I'd like to thank those up here and elsewhere for the best advice
yet...which was "Use your own ears and decide."

My fist impression, just doing a mic check on it, was "Wow...that's a big
sound." This is the first time in a long time I've heard a mic give you a
fat, "in your face" result without sounding like a sock is over it. It's a
thick, full sound, BUT.....without sounding dark (how'd they do that?).


I put up a Pro Tools file that was sung by a female on a U99, a pop tune,
and she sang the first section of it on a new track with the M147. The
first section of this song is fairly soft and in a low range. She sang right
up on the mic, about 4 inches away.
We A-B'd the two tracks, and the U99 sounded positively thin next to
the M147. The U99 is a very cool mic, and had always sounded good on
her, but there was really no comparison.

Next we did a louder section of the tune which had the girl singing in a
higher register, the kind of thing that could get a little screachy on the
wrong mic. Again, no problem, the highs were there but not a screech in
sight.

On my voice, which is on the thin side, the mic adds just the bottom and
richness I need to sound better than I am

I have no illusions about this mic being a U47, a U67, or even a super
versaitile utility mic. What I am finding is that it seems to be a mic with
a lot of character, a big sound up close, and enough of the vintage
heritage in it's tone that I can't imagine anyone thinking it's not up to
Neumann standards. Some folks have reported it sounding
"boxy".....geez, give me some more boxes like this!

Again thanks to all for their patience with my innumerable questions.
The old "Your mileage may vary" thing really couldn't have applied more
in this case.

in article , Tom Hartman at
wrote on 10/20/03 1:35 PM:

I'd like to thank those up here and elsewhere for the best advice
yet...which was "Use your own ears and decide."

My fist impression, just doing a mic check on it, was "Wow...that's a big
sound." This is the first time in a long time I've heard a mic give you a
fat, "in your face" result without sounding like a sock is over it. It's a
thick, full sound, BUT.....without sounding dark (how'd they do that?).


I put up a Pro Tools file that was sung by a female on a U99, a pop tune,
and she sang the first section of it on a new track with the M147. The
first section of this song is fairly soft and in a low range. She sang right
up on the mic, about 4 inches away.
We A-B'd the two tracks, and the U99 sounded positively thin next to
the M147. The U99 is a very cool mic, and had always sounded good on
her, but there was really no comparison.

Next we did a louder section of the tune which had the girl singing in a
higher register, the kind of thing that could get a little screachy on the
wrong mic. Again, no problem, the highs were there but not a screech in
sight.

On my voice, which is on the thin side, the mic adds just the bottom and
richness I need to sound better than I am

I have no illusions about this mic being a U47, a U67, or even a super
versaitile utility mic. What I am finding is that it seems to be a mic with
a lot of character, a big sound up close, and enough of the vintage
heritage in it's tone that I can't imagine anyone thinking it's not up to
Neumann standards. Some folks have reported it sounding
"boxy".....geez, give me some more boxes like this!

Again thanks to all for their patience with my innumerable questions.
The old "Your mileage may vary" thing really couldn't have applied more
in this case.

There have been numerous semi-reviews and reports on the M147, most
generally say they don't like the mic. I liked it the first time I heard it
(on the Neumann site) and really liked it when I demoed it in my studio.
Mind you, I was only checking it out to record fingerstyle acoustic guitar
(center channel). I ended up getting a M149, more so for the multiple
patterns than the slight difference between the M147 and M149 in cartioid
only mode. I suspect many try to compare the M147 to some of the vintage
Neumanns. It isn't, and wasn't made to be so.
--
Stephen T. Boyke

[snippy]

Yea, you're going to get a bunch of folks here who don't like this
mic. I personally like it a lot. I've got an eq that I love to use w/
this mic to raise the high end just a bit, not too much. Its also a
nice versatile instrument recording mic and works well where the Royer
121 does.

I would say, not not always my first choice for acoustic guitar, but
for a number of other settings, its really quite nice.

Paul

In Article ,
(Tom Hartman) wrote:
I'd like to thank those up here and elsewhere for the best advice
yet...which was "Use your own ears and decide."

My fist impression, just doing a mic check on it, was "Wow...that's a big
sound." This is the first time in a long time I've heard a mic give you a
fat, "in your face" result without sounding like a sock is over it. It's a
thick, full sound, BUT.....without sounding dark (how'd they do that?).


I put up a Pro Tools file that was sung by a female on a U99, a pop tune,
and she sang the first section of it on a new track with the M147. The
first section of this song is fairly soft and in a low range. She sang right
up on the mic, about 4 inches away.
We A-B'd the two tracks, and the U99 sounded positively thin next to
the M147. The U99 is a very cool mic, and had always sounded good on
her, but there was really no comparison.

