemporary 900 and 300 series
microphones, of which I have several. (Session after session I'm pleased with the
size, price, and performance of the modern Gefells. At least for the classical music
I typically do they always perform and rarely get "in the way" sonically,
physically, or financially w.)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Robert Orban[_2_]]

In article , says...
Robert Orban wrote:

A few years ago, I had Sennheiser restore three U67s that had developed
crackles. I had owned these mics since 1965. Sennheiser replaced the
capsules (among other things).

I have a crackly U47, and I plan to have the same thing done. It will not
both me in the slightest if they replace the capsule with one meeting the
original factory spec (as opposed to the one now in the mic, which, as
you said, has probably gone very brittle). I want the mic restored as
close to "like new" condition as possible, meaning how it sounded in the
'50s and not now.

The problem is that when they replace the capsules, they replace them with
ones that have modern mylar diaphragms in them and are tensioned with
modern methods. So when they do this, it's not the way it was in the '50s.
It might be better (and it will certainly be a lot more stable), but it's
not the same.

Gefell can put PVC diaphragms on them, and so can a couple of the
aftermarket
microphone guys. Personally I think this is a bad plan because it puts you
back on the same path to deterioration that caused you to need to replace
the
thing in the first place. But you might prefer it.

In this case, I value reliability more than absolute authenticity. Thanks for
your insight!

[PStamler]

On Jan 26, 10:54*am, Frank Stearns
wrote:
PStamler writes:

snips

I have a crackly U47, and I plan to have the same thing done. It will not
both me in the slightest if they replace the capsule with one meeting the
original factory spec (as opposed to the one now in the mic, which, as
you said, has probably gone very brittle). I want the mic restored as
close to "like new" condition as possible, meaning how it sounded in the
'50s and not now.
You may want to check into having the restoration done by Microtech
Gefell. They've kept the original diaphragms in production
continuously since WWII.

Paul, that's interesting. Didn't know Gefell did that.

I wonder how those restorations compare to their contemporary 900 and 300 series
microphones, of which I have several. (Session after session I'm pleased with the
size, price, and performance of the modern Gefells. At least for the classical music
I typically do they always perform and rarely get "in the way" sonically,
physically, or financially w.)

I've been told (and I have no idea if it's correct) that the M930 has
essentially the same metalwork as an M7 (U 47) capsule, but a mylar
diaphragm, better tensioning and very different electronics. As I
said, I don't know if this is right or not, but like Frank I've had
very good luck using M930s for many kinds of recording.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler wrote:

I've been told (and I have no idea if it's correct) that the M930 has
essentially the same metalwork as an M7 (U 47) capsule, but a mylar
diaphragm, better tensioning and very different electronics. As I
said, I don't know if this is right or not, but like Frank I've had
very good luck using M930s for many kinds of recording.

It is a good-sounding mike, and it does have a lot of the same off-axis
stuff going on that the U47 does.

It really seems that a lot of people like the U47 because of the coloration
from the electronics. I don't. So I would say that the much cleaner
electronics of the M930 are a serious win.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

said, I don't know if this is right or not, but like Frank I've had
very good luck using M930s for many kinds of recording.

It is a good-sounding mike, and it does have a lot of the same off-axis
stuff going on that the U47 does.

It really seems that a lot of people like the U47 because of the coloration
from the electronics. I don't. So I would say that the much cleaner
electronics of the M930 are a serious win.

Yes, the 900 series is in the sweet spot for price/performance.

Just finished tracking a 40 piece wind and brass ensemble; 18 microphones (including
4 MG940s, 3 MG930s, and 2 MG300s; balance done with misc Nuemanns and Shures). Very
sweet and clean. The main pair (KM183s) sounds pretty good, but the spots are
definitely needed for this particular project and hall.

I also just finished an album for a singer-songwriter duet that used the 940s on the
guitars. Again, wonderful sound, with little or no EQ needed.

It is quite a versatile microphone series that can handle such wildly different
applications. A way-clean U47, with the added benefit of a compact size. Many of my
live clients would balk about the visuals if U47s started popping up on stage, but a
small-body 900 series doesn't get much comment.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--