After a while, and to avoid visual bias cues, I closed my eyes. Once I'd lost track of which mic was in playback, I couldn't hear a lot of difference overall. And I think, at the price-point difference, not to mention the confounded historic appeal, that's the point. I think, hat's off to Warm
We were the distributor in Canada for Neumann in early 70’s. At the time the early models used a low voltage “peanut tube” that became hard to obtain after telefunken terminated production in mid 60’s. The new transistorized version was not as “warm” and exhibited a different sound according to the artists.. Eastern Sound in Toronto complained about the difference. Neumann did considerable research and found the difference was caused by a form of distortion. Caused by the tube amplifier. In fact they tried to reproduce the distortion but was unable. Finally they came to the conclusion the lack of distortion was due to the solid state amplifier. Curious to see if in fact this was a modified mic as we upgraded any U47/87 that was sent in for repair. Gotham Audio had the same complaints from their customers. A few kept their tube microphone for special use. FYI…. Bob Cook
That’s a great question! I’m not sure if the U47 at Studios at Fischer has the original tube amp or the updated transistor. It definitely sounds great. Very interesting information, thank you for sharing.
I think the main difference here was actually in the mic placement. I heard more of the vocals in the neumann and I believe that must have been because that was the mic that was on top and therefore closest to the singers mouth. Warm audio we got more guitar since it was closest to the guitar. My 3 cents.
I’m sure the placement of the mics affected it slightly. We took this into consideration. In this configuration the capsules were as close together as possible. If we would have placed the mics horizontally the difference in captured sound would be even greater. Moving a mic horizontally across an acoustic guitar even an inch or two changes the sound drastically. The warm audio has a really boomy low end, even if the mic placement was reversed I think these results would be very similar.
@@Rv_Music108how do you feel about the warm after you cut that low end out? I was really hoping to love the warm but it sounds so much less articulate and I assume that's the extra sub freq
@@nickknee-case298 Its definitely a great microphone. It’s just different than the Neumann. That being said i’m sure that every vintage U47 will sound slightly different. If I had to pick 1 versatile microphone for a home studio set-up it wouldn’t be the WA-47. It does have it’s place in a mic locker though. When i tried it on acoustic guitars in my home studio it also had a boominess that could be subtracted with eq, but i’d rather just use a different mic.
I own a few WA mics. The u47 I felt was a bit smoother in some frequencies. I'm pretty sure with some editing in post the WA 47 can sounds very very close to that U47. Great shootout.
Love this A/B comparison! I personally feel like the U47 just requires less work to sculpt into a good mix versus the WA as easily. But both are fantastic!
Vocal and midrange in general is just sooo much clearer on the Neumann. Its makes everything sound more musical. With the WA clone, it just instantly sounds like it needs eq to have definition. I can imagine chasing my tail with the WA mic for sure. Neumann all tthe way!
IMHO the Neumann seems to have more clarity and depth. Regardless, Warm Audio did an awesome job with the WA47 and especially at that awesome price point. Really dope song also...Would love to hear a full band version!
It was in this mix that I got confused with my eyes closed and couldn't figure out where the microphone was. I thought Neumann was playing, but it was actually Warm. The Warm has a wider sound and the Neumann has a more squashed sound. Warm is fantastic.
I perceived amazingly little if any difference. I have hyperacusis, have played guitar, am a microphone enthusiast and as a meditator am cognizant of the roles played by imagination and attention. Specifically looking for differences, and initially perceiving none, my attention settled on the most treble aspects of the strumming itself where I thought I was possibly hearing differences. How crisp is the sound of the strum itself? How well can I resolve each string, if at all? There were a few points at which I thought I could hear (and begin to feel) the steely sound of the individual strings more through the Neumann, while they pretty consistently seemed more blended together through the WA. I had to listen multiple times, as the dynamically expressive inflection while playing was of course a very large factor which was difficult to perceive through. To be sure, I got up and walked around, disabled the HVAC, came back, listened again and the perceived difference vanished as I was also hearing some similarly well resolved strums through the WA. I dismiss my previously perceived differences as having been subjective, just the magnifying effect of attention on specific moments as the sound varied. Thanks for making this useful comparison, for doing it well, and thanks especially for being so easy to listen to. That was a very pleasant performance.
I listened with interest to the comparison. I have both the WA-47 and WA-47j at home, but both are just lying in the closet. The WA-47 started making strange noises after a few hours of use, and it was immediately clear that it was the JJ 5751 tube from a Slovak company. These are quality tubes, but not all tubes are suitable for this application. Here the tube functions as an impedance converter. I got a new JJ tube from a service organization in the Czech Republic. But I bought two NOS tubes on eBay, tested them, and the sound significantly improved. I also have a Neumann U47, but inside it has the UF14 tube. On studio monitors, you can tell that the WA-47 captures sound differently. It could be due to the K47 capsule, which is one thing. The M7 capsule used in older U47s is better. The VF14 tube seems to compress the sound right from the capsule, in the first link of the chain. It's like I'm hearing two layers - guitar and vocals, and in all bands. The WA-47 lacks depth (the lower and mid-range is significantly weaker).
