It's worth it to hear a lot of samples. Although the 47 does sound beautiful, I've heard a few with less talented vocalists where the CU-29 was much more flattering and didn't need any EQ. It also did well bringing out good vocalists, and costs $600 less, so listen more until you're sure. I'm saving up for a Copperhead now.
I've had my AK-47 MkII for just about 2 years now. It's a very good vocal mic, and it sounds especially great through a 1073 style preamp. I wish the mic shipped with a better quality power supply, but I have no complaints about the sound.
FINALLY in all the tests I followed on YouTUBE, this is the FIRST in which I can hear the subtle difference between the mics! Thank you so much for this. The U47 has less top-end and it's softer like the copper head which it seems to give a little more color in the middle area, the other one the AK47, sounds more brilliant (more top end)
For the guitar take, the U47 easily had strongest presence; but it did lack some bottom end in comparison. Even though it does sounds a touch aggressive in mid and upper mid range, it works and it's overall tone is very pleasing. The CU29 had the flattest and most realistic tone of all 3. However it sounded the smallest. The AK47 has a high frequency boost that makes it actually sound pre EQed and unnatural. For this acoustic application I would choose the CU-29, and record the guitar an inch closer. This will give me the the extra presence I need, and will also provide me with a blanker canvas to work my sound signature in with my outboard analog EQ. For the vocal take, the CU-29 all the way for reasons already mentioned. The AR-51 does have a nice and creamy underlying sound, but I do not like the tube characteristic on vocals. I just fucks up the end transients, and has a weird damping effect on them. I also think the U47 would have killed on this trial because of it's focused mid range tone, and slightly rolled off bottom end. Tailored for vocals; and also less work in post for those lazy, doughnut dunking, greasy backed engineers.
Listening in a pair of Audio-Technica ATH M40x headphones, here's what I got: - Acoustic: The U47 sounded the warmest. The AK47 has too bright of an attack for me. The copperhead was a nice balance. - Vocals: They all sounded pretty nice. I think I liked the AK47 best on this one, but again... the Copperhead sounded really good. My personal opinion is... Copperhead all the way. At least in my listening environment. Certainly the others have there place, but for a fraction of the cost... the Copperhead really shined here.
I would have liked to hear U47 on the vocal shoot, just as an equal comparison. Overall you've opened my mind up to the AK 47. Very nice large cap. for a reasonable price.
Isn't the difference and picking of strings partly due to positioning of the copper head, and all mics in overall? Maybe record from a bit further away so that the guitar is more "centered" towards the mics? The singing part is better as it seems to be a bit further away and there's nothing happening separately on the side (the neck of the guitar against the copperhead).
I got the AK-47 MKII and I love everything about it except for the shock mount which feels cheap... One of the pins in the pre-amp was also bendt when i got it, but i was able to fix it.
The U47 sounds soooo pleasant :) I like it the most. AK-47 MKII sounds also really excellent. The Copperhead is okay, depends on the Mix and what sound you're looking for, i guess. But for an intimate Singer/Songwriter Song i wouldn't use the Copperhead.
Listen to the U47 in the lowest frequencies of his voice...its open on the bottom end. The AR51 is very present there making the vocal sound closed in a little.
I felt like the AK-47 Mkll Really had the proximity effect really under control. Every other Mic i herd has Excellent clarity, but i din't like the Low end information on one of them, which was punchy on low frequencies which is what you don't want in a vocal And which is why you don't hear the end of a phrase on a vocal because of its punchiness. But like they said every mic will work best to its according source. But my vote is to the AK-47 Mkll
The difference between the AK47 and U47 on the strummed guitar is BIG. Unlike the case of the AK51 in the previous test, the AK47 doesn't sound phasey... it just sounds like the mids are pushed back. Or, the U47 is pushing them forward... in a very pleasant and confident way.
I agree, the difference is small but there is. I don't find the worse and the best. All three re great. Just coloration differences. I really challenge everybody in the world, to recognize with what microphone a record is made, without know it upfront :)
I found the U47 to have the most "color". I watched an interview where the Telefunken rep described the 47 as having an almost "reverse" smile on the EQ, with lows and hi's rolled off, leaving a lot of mid range character. That being said, I don't think you could really go wrong using any of these mics shown in the shootout.
