I have to rescind my last comments. Sometimes its hard to tell on UA-cam. I actually got to demo these together and the Flea M49 sounds amazing and every bit as good as the well kept vintage M49b version it was compared to. Actually it was a favorite mic out of a variety of new and vintage mics.
Hey Johnny, thanks mate, Can't tell you how much I appreciate you doing these videos, although my bank balance suffers due to your advice and testing!, which is fine by me. That is good news as in this video I was very impressed by what I heard. Thanks again, I hope you continue these videos. Prahlad
Sorry about the multi posts and thank you tube test guys for another great test. The Nuemann M49 killed the Flea 49 IMHO. The M49 was warmer, had gorgeous midrange sparkle and presence, was more three dimensional and had a lush texture throughout the upper mids. The Flea 49 sounded thinner through the mids and while it had a nice warm bottom and reasonably sweet top it sounded drier and flatter than the M49 The Flea sounds nice the Neumann sounds like a record
I had the pleasure of trying one of the FleA 49s with an AC701k. It's the only real difference. Once the mic had the AC701K it was nearly identical to a real M49. As close as another M49. I'm still debating sending mine back and having them put an AC701k in it.
Further, I cannot discern enough of the differences between to world class mics through a UA-cam video or laptop speakers. I listened through the KH120a monitors in our post production room, both mics sounded great considering what was really on display was a less dynamic vocal representing same frequencies and perhaps one sounds better over the other. I prefer the Flea in this case. In the room, might be a whole different story and we could split hairs all day about details of vid all day..
the original i could here you vocals like hum in the back ground it was a beautiful sound i couldnt explain but not all m ics would grab that sound love ur tone of voice bud
You make a point. I think the people who spend good money for a good sounding mic are looking for the best tool for the job. My studio door is always open to listen to any of these mics I have come across. As far as a knock off I don't think FLEA or some of these companies are trying to make knock offs, imitations or counterfeits. They are simple trying to bring the highest standard and quality product to recording market. It boils down to sound. How much is great reliable sound worth?
Hi Prahlad. The FLEA 49 in the video uses the standard tube that FLEA supplies. As far as the capsule goes it is a FLEA backplate F7 and may be the verified one you are talking about. I will look into it. Also I will be getting the FLEA 49 Next a new mic from FLEA to test very soon. It is a completely different body but with the same circuit as the FLEA 49. -Johnny
Sounds the same to me. I also own a m49 original. And the flea in this video sounds better in my opinion. Just as clear but has better smoother upper midds
I agree tube test. The Flea 49 offers a solution to those more occupied with recording and making music who do not want to take the punt of faith on a vintage Neuamann that may or may not need to be completely restored once it has been sourced, bought and shipped..., only to have to source a reputable restorer ( the list is short..fyi), await parts sourcing, await assembly blah blah. Ivan at Flea will build your mic to spec and provide customer service and quality product. cont'd
I think capsule age is probably the biggest difference. I remember demoing several different mics of the same exact model, one being newer and the other older and usually the older one sounds better. I attribute this primarily to the age and usage of the capsule. I think capsules need to be broken in and used much like speakers in order to sound their best.
I don't think I would call the Flea "smoother." It seemed to lack a bit of the "blanket" aspect that comes from the mellow upper midrange of the m49. It is close though.
At 9:10 you mention the AKG SolidTube with it's little window through which you can se the tube glow... You can't! What you can see is a little orange LED lighting op the tube from the center of the socket. See the photo I sent to the Coutant website here: www.coutant.org/solitube/index.html I'm sure, if you hated the mic before, this probably didn't make you like it any better... :-D
Did this mic in the test video use the ac 701k tube?, or was it the one that flea supplies as the standard price. Also do you know if it used the thirsch 'verified' capsule, or was it the thirsch 'made' capsule, he uses two, just curious, mic in the video sound great!!!
Flea - more pronounced in mids, less pronounced in highs; sounded a bit like a "blanket" over it. Nice warm sounds but... I noticed mouth sounds. Beginning of consonants, parting of lips. Didn't notice this on the Neumann. Neumann - balanced lows, mids and highs, no Misophonia (lol). I was concentrating on your SINGING. Which is the way a good mic should be. Not knocking the Flea - just honest about what I'm hearing (through some great Sony V-6 cans). And I do shoot outs all the time under rigorous conditions. : )
That would be the tube you're hearing. I mean, the Flea with the original tube is objectively a better mic than the Neumann, just because it is a genuine, real actual Neumann m49, but new and not worn and with no original parts replaced. Without the original tube, it seems as though it is close enough to be used as a stereo pair with an original in any conditions, but still with enough difference that you can - under the right conditions - hear some subtle difference. With the original tube, it's the same mic with no differences. However, I'm not too sold on their u47 clone. It doesn't sound 100% like the u47's I've worked with. I think some other companies get even closer. But with the Flea 49, it's an actual Neumann m49 in new condition as if plucked straight from the factory in 1950, which is pretty cool! Now, you're only buying Neumann m49's for the history of the individual mic you are buying, and not for the sound, which is a lovely development.