First of all, cool song, well played, great performance! I think the two mics sound very, very similar in this application. Vocals and acoustic guitar are both such dynamic instruments, that small changes in performance can make it tough to distinguish differences between mics. I find myself looking for differences on the changes between mics, but the mics are so close that I’m not sure if it’s the performance changing or the mic (did you strum a bit harder, play the low E differently, stress your voice a bit more, or is it the mic change?). The fact that I can close my eyes, listen to the track changing sources and not really notice that it’s changing says A LOT. I would need to be able to A-B individual bars of the song to really be sure of what I’m hearing. That would have been very helpful to have a few examples of that. Also not sure how much listening to a highly compressed audio format affects things. I thought maybe there is a bump in the high-lows to low-mid range on the Warm mic, somewhere in the 200-400 Hz range. Maybe another in the 800 Hz range? Mids sound very similar on S, SH and CH vocal sounds. Strumming on the high strings sounds almost identical to me. I am ALL about vintage gear, but to my ears, the Neumann does not sound $30k better. Anyone saying there’s a problem with mic placement is straight up trippin’. You did it the best way possible. And to those who think there’s a huge difference, I would love to blindfold them and have them call out the mic changes as they happen. THEN we would see what they really hear. I think the power of suggestion is at play in a major way here. Overall, great video! Thanks for doing this.
Thanks for the kind words! I agree with you, the warm audio definitely has some boominess in the lows and low mids but thats easily corrected with some eq.
They're similar. The u47 is much noisier which may give the feeling of being more airy, it has a bit less low body and is more mid rangey. For the price difference there's no question, the Warm Audio completely destroys the Neumann in terms of value. Anyone who defends the Neumann here is just trying to look good and knowledgeable.
It's super close. The difference you are really hearing is mainly new components vs old components that have had electricity run through them for many years. It's very subtle the difference between the two. I would gladly buy a WA47 for my studio and not think twice about it.
I am finding more and more these days that any good quality large diaphragm mic can get the job done, I remember when cheap mics were awful sounding and the difference was night and day. Even some of the inexpensive off-brand mics sound fantastic. Mic placement, input levels, and performance are by far way more important. Both 47s sounded great only because the song, performance, and proper technique were used. The product is not the microphone, the product is the recording and a well written song
Just a few inches difference in capsule aiming can affect the sound. For example aiming it at the nose will make you sound nasaly and at your chest it will be deep.
I'd bet money that the WA-47 is the one on the bottom... More proximity effect nearer the hole on the guitar and the vocal is better located for the upper mic, the U47 I bet. In my opinion the better test would have been side to side, but that's a hard one to hang with the shock mounts. Hard mount 'em. :-). Am I wrong?
You’re right, the WA is on the bottom, i see what you’re saying as far as mic placement. The camera angle makes it look closer to the sound hole than it actually was. Regardless i’ve noticed a lot of mud and some boomy-ness in the low end even outside of this test. Thanks for the comment!
That's exactly what I thought. That low end (and clogging up those mid-to-low frequencies) was the biggest difference between the two. I wonder how similar in sound they'd be if the test was side to side.
I also blinded myself and once doing so, they appeared very similar indeed (I agree with comments re mic placement and U47 having a bit more guitar level). If anything the vintage U47 may have been a tiny bit “smoother” in the mids but that was subtle. For the price, my money would be with the WA-47 (and with any luck I can one day compare to my friend Greg’s collection of U47’s and matching preamps!).
The Neumann wins, better top-end and over clarity. That being said, I would buy the Warm Audio because I can afford it, the Neumann, something my heart and soul would aspire to
I did a test once on a YT channel of mine that doesn't exist anymore, unfortunately. Remember EVERYBODY hating on the Focusrite Twintrak Pro mic preamp 'back in the day'? I got myself an ISA after having worked with pleasure with the Twintrak. I bought myself a Focusrite ISA, because... "it sounds better", according to "the best ears in th world" (LOL!!!). Well, I made a video and it got a couple of thousand views. I recorded both my guitar and vocals (same signal!!!!) through the Twintrak and the ISA and in the video I showed the processed and the unprocessed results and everyone (OF COURSE!!!) favoured the ISA!! "ISA sounds so much clearer"... "night and day difference" and whatever kinda bollocks they're commenting underneath the video and why did I say "bollocks"???? Well, because I was the only person who knew that, when they saw an on screen picture of the Twintrak, they're actually listening to the ISA and vice versa!! :O :O :O Only ONE out of hundreds of comments said: "oh wow!! That Twintrak sounds pretty damn good!!" ONLY ONE!! I senbt him a PM telling him it's actually the ISA he's listening to, but everybody else... let me stop right here, you know what I mean by now. After this test (and another one I did with my Mesa Boogie amp vs Line6 POD 2.0, same thing... vice versa) I stopped caring about what people are saying about a certain piece of gear. They all know best, but the facts proved them WRONG and it's my own bloody test(s)... :P EDIT: I think that, when people know they're listening to the Neumann, their brain's instantly gonna search for what sounds best about it and then, when they listen to the Warm, it's "vice versa" again. The people listening to these examples probably don't even know their brain's doing this to them and their final opinion about a particular piece of gear. LOL
@@Wilmer778 haha wow, thanks for that story! I agree and personally don’t hear much of a difference at all. 🤷. There is definitely a psychological angle to it. Gear these days is good enough. No need to spend 10’s of thousands to record music. If you want to, more power to you.
