I always blind test , the Neumann sounds better to me. this is how I do it I close my eyes and when I hear something that sounds better I open my eyes to see which mic it is
I’ve got to say, every time I tried to wait for a Stam Audio product I got impatient and cancelled. Recently I came across a guy selling his SA47. I bought it and did a vocal track. I’m telling you this I’ve never had a real 47, but have had the best clones aka Flea. This mic sounds awesome! Full bodied and warm this mic ain’t leaving my studio 😉👍
Its close, but the U47 is definitely more open. In fact this video actually makes me want to search harder to find the absolute best. FYI, I previously owned an SA2A and currently have 2 Stam products on order.
stam sounds brighter because of slightly more high mids - pretty obvious on the hi hat. i’m also hearing a bit of a low mid bump on the stam when listening to the floor tom. super close though and would be happy with either.
To begin with, I would like to extend my respect to both companies, Stam Audio and Neumann. Recordings: The singer's performance is commendable, but to make the test more intriguing, it would have been beneficial to hear a broader range of recordings, perhaps with different vocalists in the same test. Position: It would be ideal for the microphone positions to be aligned, ensuring that the capsules are at the same height. The current arrangement, with Neumann's U47 positioned higher, may influence the sound perception, making it sound more nasal compared to Stam's SA-47. Even with identical microphones, placement can affect the test results. Clarity of the Process: The lack of information about preamplifiers, cables, interface, etc., as well as the absence of details about post-production, creates a lack of clarity in the process. Addressing these aspects would provide a more comprehensive perspective. Possibility to Listen in Higher Quality: Providing the option to download original recordings in higher quality formats, such as WAV, would allow for a more accurate comparison instead of relying on a compressed version on UA-cam. Comparison: Given that the comparison process was not adequately executed, I consider it an invalid comparison. Therefore, I refrain from giving my opinion on it. Conclusion: The SA-47 offers a pleasant sound, although it could improve in the low end, and some highs may come across as a bit strident. Nevertheless, it provides excellent material to work with in post-production. It's encouraging to see companies like Stam Audio aiming to deliver sound quality to buyers without reaching the exorbitant prices of the original models. Proposal: I suggest addressing and correcting the mentioned points in your videos to strengthen credibility and present a more professional view of your products. If you find it appropriate, I would be delighted to conduct the comparison in my studio, as I have several original U47s and other vintage microphones. Best regards.
me encantan el stam, creo que se siente una ligera diferencia que creo que es porque al de abajo le apunta mejor a la capsula que al de arriba. pero quiero mi SA 47, esta complicada la situación económica en argentina, pero de a poco voy juntando usd, saludos y a seguir produciendo este alto nivel de fierros!!!
This is the first time I can truly say that I cannot hear a $10K+ difference! Seriously. I know a tech out of Newton, Massachusetts and he doesn't recommend Neumann for anything! LOL He believes that they are ridiculously overpriced and this is the proof! Great job, Stam Audio!
The fet 47's are actually about 4-5000$ so in this case it would be a 3-4000$ difference! And a Big part of what your paying for with companys like Neumann, Neve, API, etc etc, whether it a mic or a preamp or a compressor etc, is the research and devolopment. That being said , Im not saying spending that much on a Neumann is not worth it, but with the kind of stuff Stam or other company's are doing , yes it does make it hard to justify paying $5000 and up.
The neumann has an extra crispyness to it but it's so subtle. The low-end sounds boosted in the stam. In a mix I think it'd work about the same. Maybe it'd especially favor male vocals.
Even still its only marginally brighter then the vintage one. It is very subtle and bit of high shelf at about a db would be all the correction you need. That being said the high end is still very good on this thing. It's not strident or harsh and for the most part it sounds like a modern microphone, a really good one. Keep in mind that the vintage one has had time to be broken in and like most good instruments they need time to loosen up. I would bet these Stam mics will hold up over time very well.
It is a great mic, but it is interesting how most of these clones always have a slightly crispier high end. I am not saying it is bad just a very slight difference. I always wonder what Neumann is doing to smooth out those highs? Either way great mic, Stam is really making a name for itself
Most "old" mics, did not sound that way when they were first new. The diaphragm ages and becomes brittle, thus responding less to highs. Then there is the problem of all those parts having + or - tolerances that are put together. Not one sounded like the other, quality control was not, is not that good on electrical parts of this caliber. You would need NASA grade builders for that and nobody wants a 100,000 mic. ha. What these old mics become is built-up EQ's more than they are microphones. An EQ, is a whole lot cheaper to buy. You stack up eq's and compressors on a source and you can dial up anything man.