@@michaelcaplin8969 Lot of speculation there, bud. Did you pick up a new m49 from the factory in 1950? If you did, do you have an accurate memory of what it sounded like then, now 70 years later? It's not a rhetorical question; you made the statement, I'm asking on what experience you make these statements. I have a number of vintage mics, great ones, and I do a lot of blind shoot outs. I hear what I hear. Sometimes a new mic will cut a vintage one on a particular source, sometimes it's the other way. To say a particular mic is "objectively" better is laughable. Objective to whom? On what source? Likewise to say the only value of a vintage Neumann is history is bunk. My vintage Neumanns eat most other mics in blindfold tests (but not all the time). So please - own your opinions as just this; opinions, not objective facts.
@@user-ig7nq7pc7k We had a pair of m49's that were used in broadcasting for NRK for two years after they were made, and then packed away in their original factory boxes. We were the first to hear them since a couple of years after it had come out of the factory. They both sounded VERY different from all the other m49's I've had the pleasure of recording with by the way. The Flea is closer to that sound than any m49 I've heard before or since. In fact, the Flea is the same mic as far as I can hear. Can't say that about any real m49 out there, unless they were packed away and unused. All in all, an m49 out of the factory sounds different from one who has seen steady use over many decades. If you'd like to own a proper Neumann m49 straight from the factory, the Flea is your only option. However, I peferred the sound of the old worn ones over the new Neumann's we tried. They were very hifi, without the "warmth" we associate with the m49. I guess with several decades of heavy studio use, they would start to sound like the other m49's out there, but considering how identical the sound (and components) of the Flea is to the new pair we had, I'm guessing the Flea will sound just like that in 50 years as well. Just my opinion on things based on the mic'd I've been fortunate enough to use. EDIT: Objectively better is a statement I stand behind. The fact that it requires zero maintenance for decades, has lower self noise and the very real fact that it can be used for more things than the originals makes it a better mic. Better doesn't mean more beautiful sounding. Better means better. It's simply about specs, and very measurable.
Unless you are deaf, you can understand that FLEA is slightly better. M49 tends to be boomy. FLEA is more natural, yet has a beautiful low end. Stop listening using your eyes. I'm tired to hear that every time a vintage mic wins just because it's vintage. And yes, I love vintage mics, I have a vintage U47.
While there are worse and better suited mics for various purposes across a wide range of prices, I think that it's a shame that many vintage mics, like the 4, 6 and 8 series Neumann mics, the tube Telefunken and AKG's (e.g. C12, etc) are assumed to be great across a range of uses where their basic engineering is not even close to optimal for those uses. While I find their character and color useful on some types of performances, so many great performances, from Whitney Houston and Barbara Streisand to Alicia Keys and plenty of others were fairly ruined by the use of these mics. This is even when using ones that are in spec in terms of their tubes and related electronics. I am glad that our brain and perceptual biasing allows us to adapt to some types of imperfect acoustic/audio issues to some degree. However, many of these vintage tube and other mics have complex impedance, current demand and physical limitations based on their design, which adds a gritty, electronic edge to any hard driving, high dynamic range source. While this may not be an issue with the micing of some types of electronic instruments, I find this sort of distortion horrendous for various types of vocalists, acoustic instruments and related performances, as these mic limitations shatter the illusion of the performer sounding real, natural and local-- at least for people that have listened to many live, unamplified performances. In virtually all instances, you can add harmonic and other color post acquisition, but it is harder, and often virtually impossible, to remove them without introducing other artifacts and anomalies. For the same reason, I avoid buying general use recording guitar amps for the studio, which do not have the ability do a clean tone, since you can generally add or switch to a distorted tone during post, or add it during recording when desired, but you can't simply subtract it out once printed. In any case, I am grateful that companies like Earthworks, Sontronics, Lewitt and plenty of others have designed modern mics that are able to capture real, natural sounding performance; since just like any instrument, you often need to be able to capture a pure clean tone at times-- and without that ability, you are left with something that has an electronic, artificial sounding high frequency unnatural harmonics edge to it. At least for me, that hard, gritty edge shatters the performance illusion. Like I said, we can, and often do, tune this out to some degree, but my point is that you should not have to tune out these sorts of issues. which are so easily avoided by using mics that are better engineered for these sorts of uses. To me at least, I believe that there are plenty of other issues to contend with in recording/producing, mixing/mastering without introducing avoidable ones on the input side of the signal chain.