Do you think you can upload a video to show what best EQ settings (on a 1073 or API) could match the WA-47 with the real deal? .. and do a comparison with the EQ?.. I think that would be a hit 😊
I think the differences are way too subtle and numerous to be able to do any kind of matching. There’s probably like 10,000 micro variations that make up the difference between the sounds. Eq is probably far too broad a brush, if you know what I mean.
I mean yeah, they sound slightly different but they both sound lovely to my ears. And one of them wouldn’t require me to sell several major organs to pay for.
The U47 has clarity that stands out over the WA-47 especially when strumming the guitar. I could hear each string with the U47 with the WA-47 sounding more like a blend. That pristine definition of the U47 just wasn't there. Which mic am I buying? The WA-47 of course. It's close enough and I have more money for other gear that I need.
u47 sits way more upfront / more alive to me. if it would be a busy mix the wa 47 wouldn't be sitting that well in the mix like the u47. Came here for some hope :D but I had already a lot of warm gear, sold it. But im still giving them a shot again and again. to me other companies doing better clones. good comparison keep it up. peace
The original U47 I can hear a very tiny difference in the mids and highs but the difference is so minor that I think it could be corrected in the studio so that's why I just picked up 4 of the wa47
I'm no expert. I don't have any training. but I can tell the difference between two diffrent microphones in person. on youtube even with HD settings using adam a7x monitors and headphones of different makes and models and I can't tell the difference between the two. not sure if it's youtube quality but during the intro where you two were talking I could clearly hear audio noise. maybe this translated into a poor comparison. I think it's important to note I'm running all my audio through an RME interface as well. so if there is a difference that others clearly can hear, it is so subtle you could probably eq to close enough. I've heard people complain about the noise floor on the WA but this could probably be addressed in some way. honestly, no high-end studio would use this mic over a Neuman. this was designed for amateurs and semi-pros looking for something close enough. and that's what you get. I mean just look at the price compared to let's say a Telefunken or similar. you're not getting a gold mine here. so for what you pay and what you get, and with this comparison how can you complain? a good example of cheap mics contending with top-shelf mics is the SE se8 against the Neuman km 184. again a crapy cheap mic can sound as good as a Neuman with a little eq and a tolerance for quality and noise floor. so, dump your cash into something so expensive you could buy two nice used cars or spend a whole lot less and settle for close enough. I mean if you have the financial capability why not, i would, but I don't so hello new wa-47 and welcome to my locker.
Thanks for the comment. The noise you can hear in the intro is from the camera microphone which wasn’t the best quality. Try focusing on the boomy low end of the WA. (Easily fixed with EQ)Thats where i can hear the most difference. But yes for all intents and purposes the WA is more than good enough for the money. Someone could record a whole album with a single sm57. If the songs are good and the artistic intent is there gear becomes irrelevant. It depends on what you’re going for. Take care.
@@Rv_Music108 and that has certainly been proven many times. Talent far out weighs gear sometimes. And for me who will just be content doing nothing notable this mic will bring years of use.
I have never understood these types of comments. Warm Audio 47s are plenty for a home studio? As opposed to a real pro studio? Your comment is particularly interesting because I have seen Warner Classics use these very microphones for some of their - amazing - productions. Unless you consider Warner Classics to be a home studio, not really sure what you mean. Here's the link for your reference, go to minute 2:06. Clearly they have absolutely no qualms deploying those mics as opposed to a matched pair of Neumanns, and I'm pretty sure it is not for lack of resources... ua-cam.com/video/CZ9zk7_lm2M/v-deo.html
@@vegaalbela1 it's a placebo, im sure that it you ran it through a oscilloscope and accounted for the tolerance differences that come with a 70 year old mic itd be exactly the same.
Good question, the WA has been used probably a dozen times. I’ve accidentally left it on overnight at least once. So not a ton of break in time but it has been used.
