Beesneez BU67 - new U67 clone

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I spoke briefly to a friend of mine about doing a combined shootout using my mics and his mics. We'll probably include my Flea 47 and his Flea 49, and my BU67 and his 87ai with the IO Audio 67 conversion. I'm not sure if we'll add more mics to the mix. We'll work it out after the BU67 arrives.

Been away up in the mountains for the last 9 days and are pleasantly surprised upon my return to find that you have ordered this microphone. So look forward to the tests you will be conducting. You have made so many great recommendations in the past.

I have been following this thread with the greatest of interest as this is most certainly has a excellent sound from the samples. The current convert of Australian dollar to US currency adds to a great value. A savings varying from 10% to 40% over the last 12 years.




Especially peaking my interest is the Adjustable polar patterns. Something that I believe all other U67's clones as well as the original U67 did not have.

I have always been a fan of companies that make most of their parts. Especially the Capsule. As I renew my interest in Beesneez microphones I am also taking a closer look at the Arabella. Reportedly combining the characteristics of both the 47 & 49. I look forward to learning more about its possibilities for my needs.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

As I renew my interest in Beesneez microphones I am also taking a closer look at the Arabella. Reportedly combining the characteristics of both the 47 & 49.

And this is where I become skeptical. The 47 & 49 were different sounding mics with sonic differences that are mutually exclusive. The u47 had that grabby midrange & very prominent proximity effect, while the m49 had a very smooth midrange & much less proximity effect.

I kind of wish mic manufactures would stop marketing in ways that seems to be contradictory.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

The 47 & 49 were different sounding mics

I can not say for sure, but from their description, I believe they are not referring to sound characteristics...but to the 49's fully adjustable patterns.

And I have to say, that is most certainly a very appealing extra. I have always been captivated by the 49's polar adjustability.

From their Website:
Sonic Characteristics

With the BeesNeez Arabella, we wanted to create something different. Our goal was to capture the essence of the venerable U47/U48, with the versatility and build quality of the M49. The Arabella met, and in many cases exceeded, every expectation that we set out to achieve in the beginning. Sonically, we wanted to create a microphone that had a sense of cochlear linearity TM, i.e. hearing and creating an amplified analogy of what we hear. The Arabella is a great classic sounding microphone that is a real go-to, great for male and female vocals and natural sounding rooms, and it can take a real beating on drums or amp cabs. Often, when we are asked what the Arabella sounds like, we say that "it’s like a mansion with the entire front wall missing, open and huge with a classic expensive sound."

For myself, true or not....I enjoy good marketing. Certainly makes me want to give this mic a try with the description of " open and huge"

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I can not say for sure, but from their description, I believe they are not referring to sound characteristics...but to the 49's fully adjustable patterns.

And I have to say, that is most certainly a very appealing extra. I have always been captivated by the 49's polar adjustability.

From their Website:
Sonic Characteristics

With the BeesNeez Arabella, we wanted to create something different. Our goal was to capture the essence of the venerable U47/U48, with the versatility and build quality of the M49. The Arabella met, and in many cases exceeded, every expectation that we set out to achieve in the beginning. Sonically, we wanted to create a microphone that had a sense of cochlear linearity TM, i.e. hearing and creating an amplified analogy of what we hear. The Arabella is a great classic sounding microphone that is a real go-to, great for male and female vocals and natural sounding rooms, and it can take a real beating on drums or amp cabs. Often, when we are asked what the Arabella sounds like, we say that "it’s like a mansion with the entire front wall missing, open and huge with a classic expensive sound."

For myself, true or not....I enjoy good marketing. Certainly makes me want to give this mic a try with the description of " open and huge"

Ok...that makes some sense, though the way the 2 mics achieved their polar patterns was different as well. So, that does invite further questions.

[jim1960]

Got the tracking info today but I've no idea how long the trip from Australia will take.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Got the tracking info today but I've no idea how long the trip from Australia will take.

I am most likely leaving in 4 or 5 days. I will miss out on your demo till I come back from two consecutive vacations. So looking forward to hearing your thoughts on your new mic!

The 67 being somewhat similar to an 87 is very much on my mind. When I look at the graphs..and listen to their sound...both are of a flatter nature.
Often I hear them being described as" rather boring, but always fitting very well into the mix" (as I did describe my 87 when I owned one) Not exciting to sing into...but always worked in the mix.
There is something grand to be said about always fitting in. As I always say....sometimes boring is the absolute best thing. No harshness to get in the way.

As I try and figure out my next mic......I found this very nice article that described the basic differences between the two. it brought forth some very basic differences that I had not thought about before.

https://www.cmuse.org/neumann-u67-vs-u87/

In my mind, it is well established the value of a u67 or u87 on acoustic guitar(as well as voice). Very full bodied and a relative smooth & accurate representation of the acoustic guitar recorded. Not as fast as an SCD, but very smooth.