What I want to know is, who in their right mind would pay $4,500 for a knock-off, that you haven't heard on your own voice, that you can't try out before you buy, and would be a nightmare to return? I can think of a million better ways to waste my money.
You don't need to return it. You can just sell it for the original price. There would be more prospective buyers than you could handle. And the value will only go up, much like the original, when Flea stops making these future classics. In 50 years time, you could likely buy one Flea 49 for 12.000 dollars or so.
Grey hair timers" can hear the true, like me ! I will never lie to you" but there is people out there that they just want to sell shit" scamers" be aware guys.
I have to rescind my last comments. Sometimes its hard to tell on UA-cam. I actually got to demo these together and the Flea M49 sounds amazing and every bit as good as the well kept vintage M49b version it was compared to. Actually it was a favorite mic out of a variety of new and vintage mics.
4:20 M49
6:32 F49
Your sincerity made me smile. Thanks guys, REALLY enjoyed your review!
Impressive mic. Dusk's sniff test is over the top in mic geekdom!
Hey Johnny, thanks mate,
Can't tell you how much I appreciate you doing these videos, although my bank balance suffers due to your advice and testing!, which is fine by me.
That is good news as in this video I was very impressed by what I heard. Thanks again, I hope you continue these videos.
Prahlad
Sorry about the multi posts and thank you tube test guys for another great test. The Nuemann M49 killed the Flea 49 IMHO. The M49 was warmer, had gorgeous midrange sparkle and presence, was more three dimensional and had a lush texture throughout the upper mids. The Flea 49 sounded thinner through the mids and while it had a nice warm bottom and reasonably sweet top it sounded drier and flatter than the M49 The Flea sounds nice the Neumann sounds like a record
The Neumann had so much more to offer.
I had the pleasure of trying one of the FleA 49s with an AC701k. It's the only real difference. Once the mic had the AC701K it was nearly identical to a real M49. As close as another M49. I'm still debating sending mine back and having them put an AC701k in it.
I really enjoyed this and loves it
Further, I cannot discern enough of the differences between to world class mics through a UA-cam video or laptop speakers. I listened through the KH120a monitors in our post production room, both mics sounded great considering what was really on display was a less dynamic vocal representing same frequencies and perhaps one sounds better over the other. I prefer the Flea in this case. In the room, might be a whole different story and we could split hairs all day about details of vid all day..
the original i could here you vocals like hum in the back ground it was a beautiful sound i couldnt explain but not all m ics would grab that sound love ur tone of voice bud
You make a point. I think the people who spend good money for a good sounding mic are looking for the best tool for the job. My studio door is always open to listen to any of these mics I have come across. As far as a knock off I don't think FLEA or some of these companies are trying to make knock offs, imitations or counterfeits. They are simple trying to bring the highest standard and quality product to recording market. It boils down to sound. How much is great reliable sound worth?
I love the smell & taste test! :)
Hi Prahlad. The FLEA 49 in the video uses the standard tube that FLEA supplies. As far as the capsule goes it is a FLEA backplate F7 and may be the verified one you are talking about. I will look into it. Also I will be getting the FLEA 49 Next a new mic from FLEA to test very soon. It is a completely different body but with the same circuit as the FLEA 49. -Johnny
Sounds the same to me. I also own a m49 original. And the flea in this video sounds better in my opinion. Just as clear but has better smoother upper midds
They sound "similar" but the Neumann had that signature low end richness that some like or hate.
M49 wow! Smooth. m49 costs 11k 8 years later in 2020.
Which preamp been used during the test?
