Neumann M49: Was it really the best?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I just read the review in Pro Audio Review of the Soundelux 49. The
reviewer stated that the great thing about the original M49 was that it
had remote patterns, i.e. sort of like a U47 but with remote patterns.
But old-timers I have known used to speak of that mike in awe, and only
mentioned the remote patterns as an afterthought. On more than one
occasion I have heard the M49 referred to as the finest microphone ever
built. Is this true and for what reasons?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

There's no such thing as the best mic IMO. Everything depends on the
source material. Surely these old Neumann were GREAT mics when in
perfect shape, as were, RCA's, Sony's, AKG, Schoeps, Gefell etc...

Matrixmusic a écrit:
> It's one of the best!!
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1111107405.761402.177180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"JimKollens" <JimKollens@aol.com> wrote:

> On more than one
> occasion I have heard the M49 referred to as the finest microphone ever
> built. Is this true and for what reasons?

I don't know about the term "best," but it is an astoundingly pleasing
mic. One reason is the character of the transformer which is
conspicuously absent in the new M149.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
www.promastering.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JimKollens Wrote:
> On more than one occasion I have heard the M49 referred to as the finest
> microphone ever built. Is this true and for what reasons?

It has more to do with the acoustics of the grill / head assembly and
the AC-701/k based amplifier than remote pattern switching. The
acoustics of the head grill net the lowest level of acoustically born
"intermodulation distortion" of any microphone ever built... which
helps the mic achieve it's remarkable clarity and definition.

The AC-701/k based amplifier is what helps the mic achieve it's "airy"
/ "sexy" tone / texture. The AC-701/k is a very physically small tube
which makes it very fast and efficient in it's transfer of electrons...
the net result being a very "airy" and "silky" tone... couple that with
enough real estate in the mic for an big assed output transformer and
you have a little slice of heaven.

[Note to Jay F.: The M-149 has a myriad of problems besides a
"transformerless" output... like having a FET amplifier that follows
the 'sub miniature' tube which is what gives it the output that can be
measured in horsepower (a trick by the boys from Berlin to drive the
"noise" specification into the ground... not giving a damn now the mic
actually sounded)]


--
Fletcher

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Fletcher wrote:


> the 'sub miniature' tube which is what gives it the output that can be
> measured in horsepower (a trick by the boys from Berlin to drive the
> "noise" specification into the ground... not giving a damn now the mic
> actually sounded)]


Hahahaha. Funny, and true!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>Fletcher wrote:
>> The
>> acoustics of the head grill net the lowest level of acoustically born
>> "intermodulation distortion" of any microphone ever built... which
>> helps the mic achieve it's remarkable clarity and definition.
>
>What on earth is acoustically born intermodulation distortion?

I think he means mechanical nonlinearity.
I suspect the mike isn't the lowest in that regard, but there is an
AES conference paper by Juha Backman on nonlinearity due to air compression
effects in small condenser capsules that shows some kind of scary stuff
with low frequencies going through small holes.
--scott

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

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:


> Not sure, but I am guessing the bell of a horn has loads of it.

Or should I say creates loads of it.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Bob Cain wrote:
> >Fletcher wrote:
> >> The acoustics of the head grill net the lowest level of acoustically
> >> born "intermodulation distortion" of any microphone ever built... which
> >> helps the mic achieve it's remarkable clarity and definition.

> >What on earth is acoustically born intermodulation distortion?

> I think he means mechanical nonlinearity.

I was imagining it as an acoustical variant of what I'd call "multipath"
distortion, where a bunch of reflections inside the housing contribute
to what the capsule receives.

Of course, that might just be a fine example of what can happen when a
dumbass guitar player starts imagining things.

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
> Of course, that might just be a fine example of what can happen when
> a dumbass guitar player starts imagining things.



Insulter: "What do you know, you're just a dumbass guitar player!"

Insultee: "Hey, who you callin' a 'guitar player?!'"

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Fletcher wrote:

> Picture the pilings of a pier... picture the ripples that are created
> in the water as the water passes those pilings, picture the interaction
> between the various patterns of ripples... how some add, how some
> subtract... how new wave forms are created by this interaction.
>
> This is a somewhat basic illustration of the acoustic distortion,
> interaction [also known as "intermodulation"] suffered by minute
> variations in air pressure as it passes the metal of a grill screen on
> it's way to the capsule in our friend the microphone.