I've used a U87 in the studio. Tube mics, planar ribbon mics, you name it. With a few EQ tweaks, you can make a $100 AKG Perception 220 sound exactly like either of these. Spending more than $100-$200 on a large diaphragm condenser is stupid.
B - b - but - all those editing times add up over 20 years - how much do you pay yourself per hour? KSM32 my tip for saving cash - I do have a WA47 which I need to get out more
Fascinating stuff. As you acknowledge at the outset that the two 1956 models do not sound the same, it would be interesting to know if the WA47 sounded closer to the U47 than the other U47. ?? So, you ask if I could hear a difference - ever so slight, but sure. Could I pick it out if the mikes were used in two different songs - I doubt it. Does it really make any difference - absolutely not. There are so many other things going into a vocal recording that this very minor difference is not what I would be worried about. By the time EQ, Compression, and Reverb are applied and the vocal is run through Autotune and set in a mix, I am pretty sure no one could tell which mike is which. If the WA47 were $2,000 cheaper than the Neumann, it would make me seriously consider it over the real deal. Knowing it is possibly more than $10,000 (or more) cheaper than a 1956 U47 makes this discussion purely academic. No thinking for profit studio would waste the money here. Only if you bought the originals way back when they were the only game in town and still have them - only then is this a reasonable comparison - the real question is then "which would you use, not which you would buy". Otherwise, it is clear that that you would not put your money into buying a used original (well, maybe if you were just so wealthy that you could do anything you wished, but.....). Does not mean I would not want to own an original, but I would not buy one for its sound alone. I love these shoot-outs. Thanks,
Great comment! I tend to agree. It’s more the historical significance or rarity of a vintage U47 that gives it it’s charm and demand. As with most vintage gear the difference in sound is going to vary from unit to unit. Technology has gotten so good nowadays that it kind of doesn’t matter. Not to take away from legendary vintage gear. The remakes are gonna be slightly different. Better or worse? Who knows. Mostly negligible and not important in the grand scheme of creating art.
Nice video! It's always sad to see an "engineer" who has not one but two vintage u47s and doesn't even know anything about the capsules, circuits, tube, etc. When he mentioned Vintage King that explained a lot, as they are infamous for selling $30k u47s without showing any internal pics and no description of the capsule that is in the mic they have "restored." A lot of people are getting Nuvistor scammed by VK. Do not trust that company and if you are buying a vintage u47 please do your research on what you're buying!
Português: Percebi que os graves abaixo de 200 Hz estão um tanto embolados e um pouco longos demais. Acredito que o Neumann possa ter um som mais limpo, com menos vibração em toda a sua extensão. Mas para os vocais parece estar ok. Inglês: I noticed that the bass frequencies below 200 Hz sound somewhat muddy and a bit too lengthy. I believe the Neumann might produce a cleaner sound with less vibration throughout its range. However, it seems fine for vocals.
But if you do a blind test and compare a Neumann u47 with any other condenser people can barely tell them apart. Any other condenser if any price or any era 😂✌🏽
Any difference is likely because they aren't in exactly the same position, or just differences from one mic to another. The positioning makes just as much difference as the mic.
The Warm Audio WA-47 sounds just as good until you go a little louder. Then the Neumann sounds clearer in the bottom. But it's 800 vs 24-30 thousand. Seems pretty clear to me..... Yup Neumann it is LMAO.
I have used both the Neumann U47 and the Warm WA-47. Both sound identical when run thru a UA 610 pre-amp and LA2-A Indistinguishable as vocal tracks in a mix. Save yourself $24,000 and forget the Neumann. 'Nuff said.
I regret spending money on the WA47.... It depreciate a lot and that says it all. Oh well, one day I may change it for something else, so far it gives my studio a good look, specially with special lighting hitting at the shiny classic design that got my eyes, not my ears
U47 carved out vocal, vocal appears 3d, compared to warm audio. Warm audio sounds great, but it does not sound like a U47, warm audio appears to blend in with the track.
I dont hear any difference. I listened on my samsung tv and on studio monitors. I really dont know where some people get theire " knowledge" from. Similar to differenzes in ad/da converters. Does anybody expect that a 14 year old girl or boy listening to the boom box in a not professionally fitted acoustic studio room in theire sleeping room can hear any difference? I own a neumann m149 a wa 47 a neumann u87 and some cheaper microphones. I just recenty msde a record of my drums. It was a good sound. A friend asked at once, what mics did you use. I had to answer a pair of fame sd 100 ( 100 euros for both) a sm 57 and a sennheiser e607 II (together 450 euros) If i had told him i had used my mics for 10.000 euros he would believe it. I BELEIVE .......:-) But old vintage gear has a charme and it makes us proud to spend 10.000 euros for a microfone. So it must be better Pesce
I'm not going to bullshit you here, if you don't hear a difference, you may have a problem if you're working professionally with audio, and there might be hearing damage you're not aware of. I'm not going to say one mic is better, because one is a lot brighter and nicer if you want that, and one is a lot darker and nicer if you want that, but HOLY CRAP there is a huge difference in the top end, and if you're serious about not hearing that, then you should get checked out. Hope you don't take it the wrong way, I was just floored that you weren't able to hear a pretty objectively big difference of several db's in top end, and thought maybe there could be something going on with your hearing. I have relatively shot ears too for my age, and it sucks, and I'm guessing eventually it will be difficult to hear the finer points of top end manipulation, which I'm not looking forward to. I suggest maybe listening with headphones and see if you can hear a difference then?