Soundhammer Studio that makes total sense to me. I wonder if these mic clones that are well taken care of and aged will cost more in the future. “Vintage Clone” (trademark!)
There's a genuine flaw with most videos of this nature. There's a comparison of two things nobody has ever heard or owned, and no comparison to anything they have or do. Most good microphones cover the spectrum of the human hearing real well. The preamp, the compression, the eq that is used can make unlike microphones sound almost the same. There are so many variables in most A/B comparisons that one can finally arrive to the conclusion that we'd have to have hearing better than a dogs to actually hear difference with gear in most mixes. I can't tell if he used a 58 Les Paul valued at thousands, or a 150.00 Fender Squire, no more than anyone could answer if a songs drums were recorded with 57's or 87's. The mic is cool, sure...I'd probably buy one maybe. But, there are SO many 47 and 87 mics out there and I've tried many, liked just about ALL of them, and never found any of them unusable or had anybody say "that sounds like a blah blah microphone". I've resorted to the fact that a good song and a great mix, can be made from and with, almost anything.
I completely disagree. There are many microphones that are simply unusable (even 47 clones). I myself made several crap ones before matching the original. Trial and error.
@@joshuastam7704 Maybe you feel you did cause, you had something you considered a reference even with its own difference.. Maybe one of your crap ones, were more than good enough also. Difference, is difference...not better, not worse....just different. Money is a horrible way to merit "good" difference.
This comment is only valid if you don’t have a good ear. You can argue most people don’t have a good ear, hard to say, most people aren’t trying to develop or put sound under a microscope and it’s not their job. Your job isn’t to lower your standard but to be a professional. If you can’t tell the different from a squirt and a less Paul you have almost near discerning ear. Totally different sounds, easy to tell apart . Pickups, neck length, snappier thinner brighter bs darker hotter more squashed feel. It’s like comparing hot and cold and saying it’s all the same . There is a difference here and it is subtle. But your arguments favors stams mic then. Because you certainly wouldn’t be able to tel the difference between his mics and any original since that difference is super small compared to entirely two different guitars . Frankly you could change the key of a song on a person and a lot of people have no idea. The difference is there all things being equal , you can tell the difference between a flatter mic and a more open mic. That has to do with mics and compression aswell. So not many people can make the gear, who ever said that was the challenge? The point is songs that sound less lively the others . If you’re looking into this kind of gear you should understand those differences . The accumulative effect of sounds and how they will translate . If you start with low quality instruments and mics then your sound is gonna feel weak and less lively usually. Especially nowadays with streaming and little headphones . So now more tens ever you should start with a better recording and processing because of everything is gonna get downgraded , then the low level recordings will fall down further than starting higher . Also you can eq mics to sound similar to a degree. But a thicker mic will always sound thicker and a brighter will always sound brighter even if you match the eq. The character cannot be eqed. So if you don’t care about it that’s one thing However if you can’t hear it that’s another . Even the strings You use on a guitar will make it sound fatter thumpier or brighter louder etc. I always have heard people say”I don’t know why I like that so much” Exactly. They don’t know about song writing or sound. It isn’t their job. So you’re correct that some people won’t tell the difference by naming brands, but they will tell the difference when something is recorded better. A song meant to be played on a les Paul, that was written on it by a good guitarist will always take advantage of its tonality and thickness. A blues guitarist using the natural character of a fender guitar will always sound best and most lively with those guitars and pickups if he wrote the song using that instrument . If you’re whole argument is there is no meaningful difference then you simply are not thinking like a creative artist but more like a consumer listening to a song in the background of a frat party while you’re getting hammered . Many people love music and relisten over and over and become musicians themselves. The difference between good recordings and good gear is what makes you want to turn up the song and feel more immersed in it . Rather than a song that sounds catchy but feels flat and infront of you the whole time . If you cannot feel or notice these differences then it’s similar to someone colorblind saying different shades of color don’t matter in the whole panting anyways because the shapes are the same .
@@heythere6983 I’m certain that I speak for many. When your argument has to be long and drawn out, no one wants to read it. If you have to try so hard with “a book of an argument”, perhaps you don’t have one after all.