That is called diffraction, not distortion which requires
nonlinearity, but I do understand what you mean now.
Indeed, getting that part of a design right with a bunch of
stuff around the capsule is really important for the upper
octave.

I've done a fair bit of comparative measurement of mics with
their grills and without them and the differences are really
big. (Big enough to make one highly skeptical about all the
arguments regarding importance of the minute differences in
phase shift at the highest frequencies in A/D and D/A
converters as a function of the limiting and reconstruction
filters employed and the sample rate used.)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Fletcher" <Fletcher.1m681n@audiobanter.com> wrote in message
news:Fletcher.1m681n@audiobanter.com...
>
> Bob Cain Wrote:
> > Fletcher wrote:-
> > The
> > acoustics of the head grill net the lowest level of acoustically born
> > "intermodulation distortion" of any microphone ever built... which
> > helps the mic achieve it's remarkable clarity and definition.-
> >
> > What on earth is acoustically born intermodulation distortion?
> >
>
> Picture the pilings of a pier... picture the ripples that are created
> in the water as the water passes those pilings, picture the interaction
> between the various patterns of ripples... how some add, how some
> subtract... how new wave forms are created by this interaction.
>
> This is a somewhat basic illustration of the acoustic distortion,
> interaction [also known as "intermodulation"] suffered by minute
> variations in air pressure as it passes the metal of a grill screen on
> it's way to the capsule in our friend the microphone.
>
> The composition of the screen [very wide open mesh], the physical size
> of the head grill assembly [about as large as it gets in the modern
> era] as well as the angles of the screen all add up to a "clearer"
> acoustic picture being captured at the capsule.
>
> Interesting bit of trivia... Stephen Paul once mentioned to me that the
> grill on a U-47 had a standing wave in it at 13 kHz if it wasn't beat up
> bent and distorted... I don't know for sure if it did or not, but I have
> noticed that those without dents generally sound way better than those
> with dents... so who knows... there could actually be something to that
> statement.


Did you by any chance mean it the other way round, that the U47s with dents
sound better than the ones without?

Predrag

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d1j05k04h6@enews3.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

> I've done a fair bit of comparative measurement of mics with
> their grills and without them and the differences are really
> big. (Big enough to make one highly skeptical about all the
> arguments regarding importance of the minute differences in
> phase shift at the highest frequencies in A/D and D/A
> converters as a function of the limiting and reconstruction
> filters employed and the sample rate used.)

Yeah. If we worried about microphones (other than what's the best one
for a bass oboe that costs less than $100) as much as we worry about
our preamps or converters, we'd never get any work done. I guess it's
because it's easier to understand and measure the effects of changes
to an electronic circuit than it is a mechanical construction.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:19:17 -0500, Fletcher wrote
(in article <Fletcher.1m681n@audiobanter.com> ):

> Bob Cain Wrote: > Fletcher wrote:-
>> The
>> acoustics of the head grill net the lowest level of acoustically born
>> "intermodulation distortion" of any microphone ever built... which
>> helps the mic achieve it's remarkable clarity and definition.-
>>
>> What on earth is acoustically born intermodulation distortion?
>>
>
> Picture the pilings of a pier... picture the ripples that are createdin the
> water as the water passes those pilings, picture the interactionbetween the
> various patterns of ripples... how some add, how somesubtract... how new wave

> forms are created by this interaction.
>
> This is a somewhat basic illustration of the acoustic distortion,interaction
> [also known as "intermodulation"] suffered by minutevariations in air
> pressure as it passes the metal of a grill screen onit's way to the capsule
> in our friend the microphone.
>
> The composition of the screen [very wide open mesh], the physical sizeof the
> head grill assembly [about as large as it gets in the modernera] as well as
> the angles of the screen all add up to a "clearer"acoustic picture being
> captured at the capsule.
>
> Interesting bit of trivia... Stephen Paul once mentioned to me that thegrill
> on a U-47 had a standing wave in it at 13 kHz if it wasn't beat upbent and
> distorted... I don't know for sure if it did or not, but I havenoticed that
> those without dents generally sound way better than thosewith dents... so who

> knows... there could actually be something to thatstatement.-- Fletcher

Good description!. There's an acoustical micro climate INSIDE the headgrille
of every mic. It does have an impact on the sound that enters the headgrille.
Why do you think the Neumanns typically have wedge shaped headgrilles? Maybe
because the opposing grilles aren't parallel...?