@@michaelcaplin8969 dude I don't know what you heard.. but I've got sensitive ears and the difference is very very very subtle and inperceptible that after a master mix of 2 ( one with the neuman and the other with the WA) no one will hear any difference..Plus, the listeners will not hear no difference or use a studio monitor..
Warm 47 is really good, however, if I were doing a professional recording that is intended to stand the test of time for decades, I would most likely figure out a way to use a real Neumann 47
this is the same as effect placebo . everybody say that neumann better is because expensive but if you was change and say that neu WA 47 the neumann was i think that everybody was believe .
WA all the way. Neumann is way overpriced even used. Btw did you know that an sm 48 is really all you need ? Studio microphone 48. The most important thing is " the song , the singer & a really good listening / attentive engineer. Nuff said ?
Big Facts we including myself tend to think we need more and the newest gear when in reality these days these you don't. You can get AMAZING quality with a cheap audio interface and a dynamic mic. Yes a dynamic mic. Imagine what you can do with a $99 condenser mic. Enjoy making music and stop worrying about the gear. If you've purchased any gear within the last 10 years you are more than capable of making pro level music. Technology has come soooo far that it exceeds the gear of old days. A $99 interface and a $99 mic can literally get you started making radio ready music.
The Warm WA-47 has the tiniest brittle honk at about 3k. You could easily fix that with a -1.5db EQ cut. Or swap the capsule for an M7 clone. The difference is sonically not worth $30,000. The only reason for having the real deal, is as a collector. It belongs in a museum. Why would you actually use the real one. Why get some dudes saliva on a museum piece?
On a macbook air, the Warm sounded better. Most people who >actually< buy music would say the same. Because my 19 year old really doesn't care that you spent 30k on a 1950's mic. Either do I. Make music. Save money. The world will end soon...enjoy it while you can.
Es macht keinen Sinn, zu vergleichen, wie ähnlich der WA-47 dem Original 47 klanglich ist, denn es spielt keine Rolle. Es reicht zu hören, dass der Neumann ein dreidimensionales Klangbild hat, während der WA 47 zweidimensional flach ist. Das ist selbst auf den billigsten Kopfhörern hörbar. Nach diesem Vergleich ist es unmöglich, die WA-47 zu kaufen. Da ich aber auch ein originales Neumann 47 wegen des Preises nicht kaufen kann, werde ich wohl ganz ohne Mikrofon dastehen😂
@@Rv_Music108Hi there. In this situation, I would first record the guitar, then the vocal. This way the mics can be used as intended by the manufacturer - as front addressed mic's. From what I see on your video, the upper mic points at the artist’s chest- way above the guitar- while the lower placed mic points at the guitar’s sound hole (almost). So, the lower mic can not capture the voice and guitar equally, and the upper mic can not capture any of the sources as intended. I don’t think you can equally capture with two mics of this size, and at the same time, at this short distance. BUT…your recording sounds great anyway, really 👍 And that is what matters after all. Imo one of the mics is more focused, the other smoother. I like them both very much:) I just wouldn't use this recording for a comparison, nor a decision weather to buy one mic or the other. All the best 🙂
@@bobophone thanks for your perspective. Perhaps the camera angle makes it seem like the mics are closer to the source than they are. They are a decent distance away. Also the capsules are within an inch of each other so the difference in position is very minimal. Take care, thanks for watching!
After a while, and to avoid visual bias cues, I closed my eyes. Once I'd lost track of which mic was in playback, I couldn't hear a lot of difference overall. And I think, at the price-point difference, not to mention the confounded historic appeal, that's the point. I think, hat's off to Warm
We were the distributor in Canada for Neumann in early 70’s. At the time the early models used a low voltage “peanut tube” that became hard to obtain after telefunken terminated production in mid 60’s. The new transistorized version was not as “warm” and exhibited a different sound according to the artists.. Eastern Sound in Toronto complained about the difference. Neumann did considerable research and found the difference was caused by a form of distortion. Caused by the tube amplifier. In fact they tried to reproduce the distortion but was unable. Finally they came to the conclusion the lack of distortion was due to the solid state amplifier. Curious to see if in fact this was a modified mic as we upgraded any U47/87 that was sent in for repair. Gotham Audio had the same complaints from their customers. A few kept their tube microphone for special use. FYI…. Bob Cook
That’s a great question! I’m not sure if the U47 at Studios at Fischer has the original tube amp or the updated transistor. It definitely sounds great. Very interesting information, thank you for sharing.