Next we did a louder section of the tune which had the girl singing in a
higher register, the kind of thing that could get a little screachy on the
wrong mic. Again, no problem, the highs were there but not a screech in
sight.

On my voice, which is on the thin side, the mic adds just the bottom and
richness I need to sound better than I am

I have no illusions about this mic being a U47, a U67, or even a super
versaitile utility mic. What I am finding is that it seems to be a mic with
a lot of character, a big sound up close, and enough of the vintage
heritage in it's tone that I can't imagine anyone thinking it's not up to
Neumann standards. Some folks have reported it sounding
"boxy".....geez, give me some more boxes like this!

Again thanks to all for their patience with my innumerable questions.
The old "Your mileage may vary" thing really couldn't have applied more
in this case.

Welcome to microphone and EQ Hell.

You liked the U 99 fine until the M 147. Wehn you A/B'd the tracks, you
probably soloed them. There's no question that the two mics sound different.
Your description matches my own experiences. But how do the tracks fit in
the mix?

If you have to roll off the LF on the M 147 to get it to fit in the mix,
then you're a LOT closer to the 99.

What preamp were you using? Do you only have one? Would there be a better
one that would make the 99 more appropriate from this situation?

Where's my lunch? Who stole my fountain pen?

Could she have gotten closer to the U 99, thus getting more proximity effect?

So many questions, so little time.

Regards,

Ty Ford


**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Tom Hartman wrote:


We A-B'd the two tracks, and the U99 sounded positively thin next to
the M147. The U99 is a very cool mic, and had always sounded good on
her, but there was really no comparison.


Call Soundelux... I think your U-99 may be broken.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

We A-B'd the two tracks, and the U99 sounded positively thin

Was it positively thin or negatively thin?


Scott Fraser

(Ty Ford) wrote in message ...
In Article ,
(Tom Hartman) wrote:
I'd like to thank those up here and elsewhere for the best advice
yet...which was "Use your own ears and decide."

My fist impression, just doing a mic check on it, was "Wow...that's a big
sound." This is the first time in a long time I've heard a mic give you a
fat, "in your face" result without sounding like a sock is over it. It's a
thick, full sound, BUT.....without sounding dark (how'd they do that?).


I put up a Pro Tools file that was sung by a female on a U99, a pop tune,
and she sang the first section of it on a new track with the M147. The
first section of this song is fairly soft and in a low range. She sang right
up on the mic, about 4 inches away.
We A-B'd the two tracks, and the U99 sounded positively thin next to
the M147. The U99 is a very cool mic, and had always sounded good on
her, but there was really no comparison.

Next we did a louder section of the tune which had the girl singing in a
higher register, the kind of thing that could get a little screachy on the
wrong mic. Again, no problem, the highs were there but not a screech in
sight.

On my voice, which is on the thin side, the mic adds just the bottom and
richness I need to sound better than I am

I have no illusions about this mic being a U47, a U67, or even a super
versaitile utility mic. What I am finding is that it seems to be a mic with
a lot of character, a big sound up close, and enough of the vintage
heritage in it's tone that I can't imagine anyone thinking it's not up to
Neumann standards. Some folks have reported it sounding
"boxy".....geez, give me some more boxes like this!

Again thanks to all for their patience with my innumerable questions.
The old "Your mileage may vary" thing really couldn't have applied more
in this case.

Welcome to microphone and EQ Hell.

You liked the U 99 fine until the M 147. Wehn you A/B'd the tracks, you
probably soloed them. There's no question that the two mics sound different.
Your description matches my own experiences. But how do the tracks fit in
the mix?

If you have to roll off the LF on the M 147 to get it to fit in the mix,
then you're a LOT closer to the 99.

What preamp were you using? Do you only have one? Would there be a better
one that would make the 99 more appropriate from this situation?

Where's my lunch? Who stole my fountain pen?

Could she have gotten closer to the U 99, thus getting more proximity effect?

So many questions, so little time.

Regards,

Ty Ford


**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

All true, but I've never done, or seen, a rock or pop mix done without
EQ on the vocals, some more than others. I've now completed a full
vocal session using the M147 and I used UA's Pulteq plug in to add a
few db at 10-12k. I didn't have to roll off anything. I didn't find
that unusual or an indictment of the mic (nor a vindication of the 99,
which is a great mic). For me personally, I'd rather add some high end
sheen to something than try to add body later.

The M147 works really well for recording the "body" of a slappin' rockabilly
doghouse bass.

-Scott