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:30:48 -0600, Joe Sensor <crabcakes@emagic.net>
wrote:

>Predrag Trpkov wrote:
>
>
>> Did you by any chance mean it the other way round, that the U47s with dents
>> sound better than the ones without?
>>
>> Predrag
>>
>
>Right. The irregular walls helping to avoid standing waves.

And dropping a mic or banging it around, usually improves it.

Al

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov Wrote:
> "Fletcher" Fletcher.1m681n@audiobanter.com wrote in message
> news:Fletcher.1m681n@audiobanter.com...-
>
> Interesting bit of trivia... Stephen Paul once mentioned to me that
> the
> grill on a U-47 had a standing wave in it at 13 kHz if it wasn't beat
> up
> bent and distorted... I don't know for sure if it did or not, but I
> have
> noticed that those without dents generally sound way better than
> those
> with dents... so who knows... there could actually be something to
> that
> statement.-
>
>
> Did you by any chance mean it the other way round, that the U47s with
> dents
> sound better than the ones without?
>
> Predrag


No, if I had meant it the other way around, I would have said it the
other way around. English is very much my first language, I think
you'll find that I pretty much always say EXACTLY what I mean.

Let's make a deal... you don't put words in my mouth and I'll leave
your lungs in your chest cavity. Fair enough?


--
Fletcher

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yeah, did they have a lower square box and a funny large top? I think
that is the guy. He bought capsules from Neumann and built the rest.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"cruisemates" <editor@cruisemates.com> wrote in message
news:1111342350.699409.273290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I know
> they sell at lower prices than the U-47, M-49, etc by several thousand
> dollars. But why?

I think its mostly that U-67s are just a lot more common.

They were everybody's go-to vocal mike between 1960 and 1970 because they
had less problems with sibilence and breath pops than U-47s and M-49s and
this was a big deal when you were making vinyl records. The combination of a
U-67 and a Pultec EQP-1a could be counted on to produce a first class vocal
sound on just about anybody.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov wrote:


> It's a deal. I apologize for offending you and promise not to bother you
> with questions any more.
>

I wouldn't take it personally. Fletcher has actually been pretty nice
lately. Must have been off his meds that day.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag wrote:
>
> FWIW, I appreciate the info about the existence of a 13kHz standing wave
in
> an U47 grille. What I was trying to figure out is whether its contribution
> to the tone of the microphone should be considered positive or not.
Standing
> waves are sometimes a good thing, sometimes not. Hard to tell.

Yes, the grill resonance is a major factor in the U47's sound, and most
consider it a good thing. The top grill-retaining ring also partially
obscures the capsule, and that would have to affect the tone as well as the
screen. It would be interesting to know how much that same effect occurs in
the Sennheiser MD421.

When I was a kid, my first cardioid mic was an EV 627A dynamic. One day I
took it apart, and just under the interior foam windscreen was a metal mesh
being held in place by magnetism of the element. Removing that mesh from in
front of the diaphragm resulted in a completely different, mellower tone on
an otherwise very bright (shrieking?) vocal mic. Look inside an SM-57 and a
421 some time. There are some interesting mechanical design tricks inside.
Most condenser mics and omni dynamics are very simple in comparison.

Jeff Jasper
Jeff Jasper Productions, West Funroe, La.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Karl Winkler" <karlwinkler66@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1111430643.117845.106140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> Still is. I've heard recordings done with M49c microphones and modern
> digital recording media and the results were sublime. The noise floor
> was not an issue. I think if I had to pick one microphone for the
> proverbial desert island, it would be the M49c.
>
> Karl Winkler
> Lectrosonics, Inc.
> http://www.lectrosonics.com

You can hear it in the Brahms´Serenades conducted by Charles Mackerras
in the cd TELARC 80522, recorded by Tony Faulkner, who use two of them
in figure-8 only 20 cm. apart, with EAR tube pres and an old DDA
Interface console recording in high definition 176,4 kHz. This a array
created by Faulkner himself, and was very controversial in the circles
of classical music recording. But this CD is really sublime...I have
made some choral recording with this technique, but replacing the M49
with Equitek 300 (I have not acces to them); it sounded fine...
Tubarec