Stam makes great mics, but in this case I'm not convinced. The U47 sounds like a U47, the Stam sounds like a U47 clone, although it could actually be a clone of many other mics because it has a fairly impersonal and neutral sound. I feel that in this case the creaminess, the sandy highs and the valve compression are not achieved in the same way as the Neumann does, qualities that make the U47 special, which makes it, in my opinion, not a good replacement for a U47.
bueno Joshua ,si todos oyeramos lo mismo no existirían distintos ingenieros ,sonidos y estilos ,pero eso es lo que siento por lo demas está muy balanceado y similar al original ,gran trabajo ,pero no seas tan enojón y suceptible ,jeje en útlima instancia siempre estamos hablando de emulaciones que imitan a algo muy clásico ,hístórico y de sonido legendario!!!hay muchos y buenos clones de 47 como FLEA.Golden AGE,y el suyo también es un gran clon
El SPL es una medicion, no es subjetivo ni varia segun oyente. No me molesto en todo caso, pero tampoco me gusta que se falte a la verdad. El Golden Age no tiene nada que ver con un 47, es un hibrido con un 67. El Flea es genial. Saludos
la comparacion no los favorece para nada a los de stam, el stam tienen mucha menos cantidad de armonicos y de dinamica, se nota mucho la diferencia de calidad, saludos
perdon , te pido disculpas por el comentario , pero senti en mis monitores esto q te digo , se nota como el neumann tiene mas presencia en mis Hs 8 de yamaha. La voz clarisimamente tiene mucha mas dinamica y presencia en las silavas fricativas y mucha mayor calides en el los mid low y low , dando la sensacion de mucha mas dinamica , en el caso de las baterias noto la diferencia tonal donde se apaga el tacho y bombo , si queres borra los dos, no soy quien para molestar tu negocio, realmente igual tiene un gran audio y me gustaron mucho sus versiones del La2a , y sus preamplificadores , nuevamente sin animos de ofender , saludos
+Lucas Macchione no es eso Lucas, tu opinión es bienvenida, pero lo que dices no es así, puedes ver la curva en mi página de Facebook, son exactamente iguales teniendo el Neumann un poquito más de brillo. La calidad es la misma, son los mismos components y circuito salvo el tubo donde uso un Telefunken también
Your mic is way brighter, don't have the proximity of the original. It's harsher, ess-ier, . So why call it a clone if it doesn't sound exactly the same?
Its the same capsules and circuit, we also used a NOS Telefunken 800 tube, its as close as you can get. The frequency response chart shows they have the exact same frequency response, I can email it to you, they sound identical at least on our opinion and the engineers that were there
I can hear the hi-hat a little more prominently and forward on the Stam, just having a look at the frequency response on the drums, the 8-16k range on the Stam seems to be a couple dB higher throughout than the Neumann, other than that range it’s a very close frequency match. Would be interested in seeing a more scientifically produced frequency response on the drums..mine was just done on the small samples in this UA-cam video :)
I wonder why you say the Stam is "way brighter" when the Neumann is actually a bit brighter, have a look: facebook.com/stamaudio/photos/p.636915076432297/636915076432297/?type=3&theater
The funny thing is.. if you were to take two Neumann U47s and compare their frequency response they would still not match identically. Same goes if you were to replace the tube on one single U47 you would end up with completely different sound n tone than when the last tube was installed
Outstanding... If you blind test them you would not know which one is the original one... Great work, again...
I always blind test , the Neumann sounds better to me.
this is how I do it
I close my eyes and when I hear something that sounds better
I open my eyes to see which mic it is
I’ve got to say, every time I tried to wait for a Stam Audio product I got impatient and cancelled. Recently I came across a guy selling his SA47. I bought it and did a vocal track. I’m telling you this I’ve never had a real 47, but have had the best clones aka Flea. This mic sounds awesome! Full bodied and warm this mic ain’t leaving my studio 😉👍
Its close, but the U47 is definitely more open. In fact this video actually makes me want to search harder to find the absolute best. FYI, I previously owned an SA2A and currently have 2 Stam products on order.
stam sounds brighter because of slightly more high mids - pretty obvious on the hi hat. i’m also hearing a bit of a low mid bump on the stam when listening to the floor tom. super close though and would be happy with either.
To begin with, I would like to extend my respect to both companies, Stam Audio and Neumann.
Recordings:
The singer's performance is commendable, but to make the test more intriguing, it would have been beneficial to hear a broader range of recordings, perhaps with different vocalists in the same test.