I do not seem to find as many references to the u47 for Acoustic? Vintage King did a shoot out with many different u47's on acoustic guitar ...but the guitar sounded rather thin.

Out of curiosity, where there many hit records that used the U47 on acoustic?

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I am most likely leaving in 4 or 5 days. I will miss out on your demo till I come back from two consecutive vacations. So looking forward to hearing your thoughts on your new mic!

The 67 being somewhat similar to an 87 is very much on my mind. When I look at the graphs..and listen to their sound...both are of a flatter nature.
Often I hear them being described as" rather boring, but always fitting very well into the mix" (as I did describe my 87 when I owned one) Not exciting to sing into...but always worked in the mix.
There is something grand to be said about always fitting in. As I always say....sometimes boring is the absolute best thing. No harshness to get in the way.

As I try and figure out my next mic......I found this very nice article that described the basic differences between the two. it brought forth some very basic differences that I had not thought about before.

https://www.cmuse.org/neumann-u67-vs-u87/

In my mind, it is well established the value of a u67 or u87 on acoustic guitar(as well as voice). Very full bodied and a relative smooth & accurate representation of the acoustic guitar recorded. Not as fast as an SCD, but very smooth.

I do not seem to find as many references to the u47 for Acoustic? Vintage King did a shoot out with many different u47's on acoustic guitar ...but the guitar sounded rather thin.

Out of curiosity, where there many hit records that used the U47 on acoustic?

So, I read that article & thought “they don’t know the difference, do they?”

The u67 is a very neutral mic…probably safe to call it a desert island mic. It just works on everything. It is the sound of those classic CSN albums (along with an 1176). It was purpose built to be neutral so that you could close mic a source without adding or taking away anything. Unlike the u47, which had significant coloration as you got closer. But, that’s what everyone loved about it.

The u87i was supposed to be the FET version of the u67. By getting rid of the tube (and external power supply) it was supposed to be more reliable.

The problem was that the tube added some very musical saturation to the tone that you didn’t get with the u87i.

You also need to differentiate between the u87i (1967-1985) & the u87Ai (current model). They are different mics. In making the u87Ai quieter & more sensitive, they also added a bit more top end. Some engineers claim that the u87Ai ruined the u87. I find it very functional, if not quite as smooth as the u67 or the older u87i.

[DupleMeter]

BTW - if you want to hear some of these classic mics in action check out this YouTube:

https://youtu.be/ScQISlpnjoQ

It's YouTube, so there is some concern with audio compression, but if you right/ctr-click and look at "Stats For Nerds" you can see if it's compressing by looking for the opus 251 codec, that means it is not further compressing the audio. anything else is recompressing from the upload transcode.

Mac users: for some reason Safari won't load the better quality audio most of the time. Use Firefox or Chrome to get around that.

Hope this is insightful. It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway): listen on your best playback system or best headphones to really hear the subtleties of these mics.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

BTW - if you want to hear some of these classic mics in action check out this YouTube:

https://youtu.be/ScQISlpnjoQ

It's YouTube, so there is some concern with audio compression, but if you right/ctr-click and look at "Stats For Nerds" you can see if it's compressing by looking for the opus 251 codec, that means it is not further compressing the audio. anything else is recompressing from the upload transcode.

Mac users: for some reason Safari won't load the better quality audio most of the time. Use Firefox or Chrome to get around that.

Hope this is insightful. It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway): listen on your best playback system or best headphones to really hear the subtleties of these mics.

I have not been a fan of Vintage King comparisons. Some how something always seems not quite right.

However this one I have listened to before and do find it very valuable. I intend to listen to this several more times.

The One complaint I have with this video is that they are using a Hakan P110 pop filter. I owned one very briefly before returning. I found that it almost has compressor like qualities. Makes the sound smooth...but very lifeless. This is a very thick ...wide open foam type. For some mics the compressive quality is a great feature. For others of higher quality or larger capsules, not so much.

I can not find the discussion that I believe klaus Hyne started on this subject matter. Basically he said that pop filters like the Hakan created many problems as the sound bounces around inside the thick spider like foam webbing. The Hakan is very thick. I bought the Rycote version which is about 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness. Have not tried it yet. Hopefully it will be less of a problem and sound will be more transparent.

Anyway...still a very good comparison video. I am glad you brought it to my attention again. And I will seriously spend some time listening to it once again. I just wish they had not used any pop filter, but especially not used the Hakan. As it seemingly alters the sound a bit too much.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I have not been a fan of Vintage King comparisons. Some how something always seems not quite right.

However this one I have listened to before and do find it very valuable. I intend to listen to this several more times.

The One complaint I have with this video is that they are using a Hakan P110 pop filter. I owned one very briefly before returning. I found that it almost has compressor like qualities. Makes the sound smooth...but very lifeless. This is a very thick ...wide open foam type. For some mics the compressive quality is a great feature. For others of higher quality or larger capsules, not so much.