I agree tube test. The Flea 49 offers a solution to those more occupied with recording and making music who do not want to take the punt of faith on a vintage Neuamann that may or may not need to be completely restored once it has been sourced, bought and shipped..., only to have to source a reputable restorer ( the list is short..fyi), await parts sourcing, await assembly blah blah. Ivan at Flea will build your mic to spec and provide customer service and quality product. cont'd
Hey Thanks for asking I can't believe I didn't mention that in the video. They sell for around $4,500. -johnny
I think capsule age is probably the biggest difference. I remember demoing several different mics of the same exact model, one being newer and the other older and usually the older one sounds better. I attribute this primarily to the age and usage of the capsule. I think capsules need to be broken in and used much like speakers in order to sound their best.
this is the best microphone
I'm curious what capsule the M49 had. If the FLEA 49 was their standard it would have had their F7 capsule, which is their version of the M7.
flea more controlled seems it needs less eq on mixing, congratulations Flea
I don't think I would call the Flea "smoother." It seemed to lack a bit of the "blanket" aspect that comes from the mellow upper midrange of the m49. It is close though.
Thanks for the info!
At 9:10 you mention the AKG SolidTube with it's little window through which you can se the tube glow... You can't! What you can see is a little orange LED lighting op the tube from the center of the socket. See the photo I sent to the Coutant website here: www.coutant.org/solitube/index.html
I'm sure, if you hated the mic before, this probably didn't make you like it any better... :-D
Stupid random question, but is the red dot on the flea actually a light or just decorative?
Did this mic in the test video use the ac 701k tube?, or was it the one that flea supplies as the standard price.
Also do you know if it used the thirsch 'verified' capsule, or was it the thirsch 'made' capsule, he uses two,
just curious, mic in the video sound great!!!
i didn't find that with the flea 49, definatleyt the closest i've heard
Flea - more pronounced in mids, less pronounced in highs; sounded a bit like a "blanket" over it. Nice warm sounds but... I noticed mouth sounds. Beginning of consonants, parting of lips. Didn't notice this on the Neumann.
Neumann - balanced lows, mids and highs, no Misophonia (lol). I was concentrating on your SINGING. Which is the way a good mic should be.
Not knocking the Flea - just honest about what I'm hearing (through some great Sony V-6 cans). And I do shoot outs all the time under rigorous conditions.
: )
That would be the tube you're hearing. I mean, the Flea with the original tube is objectively a better mic than the Neumann, just because it is a genuine, real actual Neumann m49, but new and not worn and with no original parts replaced. Without the original tube, it seems as though it is close enough to be used as a stereo pair with an original in any conditions, but still with enough difference that you can - under the right conditions - hear some subtle difference. With the original tube, it's the same mic with no differences. However, I'm not too sold on their u47 clone. It doesn't sound 100% like the u47's I've worked with. I think some other companies get even closer. But with the Flea 49, it's an actual Neumann m49 in new condition as if plucked straight from the factory in 1950, which is pretty cool! Now, you're only buying Neumann m49's for the history of the individual mic you are buying, and not for the sound, which is a lovely development.
@@michaelcaplin8969 Lot of speculation there, bud. Did you pick up a new m49 from the factory in 1950? If you did, do you have an accurate memory of what it sounded like then, now 70 years later? It's not a rhetorical question; you made the statement, I'm asking on what experience you make these statements.
I have a number of vintage mics, great ones, and I do a lot of blind shoot outs. I hear what I hear. Sometimes a new mic will cut a vintage one on a particular source, sometimes it's the other way. To say a particular mic is "objectively" better is laughable. Objective to whom? On what source?
Likewise to say the only value of a vintage Neumann is history is bunk. My vintage Neumanns eat most other mics in blindfold tests (but not all the time).
So please - own your opinions as just this; opinions, not objective facts.
@@user-ig7nq7pc7k We had a pair of m49's that were used in broadcasting for NRK for two years after they were made, and then packed away in their original factory boxes. We were the first to hear them since a couple of years after it had come out of the factory. They both sounded VERY different from all the other m49's I've had the pleasure of recording with by the way. The Flea is closer to that sound than any m49 I've heard before or since. In fact, the Flea is the same mic as far as I can hear. Can't say that about any real m49 out there, unless they were packed away and unused. All in all, an m49 out of the factory sounds different from one who has seen steady use over many decades. If you'd like to own a proper Neumann m49 straight from the factory, the Flea is your only option. However, I peferred the sound of the old worn ones over the new Neumann's we tried. They were very hifi, without the "warmth" we associate with the m49. I guess with several decades of heavy studio use, they would start to sound like the other m49's out there, but considering how identical the sound (and components) of the Flea is to the new pair we had, I'm guessing the Flea will sound just like that in 50 years as well. Just my opinion on things based on the mic'd I've been fortunate enough to use.