Well they sounds almost the same but the U47 is more clear in the high. I don't really understand because any 251 or c12 are supposed to give a boost in the high frequencies and not the 47. EQ? New 47 with some tweek? Idunno
U47 had more deep bottom and more bottom clarity. Has a warmer midrange. Ak47 quacks like a piezo pickup. The copperhead and u47 is the better choice for that particular performer
U47 is big fat sound but I would use the Copperhead or AK47 on acoustic if I had multiple choices. I'm not a fan of acoustical roar and Martin guitars roar even more. Don't need to roll anything off on that copperhead. Sounds about right on acoustic. Maybe work for some vocals too.
the sound difference I hear is subtle and sounds more like the mic placement I would expect from the 2 inch difference whee the capsules are. the 47 is in the worst position and the AK in the best, more bass on the AK and more fret board sound from the copper. still it's interesting that all three sound similar enough considering the price diffrence. Do you think the 47 is just bollucks these days for the money?
the 3 inches between center diaphragm on each mic can make all the differences we hear. This shootout is kinda pointless. If they were further from the source, maybe. Anything you gain by recording the same performance you lose in the different placement of the mics, imho.
I actually really favored the AR-51 on the vocals, and was surprised when they were drawn to the AK-47 (though I did like both better than the CU-29). I also was pleasantly surprised that the CU-29 held up nicely to the U-47 on guitar...all interesting, but none of it helps me decide (I guess it's good that they're all great mics?)
Like others have said, they didn't include a vocal take to compare the newer Nuemanns against the U47...Why? I'll tell you why, because while acoustic might sound equal on both, on vocals, the original U47 would have kicked it's ass and wiped the floor with these newer offerings.. Nuff said...
Greetings, I'm looking at adding the copperhead to my cab. Can you explain what you mean when you say the proximity effect sucks? Can you go into more detail? What sucked about it? did you change the distance at all? Was it too much lowend?
@@arcadepiano thanks for the reply. I purchased the copperhead and love it on some vocals, esp when I'm recording Folk and Rock vocals. I don't have the issue of Proximity Effect as mentioned above!!!
Any one here use any of these mics for male Hip Hop vocals with a male vocal that has more low mid frequencies? I 'm looking at possibly getting the AK-47
+Truth Music (Studio) Lloyd Banks recorded in a ELA M 251 and was BLOWN AWAY. Other than the 251, the 250 might be nice for the price and I'd probably go with copperhead between these mics since its probably easier to bring out a little bit of sparkle than to tone it down.
You know what? It doesn't really matter at all, does it? Might as well record everything with an SM58, after the mastering is done everything is so overly compressed these days, to say nothing of the music that's out there now (every thing loud, all the time), then kids get a hold of the recording through MP3's, most times with really high compression, and voila! All is lost. The time for beautiful recordings is past people, nobody cares anymore, even worse, people want/crave the crap studios are putting out these days.
hey man there's plenty of people out there making beautiful recordings. If you're into pop music then perhaps you're right, and then you're out of luck. But if you search around a little, there's plenty of folks making great recordings without over processing the mix.
josh davis Absolutely, but nothing from the majors, dealing with rock/pop stuff. Maybe in the classical and Jazz, but other than that? I just think it's a shame that the people with money/equipment are putting out this amount of crap recordings/masterings/productions, you know? Because like I said, they are "teaching" a whole generation to listen to music recorded/mastered like this, pretty soon nobody will be able to distinguish a good recording from a bad one, much worse, they will prefer the crap stuff over the good, because that's what they're used to. I've seen it happen with the metal guitar tones, and the overly auto tuned vocals... It's just makes my blood boil...