Position:
It would be ideal for the microphone positions to be aligned, ensuring that the capsules are at the same height. The current arrangement, with Neumann's U47 positioned higher, may influence the sound perception, making it sound more nasal compared to Stam's SA-47. Even with identical microphones, placement can affect the test results.
Clarity of the Process:
The lack of information about preamplifiers, cables, interface, etc., as well as the absence of details about post-production, creates a lack of clarity in the process. Addressing these aspects would provide a more comprehensive perspective.
Possibility to Listen in Higher Quality:
Providing the option to download original recordings in higher quality formats, such as WAV, would allow for a more accurate comparison instead of relying on a compressed version on UA-cam.
Comparison:
Given that the comparison process was not adequately executed, I consider it an invalid comparison. Therefore, I refrain from giving my opinion on it.
Conclusion:
The SA-47 offers a pleasant sound, although it could improve in the low end, and some highs may come across as a bit strident. Nevertheless, it provides excellent material to work with in post-production. It's encouraging to see companies like Stam Audio aiming to deliver sound quality to buyers without reaching the exorbitant prices of the original models.
Proposal:
I suggest addressing and correcting the mentioned points in your videos to strengthen credibility and present a more professional view of your products. If you find it appropriate, I would be delighted to conduct the comparison in my studio, as I have several original U47s and other vintage microphones.
Best regards.
me encantan el stam, creo que se siente una ligera diferencia que creo que es porque al de abajo le apunta mejor a la capsula que al de arriba. pero quiero mi SA 47, esta complicada la situación económica en argentina, pero de a poco voy juntando usd, saludos y a seguir produciendo este alto nivel de fierros!!!
Wow. That is impressive, guys.
This is the first time I can truly say that I cannot hear a $10K+ difference! Seriously. I know a tech out of Newton, Massachusetts and he doesn't recommend Neumann for anything! LOL He believes that they are ridiculously overpriced and this is the proof! Great job, Stam Audio!
The fet 47's are actually about 4-5000$ so in this case it would be a 3-4000$ difference! And a
Big part of what your paying for with companys like Neumann, Neve, API, etc etc, whether it a mic or a preamp or a compressor etc, is the research and devolopment. That being said , Im not saying spending that much on a Neumann is not worth it, but with the kind of stuff Stam or other company's are doing , yes it does make it hard to justify paying $5000 and up.
Vince? hahah
@@davewestner -- yes!! hahaha
@@aisharpproductions1351 goodness me oh my. Yeah, he really does hate the fancy gear.
whoa!!! that thing is the real deal..
Definitely need a Stam Audio microphone! Or two!
The neumann has more sizzle like around 12-15k to my ears but otherwise extremely close
This was not only a Stam Audio ad, rather a Solid State Logic ad, LOL
The neumann has an extra crispyness to it but it's so subtle. The low-end sounds boosted in the stam. In a mix I think it'd work about the same. Maybe it'd especially favor male vocals.
I heard that too.....bit more top in the real thing, bit more low end and upper mids in the Stam. And like you said, in a mix......
I like the stam as much as the neumann.
Ahhhh i would like to finance this one because i cant afford it. Why dont u guys sell your mics in Germany ? 🙃
Stam Audio vs Advanced Audio mics?
A little bright coloration on the hair but other than that….. the sound seems pretty clean 😂😂😂
The Stam has a bit more highs than the original.
That won't stop me from preordering one from the next batch
The Stams nails everything except for the top end.
Even still its only marginally brighter then the vintage one. It is very subtle and bit of high shelf at about a db would be all the correction you need. That being said the high end is still very good on this thing. It's not strident or harsh and for the most part it sounds like a modern microphone, a really good one. Keep in mind that the vintage one has had time to be broken in and like most good instruments they need time to loosen up. I would bet these Stam mics will hold up over time very well.
The Neumann is barely darker sounding but not enough to justify paying more for it.
It is a great mic, but it is interesting how most of these clones always have a slightly crispier high end. I am not saying it is bad just a very slight difference. I always wonder what Neumann is doing to smooth out those highs? Either way great mic, Stam is really making a name for itself
Actually, the U47 is slightly brighter. You can see the curves on our facebook page
Joshua Stam , wow, thanks for responding.
Most "old" mics, did not sound that way when they were first new. The diaphragm ages and becomes brittle, thus responding less to highs. Then there is the problem of all those parts having + or - tolerances that are put together. Not one sounded like the other, quality control was not, is not that good on electrical parts of this caliber. You would need NASA grade builders for that and nobody wants a 100,000 mic. ha. What these old mics become is built-up EQ's more than they are microphones. An EQ, is a whole lot cheaper to buy. You stack up eq's and compressors on a source and you can dial up anything man.
