M 49 and PVC

[Garthrr]

I recently had a chance to use a Neumann M 149 for the first time and, while I
think its a nice mic, I didnt think it had the same effortless quality that I
noticed when using an old M 49 one time. The M 49 I used was able to handle a
very loud and strident singer without a hint of strain. I'm sure there are all
kinds of differences between these mics and I know the M 149 is not supposed to
be an updated M 49 but what I'm most curious about right now is whether the
diaphram material makes a big difference in sound. I believe the M 49 was PVC
and the M 149 (as with other modern mics) is something else which I read is
longer lasting and easier to work with when building the capsule.
How much of the sound of the M 49 was coming from the capsule material? Has
there, in recent years, been a trade off of sound quality for longevity, QC and
manufacturing concerns? I'd be curious to hear anything else about what makes
an M 49 such a wonderful sounding mic for vocals.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[David Satz]

Garthrr wrote:

> [ ... ] I know the M 149 is not supposed to be an updated M 49 but
> what I'm most curious about right now is whether the diaphram material
> makes a big difference in sound. I believe the M 49 was PVC and the
> M 149 (as with other modern mics) is something else which I read is
> longer lasting and easier to work with when building the capsule.

Actually the M 49 used the PVC-based M 7 capsule only until 1960, when
production was changed over to the Mylar-based K 47/49 capsule as used
in the U 47 and U 48. The M 49 was then produced for many more years
(until 1974) and as a result, the M 49 that you used may very well have
been built with the mylar capsule--the same one as in the M 149 Tube.

--David Bock of Soundeluxe apparently tried to post a reply to your
message. Be sure to see it (in another "thread" with this same heading).
Gist of his message is that both capsule types sound good and M 49-ish,
but the amplifier circuitry of the M 149 Tube is utterly different from
that of the M 49. He apparently doesn't feel that the M 149 should be
expected to sound much like an M 49.

(In memory of Tony Salvatore, a dear man and a great engineer who made
many wonderful RCA recordings with M 49 and M 50 microphones ... If I
thought for a moment that I could get a sound like his by simply buying
the same microphones I'd go "vintage" in a heartbeat--but the truth is,
it never comes from just the equipment ...)

--best regards