Marvio Botticelli great insight. i will really take that into consideration. Im new to mixing and mastering music, mainly hip hop at the moment, but conscious lyrical hip hop. And i most definitely agree with you, but with that being said, is there not a way, we can give less processed music an edge but almost marketing it has a higher class? more genuine? ,etc?
adil115 I think so man, but we all have to do it, from the ground up. Today, more then ever anybody can make a real good recording right at home, with very little money. If you're smart, and careful, your stuff can sound 99% close to the big guys with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment
You couldn't be more wrong (no offense), A dynamic mic like the SM58 is simply not capable of properly recording acoustic guitar (and most acoustic instruments) because of their limited high-frequency response. And aside from maybe the Sennheiser MD441, this is true of most dynamic microphones. Small and large diaphragm condensers and ribbon mics are really the only way to properly record acoustic instruments. And what Josh said.
It's worth it to hear a lot of samples. Although the 47 does sound beautiful, I've heard a few with less talented vocalists where the CU-29 was much more flattering and didn't need any EQ. It also did well bringing out good vocalists, and costs $600 less, so listen more until you're sure. I'm saving up for a Copperhead now.
I've had my AK-47 MkII for just about 2 years now. It's a very good vocal mic, and it sounds especially great through a 1073 style preamp. I wish the mic shipped with a better quality power supply, but I have no complaints about the sound.
FINALLY in all the tests I followed on YouTUBE, this is the FIRST in which I can hear the subtle difference between the mics! Thank you so much for this.
The U47 has less top-end and it's softer like the copper head which it seems to give a little more color in the middle area, the other one the AK47, sounds more brilliant (more top end)
super late on this video. Just ordered the CU29. Thanks for an amazing vid!
For the guitar take, the U47 easily had strongest presence; but it did lack some bottom end in comparison. Even though it does sounds a touch aggressive in mid and upper mid range, it works and it's overall tone is very pleasing. The CU29 had the flattest and most realistic tone of all 3. However it sounded the smallest. The AK47 has a high frequency boost that makes it actually sound pre EQed and unnatural. For this acoustic application I would choose the CU-29, and record the guitar an inch closer. This will give me the the extra presence I need, and will also provide me with a blanker canvas to work my sound signature in with my outboard analog EQ. For the vocal take, the CU-29 all the way for reasons already mentioned. The AR-51 does have a nice and creamy underlying sound, but I do not like the tube characteristic on vocals. I just fucks up the end transients, and has a weird damping effect on them. I also think the U47 would have killed on this trial because of it's focused mid range tone, and slightly rolled off bottom end. Tailored for vocals; and also less work in post for those lazy, doughnut dunking, greasy backed engineers.
Listening in a pair of Audio-Technica ATH M40x headphones, here's what I got:
- Acoustic: The U47 sounded the warmest. The AK47 has too bright of an attack for me. The copperhead was a nice
balance.
- Vocals: They all sounded pretty nice. I think I liked the AK47 best on this one, but again... the Copperhead sounded really
good.
My personal opinion is... Copperhead all the way. At least in my listening environment. Certainly the others have there place, but for a fraction of the cost... the Copperhead really shined here.
U47 1st copper second.
I would have liked to hear U47 on the vocal shoot, just as an equal comparison. Overall you've opened my mind up to the AK 47. Very nice large cap. for a reasonable price.
Ditto!
+Michael Mason The U47 on the guitar sounded huge compared to the rest.
Hey TELEFUNKEN, Marshall here, we personally met in downtown PDX and been hooked since.
Isn't the difference and picking of strings partly due to positioning of the copper head, and all mics in overall? Maybe record from a bit further away so that the guitar is more "centered" towards the mics? The singing part is better as it seems to be a bit further away and there's nothing happening separately on the side (the neck of the guitar against the copperhead).
I got the AK-47 MKII and I love everything about it except for the shock mount which feels cheap... One of the pins in the pre-amp was also bendt when i got it, but i was able to fix it.
What hardware are these mics running through?
The U47 sounds soooo pleasant :) I like it the most. AK-47 MKII sounds also really excellent. The Copperhead is okay, depends on the Mix and what sound you're looking for, i guess. But for an intimate Singer/Songwriter Song i wouldn't use the Copperhead.
Listen to the U47 in the lowest frequencies of his voice...its open on the bottom end. The AR51 is very present there making the vocal sound closed in a little.