Soundhammer Studio that makes total sense to me. I wonder if these mic clones that are well taken care of and aged will cost more in the future. “Vintage Clone” (trademark!)
@@joshuastam7704 I too heard that the neumann was brighter
I cant understand a lot with the youtube compression, would be possible to have direct link of this video file with a decent 44.1 wav audio in it?
There's a genuine flaw with most videos of this nature. There's a comparison of two things nobody has ever heard or owned, and no comparison to anything they have or do. Most good microphones cover the spectrum of the human hearing real well. The preamp, the compression, the eq that is used can make unlike microphones sound almost the same. There are so many variables in most A/B comparisons that one can finally arrive to the conclusion that we'd have to have hearing better than a dogs to actually hear difference with gear in most mixes. I can't tell if he used a 58 Les Paul valued at thousands, or a 150.00 Fender Squire, no more than anyone could answer if a songs drums were recorded with 57's or 87's. The mic is cool, sure...I'd probably buy one maybe. But, there are SO many 47 and 87 mics out there and I've tried many, liked just about ALL of them, and never found any of them unusable or had anybody say "that sounds like a blah blah microphone". I've resorted to the fact that a good song and a great mix, can be made from and with, almost anything.
I completely disagree. There are many microphones that are simply unusable (even 47 clones). I myself made several crap ones before matching the original. Trial and error.
@@joshuastam7704 Maybe you feel you did cause, you had something you considered a reference even with its own difference.. Maybe one of your crap ones, were more than good enough also. Difference, is difference...not better, not worse....just different. Money is a horrible way to merit "good" difference.
This comment is only valid if you don’t have a good ear.
You can argue most people don’t have a good ear, hard to say, most people aren’t trying to develop or put sound under a microscope and it’s not their job. Your job isn’t to lower your standard but to be a professional.
If you can’t tell the different from a squirt and a less Paul you have almost near discerning ear. Totally different sounds, easy to tell apart . Pickups, neck length, snappier thinner brighter bs darker hotter more squashed feel. It’s like comparing hot and cold and saying it’s all the same .
There is a difference here and it is subtle. But your arguments favors stams mic then. Because you certainly wouldn’t be able to tel the difference between his mics and any original since that difference is super small compared to entirely two different guitars .
Frankly you could change the key of a song on a person and a lot of people have no idea.
The difference is there all things being equal , you can tell the difference between a flatter mic and a more open mic. That has to do with mics and compression aswell. So not many people can make the gear, who ever said that was the challenge? The point is songs that sound less lively the others .
If you’re looking into this kind of gear you should understand those differences . The accumulative effect of sounds and how they will translate .
If you start with low quality instruments and mics then your sound is gonna feel weak and less lively usually. Especially nowadays with streaming and little headphones . So now more tens ever you should start with a better recording and processing because of everything is gonna get downgraded , then the low level recordings will fall down further than starting higher .
Also you can eq mics to sound similar to a degree. But a thicker mic will always sound thicker and a brighter will always sound brighter even if you match the eq.
The character cannot be eqed. So if you don’t care about it that’s one thing
However if you can’t hear it that’s another .
Even the strings
You use on a guitar will make it sound fatter thumpier or brighter louder etc.
I always have heard people say”I don’t know why I like that so much”
Exactly. They don’t know about song writing or sound. It isn’t their job. So you’re correct that some people won’t tell the difference by naming brands, but they will tell the difference when something is recorded better.
A song meant to be played on a les Paul, that was written on it by a good guitarist will always take advantage of its tonality and thickness.
A blues guitarist using the natural character of a fender guitar will always sound best and most lively with those guitars and pickups if he wrote the song using that instrument .
If you’re whole argument is there is no meaningful difference then you simply are not thinking like a creative artist but more like a consumer listening to a song in the background of a frat party while you’re getting hammered .
Many people love music and relisten over and over and become musicians themselves.
The difference between good recordings and good gear is what makes you want to turn up the song and feel more immersed in it . Rather than a song that sounds catchy but feels flat and infront of you the whole time .
If you cannot feel or notice these differences then it’s similar to someone colorblind saying different shades of color don’t matter in the whole panting anyways because the shapes are the same .
@@heythere6983 I’m certain that I speak for many. When your argument has to be long and drawn out, no one wants to read it. If you have to try so hard with “a book of an argument”, perhaps you don’t have one after all.