Wa-47 is a bit more harsh at 2-4kHz. But pretty damn close!
I think the main difference here was actually in the mic placement. I heard more of the vocals in the neumann and I believe that must have been because that was the mic that was on top and therefore closest to the singers mouth. Warm audio we got more guitar since it was closest to the guitar. My 3 cents.
absolutely! unfortunately this is a flawed comparison.
I’m sure the placement of the mics affected it slightly. We took this into consideration. In this configuration the capsules were as close together as possible. If we would have placed the mics horizontally the difference in captured sound would be even greater. Moving a mic horizontally across an acoustic guitar even an inch or two changes the sound drastically. The warm audio has a really boomy low end, even if the mic placement was reversed I think these results would be very similar.
@@Rv_Music108 Aiming them up and down a bit can work also.
@@Rv_Music108how do you feel about the warm after you cut that low end out? I was really hoping to love the warm but it sounds so much less articulate and I assume that's the extra sub freq
@@nickknee-case298 Its definitely a great microphone. It’s just different than the Neumann. That being said i’m sure that every vintage U47 will sound slightly different. If I had to pick 1 versatile microphone for a home studio set-up it wouldn’t be the WA-47. It does have it’s place in a mic locker though. When i tried it on acoustic guitars in my home studio it also had a boominess that could
be subtracted with eq, but i’d rather just use a different mic.
I own a few WA mics. The u47 I felt was a bit smoother in some frequencies. I'm pretty sure with some editing in post the WA 47 can sounds very very close to that U47. Great shootout.
I agree, thanks for the comment!
too me the u47 sounds good because its expensive - this is how all of you in the comments section sound like.
Facts I have a Wa47jr garuntee it’s sitting in about the same tier as these mic’s
LMAO
Heck yeah! This was a lot of fun to do!
Love this A/B comparison! I personally feel like the U47 just requires less work to sculpt into a good mix versus the WA as easily. But both are fantastic!
I love this song.
Vocal and midrange in general is just sooo much clearer on the Neumann. Its makes everything sound more musical. With the WA clone, it just instantly sounds like it needs eq to have definition. I can imagine chasing my tail with the WA mic for sure. Neumann all tthe way!
U47 sounds more like finished sound, while wa47 has different mid region and some boom in guitar.
IMHO the Neumann seems to have more clarity and depth. Regardless, Warm Audio did an awesome job with the WA47 and especially at that awesome price point. Really dope song also...Would love to hear a full band version!
Thanks so much! Ill probably record a full band version at some point.
The u47 sounds more compressed in the mids, easier to manipulate in the mix, but the w47 is a very good option for the price
It was in this mix that I got confused with my eyes closed and couldn't figure out where the microphone was. I thought Neumann was playing, but it was actually Warm. The Warm has a wider sound and the Neumann has a more squashed sound. Warm is fantastic.
I perceived amazingly little if any difference. I have hyperacusis, have played guitar, am a microphone enthusiast and as a meditator am cognizant of the roles played by imagination and attention. Specifically looking for differences, and initially perceiving none, my attention settled on the most treble aspects of the strumming itself where I thought I was possibly hearing differences. How crisp is the sound of the strum itself? How well can I resolve each string, if at all? There were a few points at which I thought I could hear (and begin to feel) the steely sound of the individual strings more through the Neumann, while they pretty consistently seemed more blended together through the WA. I had to listen multiple times, as the dynamically expressive inflection while playing was of course a very large factor which was difficult to perceive through. To be sure, I got up and walked around, disabled the HVAC, came back, listened again and the perceived difference vanished as I was also hearing some similarly well resolved strums through the WA. I dismiss my previously perceived differences as having been subjective, just the magnifying effect of attention on specific moments as the sound varied. Thanks for making this useful comparison, for doing it well, and thanks especially for being so easy to listen to. That was a very pleasant performance.
They Both sound incredible..
I listened with interest to the comparison. I have both the WA-47 and WA-47j at home, but both are just lying in the closet. The WA-47 started making strange noises after a few hours of use, and it was immediately clear that it was the JJ 5751 tube from a Slovak company. These are quality tubes, but not all tubes are suitable for this application. Here the tube functions as an impedance converter. I got a new JJ tube from a service organization in the Czech Republic. But I bought two NOS tubes on eBay, tested them, and the sound significantly improved. I also have a Neumann U47, but inside it has the UF14 tube.
On studio monitors, you can tell that the WA-47 captures sound differently. It could be due to the K47 capsule, which is one thing. The M7 capsule used in older U47s is better.