I felt like the AK-47 Mkll Really had the proximity effect really under control. Every other Mic i herd has Excellent clarity, but i din't like the Low end information on one of them, which was punchy on low frequencies which is what you don't want in a vocal And which is why you don't hear the end of a phrase on a vocal because of its punchiness. But like they said every mic will work best to its according source. But my vote is to the AK-47 Mkll
The difference between the AK47 and U47 on the strummed guitar is BIG. Unlike the case of the AK51 in the previous test, the AK47 doesn't sound phasey... it just sounds like the mids are pushed back. Or, the U47 is pushing them forward... in a very pleasant and confident way.
I agree, the difference is small but there is. I don't find the worse and the best. All three re great. Just coloration differences.
I really challenge everybody in the world, to recognize with what microphone a record is made, without know it upfront :)
I found the U47 to have the most "color". I watched an interview where the Telefunken rep described the 47 as having an almost "reverse" smile on the EQ, with lows and hi's rolled off, leaving a lot of mid range character. That being said, I don't think you could really go wrong using any of these mics shown in the shootout.
I liked the "copperhead" on the guitar and the "AK-47 MkII" on vocals.
i think that ak47 has an amaging response on highs, it's very clear and pristine
They all sound great but I'm on a budget, try warm u47 Jr, rode nt2a. WA 47, K2 Lewitt 441. Warm 87. Tube up the non tube mics
cu-29 was the most transparent to my ears
Well they sounds almost the same but the U47 is more clear in the high. I don't really understand because any 251 or c12 are supposed to give a boost in the high frequencies and not the 47. EQ? New 47 with some tweek? Idunno
U47 had more deep bottom and more bottom clarity. Has a warmer midrange. Ak47 quacks like a piezo pickup. The copperhead and u47 is the better choice for that particular performer
U47 is big fat sound but I would use the Copperhead or AK47 on acoustic if I had multiple choices. I'm not a fan of acoustical roar and Martin guitars roar even more. Don't need to roll anything off on that copperhead. Sounds about right on acoustic. Maybe work for some vocals too.
the sound difference I hear is subtle and sounds more like the mic placement I would expect from the 2 inch difference whee the capsules are. the 47 is in the worst position and the AK in the best, more bass on the AK and more fret board sound from the copper. still it's interesting that all three sound similar enough considering the price diffrence. Do you think the 47 is just bollucks these days for the money?
the 3 inches between center diaphragm on each mic can make all the differences we hear. This shootout is kinda pointless. If they were further from the source, maybe. Anything you gain by recording the same performance you lose in the different placement of the mics, imho.
They seem to be angled slightly towards the same place. Pointless - maybe not - but probably a bit flawed.
I agree with you.
i dont see the ar 51 on Sweetwater, has that been replaced by the tf51?
I actually really favored the AR-51 on the vocals, and was surprised when they were drawn to the AK-47 (though I did like both better than the CU-29). I also was pleasantly surprised that the CU-29 held up nicely to the U-47 on guitar...all interesting, but none of it helps me decide (I guess it's good that they're all great mics?)
All I'm hearing is mic placement. :/
I liked the copperhead on vocals a lot, would like to hear that vs a u47
47 amazing mic sound clear ツ
I can’t wait to get a copperhead 🔥
I'm really impressed with the Copperhead.
what was used to record the acoustic guitar?
Isn't that the Telefunken Elektroakustic remake of the U47? I think all 3 mics are Tele's.
Is this the same Dave Pensado that judged the Wicked Knee contest from Indaba Music? If so, I'd love to hear your reasoning for picking the winner.
I can't sing, I can't dance, I got no melody, but I can sit behind the mixer and can talk like a waterfall
Yeah... these guys _definitely_ weren't paid by Telefunken to gush over every one of these mics without a single criticism...
Was hat the vintage neumann u47 or the telefunken u47?
Telefunken
But I am able to listen to them sing now and pic them a mic, my ears are getting better
Yea these microphones are great but the instruments not a good choice.
but i love the Mic's!