Can you guys please do the same with the U47-Fet?
Stam makes great mics, but in this case I'm not convinced. The U47 sounds like a U47, the Stam sounds like a U47 clone, although it could actually be a clone of many other mics because it has a fairly impersonal and neutral sound. I feel that in this case the creaminess, the sandy highs and the valve compression are not achieved in the same way as the Neumann does, qualities that make the U47 special, which makes it, in my opinion, not a good replacement for a U47.
yep no real difference. Great voice guy
do you ship to Ghana?
Yo what band is the singer in? I wanna hear that song.
we are working on it!
el neumann aguanta mucha mas presión sonora o no rompe cuando grita inuto 0:58 en adelante
Aguantan la misma presion sonora, tienen exactamente el mismo SPL. Increible como se inventa.
bueno Joshua ,si todos oyeramos lo mismo no existirían distintos ingenieros ,sonidos y estilos ,pero eso es lo que siento por lo demas está muy balanceado y similar al original ,gran trabajo ,pero no seas tan enojón y suceptible ,jeje en útlima instancia siempre estamos hablando de emulaciones que imitan a algo muy clásico ,hístórico y de sonido legendario!!!hay muchos y buenos clones de 47 como FLEA.Golden AGE,y el suyo también es un gran clon
El SPL es una medicion, no es subjetivo ni varia segun oyente. No me molesto en todo caso, pero tampoco me gusta que se falte a la verdad. El Golden Age no tiene nada que ver con un 47, es un hibrido con un 67. El Flea es genial. Saludos
su trabajot ambién es genial,puede ser lo del SPL aún así diferencia mínimas o no y la verdD suena increible su u 47 ojala pueda comprarme uno,Saludos
Mejor me guardo mi opinion
Porque si das tu opinion te responde Joshua Stam y muy enojado! Jaja 😂
No te guardes nada, no me molesta, al contrario, toda critica es bienvenida y los gustos subjetivos!
There is no difference
la comparacion no los favorece para nada a los de stam, el stam tienen mucha menos cantidad de armonicos y de dinamica, se nota mucho la diferencia de calidad, saludos
La curva es exactamente igual, no se de que estás hablando. Claramente suenan muy parecidos
perdon , te pido disculpas por el comentario , pero senti en mis monitores esto q te digo , se nota como el neumann tiene mas presencia en mis Hs 8 de yamaha. La voz clarisimamente tiene mucha mas dinamica y presencia en las silavas fricativas y mucha mayor calides en el los mid low y low , dando la sensacion de mucha mas dinamica , en el caso de las baterias noto la diferencia tonal donde se apaga el tacho y bombo , si queres borra los dos, no soy quien para molestar tu negocio, realmente igual tiene un gran audio y me gustaron mucho sus versiones del La2a , y sus preamplificadores , nuevamente sin animos de ofender , saludos
+Lucas Macchione no es eso Lucas, tu opinión es bienvenida, pero lo que dices no es así, puedes ver la curva en mi página de Facebook, son exactamente iguales teniendo el Neumann un poquito más de brillo. La calidad es la misma, son los mismos components y circuito salvo el tubo donde uso un Telefunken también
Your mic is way brighter, don't have the proximity of the original. It's harsher, ess-ier, . So why call it a clone if it doesn't sound exactly the same?
Its the same capsules and circuit, we also used a NOS Telefunken 800 tube, its as close as you can get. The frequency response chart shows they have the exact same frequency response, I can email it to you, they sound identical at least on our opinion and the engineers that were there
I can hear the hi-hat a little more prominently and forward on the Stam, just having a look at the frequency response on the drums, the 8-16k range on the Stam seems to be a couple dB higher throughout than the Neumann, other than that range it’s a very close frequency match. Would be interested in seeing a more scientifically produced frequency response on the drums..mine was just done on the small samples in this UA-cam video :)
You can reach me on stamaudio at gmail dot com, I can send you the sweep we did if you want!. The Neumann actually has a tad more energy above 12k
I wonder why you say the Stam is "way brighter" when the Neumann is actually a bit brighter, have a look: facebook.com/stamaudio/photos/p.636915076432297/636915076432297/?type=3&theater
The funny thing is.. if you were to take two Neumann U47s and compare their frequency response they would still not match identically. Same goes if you were to replace the tube on one single U47 you would end up with completely different sound n tone than when the last tube was installed