The VF14 tube seems to compress the sound right from the capsule, in the first link of the chain. It's like I'm hearing two layers - guitar and vocals, and in all bands. The WA-47 lacks depth (the lower and mid-range is significantly weaker).
First of all, cool song, well played, great performance! I think the two mics sound very, very similar in this application. Vocals and acoustic guitar are both such dynamic instruments, that small changes in performance can make it tough to distinguish differences between mics. I find myself looking for differences on the changes between mics, but the mics are so close that I’m not sure if it’s the performance changing or the mic (did you strum a bit harder, play the low E differently, stress your voice a bit more, or is it the mic change?). The fact that I can close my eyes, listen to the track changing sources and not really notice that it’s changing says A LOT. I would need to be able to A-B individual bars of the song to really be sure of what I’m hearing. That would have been very helpful to have a few examples of that. Also not sure how much listening to a highly compressed audio format affects things.
I thought maybe there is a bump in the high-lows to low-mid range on the Warm mic, somewhere in the 200-400 Hz range. Maybe another in the 800 Hz range? Mids sound very similar on S, SH and CH vocal sounds. Strumming on the high strings sounds almost identical to me. I am ALL about vintage gear, but to my ears, the Neumann does not sound $30k better.
Anyone saying there’s a problem with mic placement is straight up trippin’. You did it the best way possible. And to those who think there’s a huge difference, I would love to blindfold them and have them call out the mic changes as they happen. THEN we would see what they really hear. I think the power of suggestion is at play in a major way here.
Overall, great video! Thanks for doing this.
Thanks for the kind words! I agree with you, the warm audio definitely has some boominess in the lows and low mids but thats easily corrected with some eq.
@@Rv_Music108 any chance there’s a way to download and original uncompressed audio file for this?
Neumann sounds smoothed out. Warm sounds similar but like demo levels jumping everywhere
They're similar. The u47 is much noisier which may give the feeling of being more airy, it has a bit less low body and is more mid rangey. For the price difference there's no question, the Warm Audio completely destroys the Neumann in terms of value. Anyone who defends the Neumann here is just trying to look good and knowledgeable.
I really loved both microphones! I wonder how it would stack up to the TF47.
It's super close. The difference you are really hearing is mainly new components vs old components that have had electricity run through them for many years. It's very subtle the difference between the two. I would gladly buy a WA47 for my studio and not think twice about it.
I am finding more and more these days that any good quality large diaphragm mic can get the job done, I remember when cheap mics were awful sounding and the difference was night and day. Even some of the inexpensive off-brand mics sound fantastic. Mic placement, input levels, and performance are by far way more important. Both 47s sounded great only because the song, performance, and proper technique were used. The product is not the microphone, the product is the recording and a well written song
Just a few inches difference in capsule aiming can affect the sound. For example aiming it at the nose will make you sound nasaly and at your chest it will be deep.
I'd bet money that the WA-47 is the one on the bottom... More proximity effect nearer the hole on the guitar and the vocal is better located for the upper mic, the U47 I bet. In my opinion the better test would have been side to side, but that's a hard one to hang with the shock mounts. Hard mount 'em. :-). Am I wrong?
You’re right, the WA is on the bottom, i see what you’re saying as far as mic placement. The camera angle makes it look closer to the sound hole than it actually was. Regardless i’ve noticed a lot of mud and some boomy-ness in the low end even outside of this test. Thanks for the comment!
That's exactly what I thought. That low end (and clogging up those mid-to-low frequencies) was the biggest difference between the two. I wonder how similar in sound they'd be if the test was side to side.
To my ear, the WA seems to have a girthier low end, and the U47 has more definition in the high end
Yeah the WA is a little boomier in the bottom end. Thanks for the comment!
I also blinded myself and once doing so, they appeared very similar indeed (I agree with comments re mic placement and U47 having a bit more guitar level). If anything the vintage U47 may have been a tiny bit “smoother” in the mids but that was subtle. For the price, my money would be with the WA-47 (and with any luck I can one day compare to my friend Greg’s collection of U47’s and matching preamps!).
To me, the Neumann's mids were more velvety, and Warm's, grittier.
The Neumann wins, better top-end and over clarity. That being said, I would buy the Warm Audio because I can afford it, the Neumann, something my heart and soul would aspire to
Law of diminising turns for sure applies here. The U47 is more pleasing to me but is it 10 to 20 grand more? Not so sure.