Was there no better acoustic guitar available than a mid-range Takamine?!??😫
Guy looks like Justin Timberlake doing the Bee Gees SNL skit🤣
Like others have said, they didn't include a vocal take to compare the newer Nuemanns against the U47...Why?
I'll tell you why, because while acoustic might sound equal on both, on vocals, the original U47 would have kicked it's ass and wiped the floor with these newer offerings..
Nuff said...
Steve A Not true. I have copperhead and 47 files and their just different. To me the 47 is 10% or less better.
I had the copperhead. I returned it. proximity effect sucks
Greetings, I'm looking at adding the copperhead to my cab. Can you explain what you mean when you say the proximity effect sucks? Can you go into more detail? What sucked about it? did you change the distance at all? Was it too much lowend?
@@arcadepiano thanks for the reply. I purchased the copperhead and love it on some vocals, esp when I'm recording Folk and Rock vocals. I don't have the issue of Proximity Effect as mentioned above!!!
Love the U47
Any one here use any of these mics for male Hip Hop vocals with a male vocal that has more low mid frequencies? I 'm looking at possibly getting the AK-47
+Truth Music (Studio) Lloyd Banks recorded in a ELA M 251 and was BLOWN AWAY. Other than the 251, the 250 might be nice for the price and I'd probably go with copperhead between these mics since its probably easier to bring out a little bit of sparkle than to tone it down.
CU-29 anytime for me, FTW. I own two
Liked the U47 sound best.
I like the ak47 the best, but you know what? I'd take any of them if I could afford them lol
Goog hidden advertising for Telefunken company. Only U47 sounds good
Stam audio as well
But the Nueman is the shizznit!
Why shoot out the tele AK47 and U47? They share nothing but a model number.
Gosh, U47's price is £7500
Like that AK-47ii a lot.
amazing*
47 was best on vocals
Hello Kenna, Today I Speak Because I want to touch on the issue of UN serious with you
Ak47 won in my mind. Copperhead too contained, the other too mjdrsangy.
AK-47
Otherwise I have to go used
You’ll never beat a U47...
No mic corrects Flat.
show
FLEA 47
But really for me, the AK47 is pushing back the interesting part of the instrument. Where the U47 is highlighting it.
You know what? It doesn't really matter at all, does it? Might as well record everything with an SM58, after the mastering is done everything is so overly compressed these days, to say nothing of the music that's out there now (every thing loud, all the time), then kids get a hold of the recording through MP3's, most times with really high compression, and voila! All is lost. The time for beautiful recordings is past people, nobody cares anymore, even worse, people want/crave the crap studios are putting out these days.
hey man there's plenty of people out there making beautiful recordings. If you're into pop music then perhaps you're right, and then you're out of luck. But if you search around a little, there's plenty of folks making great recordings without over processing the mix.
josh davis
Absolutely, but nothing from the majors, dealing with rock/pop stuff. Maybe in the classical and Jazz, but other than that?
I just think it's a shame that the people with money/equipment are putting out this amount of crap recordings/masterings/productions, you know? Because like I said, they are "teaching" a whole generation to listen to music recorded/mastered like this, pretty soon nobody will be able to distinguish a good recording from a bad one, much worse, they will prefer the crap stuff over the good, because that's what they're used to. I've seen it happen with the metal guitar tones, and the overly auto tuned vocals... It's just makes my blood boil...
Marvio Botticelli great insight. i will really take that into consideration. Im new to mixing and mastering music, mainly hip hop at the moment, but conscious lyrical hip hop. And i most definitely agree with you, but with that being said, is there not a way, we can give less processed music an edge but almost marketing it has a higher class? more genuine? ,etc?
adil115
I think so man, but we all have to do it, from the ground up. Today, more then ever anybody can make a real good recording right at home, with very little money. If you're smart, and careful, your stuff can sound 99% close to the big guys with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment
You couldn't be more wrong (no offense), A dynamic mic like the SM58 is simply not capable of properly recording acoustic guitar (and most acoustic instruments) because of their limited high-frequency response. And aside from maybe the Sennheiser MD441, this is true of most dynamic microphones. Small and large diaphragm condensers and ribbon mics are really the only way to properly record acoustic instruments. And what Josh said.