EDIT: Objectively better is a statement I stand behind. The fact that it requires zero maintenance for decades, has lower self noise and the very real fact that it can be used for more things than the originals makes it a better mic. Better doesn't mean more beautiful sounding. Better means better. It's simply about specs, and very measurable.
@@michaelcaplin8969 Nice to hear your subjective experiences.
@@user-ig7nq7pc7k My subjective experience about an objectively better microphone, yes.
wonder if a curve plot comes w the flea, also u need complex audio
The Neumann M-49 is "the one"....
Does the Yoke Mount reduce rumbles like a Shock Mount?
I would love to compare with my cheap 50 euro Marantz
Unless you are deaf, you can understand that FLEA is slightly better. M49 tends to be boomy. FLEA is more natural, yet has a beautiful low end. Stop listening using your eyes. I'm tired to hear that every time a vintage mic wins just because it's vintage. And yes, I love vintage mics, I have a vintage U47.
While there are worse and better suited mics for various purposes across a wide range of prices, I think that it's a shame that many vintage mics, like the 4, 6 and 8 series Neumann mics, the tube Telefunken and AKG's (e.g. C12, etc) are assumed to be great across a range of uses where their basic engineering is not even close to optimal for those uses. While I find their character and color useful on some types of performances, so many great performances, from Whitney Houston and Barbara Streisand to Alicia Keys and plenty of others were fairly ruined by the use of these mics. This is even when using ones that are in spec in terms of their tubes and related electronics.
I am glad that our brain and perceptual biasing allows us to adapt to some types of imperfect acoustic/audio issues to some degree. However, many of these vintage tube and other mics have complex impedance, current demand and physical limitations based on their design, which adds a gritty, electronic edge to any hard driving, high dynamic range source. While this may not be an issue with the micing of some types of electronic instruments, I find this sort of distortion horrendous for various types of vocalists, acoustic instruments and related performances, as these mic limitations shatter the illusion of the performer sounding real, natural and local-- at least for people that have listened to many live, unamplified performances. In virtually all instances, you can add harmonic and other color post acquisition, but it is harder, and often virtually impossible, to remove them without introducing other artifacts and anomalies. For the same reason, I avoid buying general use recording guitar amps for the studio, which do not have the ability do a clean tone, since you can generally add or switch to a distorted tone during post, or add it during recording when desired, but you can't simply subtract it out once printed.
In any case, I am grateful that companies like Earthworks, Sontronics, Lewitt and plenty of others have designed modern mics that are able to capture real, natural sounding performance; since just like any instrument, you often need to be able to capture a pure clean tone at times-- and without that ability, you are left with something that has an electronic, artificial sounding high frequency unnatural harmonics edge to it. At least for me, that hard, gritty edge shatters the performance illusion. Like I said, we can, and often do, tune this out to some degree, but my point is that you should not have to tune out these sorts of issues. which are so easily avoided by using mics that are better engineered for these sorts of uses.
To me at least, I believe that there are plenty of other issues to contend with in recording/producing, mixing/mastering without introducing avoidable ones on the input side of the signal chain.
Ya dusk killed me for leaving it in but I had to. I have done the sniff test myself but never caught it on video. -johnny
I preferred the Flea 49 against this particular Neumann M49. Maybe the old Neumann's capsule was a bit dirty? Both sounded great.
The M49
How much does it cost?
The Neumann M49 killed the fles
The Neumann M49 killed the f
Flea mics are darn expensive! So what's the point?
A real M49 is 3x the price of the Flea
I liked the flea better.
I am interested in Flea 49 Next too, but isn't the headbasket smaller than M49 therefore sound different ?
I just posted an in depth look at the FleA 47 & 49 on my channel. If your looking for more samples check it out.
What I want to know is, who in their right mind would pay $4,500 for a knock-off, that you haven't heard on your own voice, that you can't try out before you buy, and would be a nightmare to return? I can think of a million better ways to waste my money.
You don't need to return it. You can just sell it for the original price. There would be more prospective buyers than you could handle. And the value will only go up, much like the original, when Flea stops making these future classics. In 50 years time, you could likely buy one Flea 49 for 12.000 dollars or so.
"They're in Czechoslovakia"
They're actually in Slovakia.
FLEA
Neumann is way better.
Grey hair timers" can hear the true, like me ! I will never lie to you" but there is people out there that they just want to sell shit" scamers" be aware guys.
M49
Neumann M49 aaaaaaaall the way babe..it doesn t have that f..in metallic harsch mid usual upper range
Way to much hiss