I can not find the discussion that I believe klaus Hyne started on this subject matter. Basically he said that pop filters like the Hakan created many problems as the sound bounces around inside the thick spider like foam webbing. The Hakan is very thick. I bought the Rycote version which is about 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness. Have not tried it yet. Hopefully it will be less of a problem and sound will be more transparent.

Anyway...still a very good comparison video. I am glad you brought it to my attention again. And I will seriously spend some time listening to it once again. I just wish they had not used any pop filter, but especially not used the Hakan. As it seemingly alters the sound a bit too much.

In general I feel Vintage King is usually trying to pull something. I don't trust them, but I did find this a very useful comparison, because it was so easy to hear the differences. I have strong opinions on all those mics. I won't say what they are so as not to sway anyone's listening test.

Pop filters, in general, are problematic. They all do something to the sound. I find the Stedman to be the least offensive, but I typically try to position the mic so as to not need one. That's not always possible.

[AcousticDreams]

As I have mentioned many times before, I find AGF Recording to be so very informative. But even more importantly most of the replies are very objective & the replies are much friendlier. ( when comparing to Gearspace.)

I do occasionally check Gearspace to see if there is a subject matter that interests me.

I found one post that I think you will appreciate Jim1960.
A member known as Paul G, has a ton of equipment & a pro studio. He is very respected, and generally conducts himself in a tasteful manner.

He just made this proclamation:
"I just put Beeznees K7 in my Flea and they are some of the best mics I have ever heard. They sound like brand new, vintage U47’s. The difference is astonishing, Ben makes such good capsules. Before they were a little woolly now they are as crisp as fresh snow. Highly recommended. "

This is quite a recommendation. I have asked him what he thinks about the BU47 and the Arabella with the K7 capsule. Both of these mics are within the last of my budget. As well as the BU67. Thanks to the Aussie to US dollar value.

[runamuck]

To me the differences are subtle.

I'd like to see a test where the recording of each mic was lined up in random order and then have people identify each mic.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I have not been a fan of Vintage King comparisons. Some how something always seems not quite right.

However this one I have listened to before and do find it very valuable. I intend to listen to this several more times.

The One complaint I have with this video is that they are using a Hakan P110 pop filter. I owned one very briefly before returning. I found that it almost has compressor like qualities. Makes the sound smooth...but very lifeless. This is a very thick ...wide open foam type. For some mics the compressive quality is a great feature. For others of higher quality or larger capsules, not so much.

I can not find the discussion that I believe klaus Hyne started on this subject matter. Basically he said that pop filters like the Hakan created many problems as the sound bounces around inside the thick spider like foam webbing. The Hakan is very thick. I bought the Rycote version which is about 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness. Have not tried it yet. Hopefully it will be less of a problem and sound will be more transparent.

Anyway...still a very good comparison video. I am glad you brought it to my attention again. And I will seriously spend some time listening to it once again. I just wish they had not used any pop filter, but especially not used the Hakan. As it seemingly alters the sound a bit too much.

Humm the two problems I have with that video are

#1 it is a different performance (take) for each mic (obviously with 11 mics it is not possible to do a single take But non the less it introduces the element of the possibility for slight differences in each take
#2 and perhaps this is just my personal (bee in my bonnet)and one I keep commenting about ad nauseam = I prefer the unfortunately rare comparison video where the different mic takes are edited into short same phrase side by segments as opposed to finishing say an entire verse for each mic .. But that is just me , and perhaps it's just bad short term memory but, because of that ,,that I did not find that video to be all that informative..........

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

He just made this proclamation:
"I just put Beeznees K7 in my Flea and they are some of the best mics I have ever heard. They sound like brand new, vintage U47’s. The difference is astonishing, Ben makes such good capsules. Before they were a little woolly now they are as crisp as fresh snow. Highly recommended. "

Ben makes excellent capsules but so do the people at Flea. Their 47 wouldn't be as highly praised as it is if they didn't make excellent capsules. The guy you're quoting wanted a different sound and that's fine. I love my Flea 47 as it is. I really have no desire to alter its sound unless someone donates a microphonic VF14 tube to me.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Ben makes excellent capsules but so do the people at Flea. Their 47 wouldn't be as highly praised as it is if they didn't make excellent capsules. The guy you're quoting wanted a different sound and that's fine. I love my Flea 47 as it is. I really have no desire to alter its sound unless someone donates a microphonic VF14 tube to me.

Yes Flea has an absolute excellent reputation. He has praised Flea on so many occasions himself.

I was in no way suggesting you should do the same. The Thought never occurred to me.

I just found this to be another valid testament to the quality of Beesneez. That he thought their capsules were worthy of such an experiment. That was what impressed me.

I am one step closer to ordering one myself. Now all I have to do is decide which one.