I did a test once on a YT channel of mine that doesn't exist anymore, unfortunately. Remember EVERYBODY hating on the Focusrite Twintrak Pro mic preamp 'back in the day'? I got myself an ISA after having worked with pleasure with the Twintrak. I bought myself a Focusrite ISA, because... "it sounds better", according to "the best ears in th world" (LOL!!!). Well, I made a video and it got a couple of thousand views. I recorded both my guitar and vocals (same signal!!!!) through the Twintrak and the ISA and in the video I showed the processed and the unprocessed results and everyone (OF COURSE!!!) favoured the ISA!! "ISA sounds so much clearer"... "night and day difference" and whatever kinda bollocks they're commenting underneath the video and why did I say "bollocks"???? Well, because I was the only person who knew that, when they saw an on screen picture of the Twintrak, they're actually listening to the ISA and vice versa!! :O :O :O Only ONE out of hundreds of comments said: "oh wow!! That Twintrak sounds pretty damn good!!" ONLY ONE!! I senbt him a PM telling him it's actually the ISA he's listening to, but everybody else... let me stop right here, you know what I mean by now. After this test (and another one I did with my Mesa Boogie amp vs Line6 POD 2.0, same thing... vice versa) I stopped caring about what people are saying about a certain piece of gear. They all know best, but the facts proved them WRONG and it's my own bloody test(s)... :P
EDIT: I think that, when people know they're listening to the Neumann, their brain's instantly gonna search for what sounds best about it and then, when they listen to the Warm, it's "vice versa" again. The people listening to these examples probably don't even know their brain's doing this to them and their final opinion about a particular piece of gear. LOL
@@Wilmer778 haha wow, thanks for that story! I agree and personally don’t hear much of a difference at all. 🤷. There is definitely a psychological angle to it. Gear these days is good enough. No need to spend 10’s of thousands to record music. If you want to, more power to you.
Do you think you can upload a video to show what best EQ settings (on a 1073 or API) could match the WA-47 with the real deal? .. and do a comparison with the EQ?..
I think that would be a hit 😊
I think the differences are way too subtle and numerous to be able to do any kind of matching. There’s probably like 10,000 micro variations that make up the difference between the sounds. Eq is probably far too broad a brush, if you know what I mean.
I mean yeah, they sound slightly different but they both sound lovely to my ears.
And one of them wouldn’t require me to sell several major organs to pay for.
Love the song!
@@jpilot07 Thank you!!
The U47 has clarity that stands out over the WA-47 especially when strumming the guitar. I could hear each string with the U47 with the WA-47 sounding more like a blend. That pristine definition of the U47 just wasn't there. Which mic am I buying? The WA-47 of course. It's close enough and I have more money for other gear that I need.
The Vintage 47 is muting all the right frequencies it sounds "flatter" more plesant to the ear.
It seems to me that most clones end up having a really similar tone, but have these resonant peaks that poke out and make it sound less “smooth”?
u47 sits way more upfront / more alive to me. if it would be a busy mix the wa 47 wouldn't be sitting that well in the mix like the u47. Came here for some hope :D but I had already a lot of warm gear, sold it. But im still giving them a shot again and again. to me other companies doing better clones. good comparison keep it up. peace
The original U47 I can hear a very tiny difference in the mids and highs but the difference is so minor that I think it could be corrected in the studio so that's why I just picked up 4 of the wa47
I came for the mic porn but really liked the song. thank you! mics don't matter anymore :)
Thanks for the kind words! Take care:)
I'm no expert. I don't have any training. but I can tell the difference between two diffrent microphones in person. on youtube even with HD settings using adam a7x monitors and headphones of different makes and models and I can't tell the difference between the two. not sure if it's youtube quality but during the intro where you two were talking I could clearly hear audio noise. maybe this translated into a poor comparison. I think it's important to note I'm running all my audio through an RME interface as well. so if there is a difference that others clearly can hear, it is so subtle you could probably eq to close enough. I've heard people complain about the noise floor on the WA but this could probably be addressed in some way. honestly, no high-end studio would use this mic over a Neuman. this was designed for amateurs and semi-pros looking for something close enough. and that's what you get. I mean just look at the price compared to let's say a Telefunken or similar. you're not getting a gold mine here. so for what you pay and what you get, and with this comparison how can you complain? a good example of cheap mics contending with top-shelf mics is the SE se8 against the Neuman km 184. again a crapy cheap mic can sound as good as a Neuman with a little eq and a tolerance for quality and noise floor. so, dump your cash into something so expensive you could buy two nice used cars or spend a whole lot less and settle for close enough. I mean if you have the financial capability why not, i would, but I don't so hello new wa-47 and welcome to my locker.
Thanks for the comment. The noise you can hear in the intro is from the camera microphone which wasn’t the best quality. Try focusing on the boomy low end of the WA. (Easily fixed with EQ)Thats where i can hear the most difference. But yes for all intents and purposes the WA is more than good enough for the money. Someone could record a whole album with a single sm57. If the songs are good and the artistic intent is there gear becomes irrelevant. It depends on what you’re going for. Take care.
@@Rv_Music108 and that has certainly been proven many times. Talent far out weighs gear sometimes. And for me who will just be content doing nothing notable this mic will bring years of use.
The U47 is the clear winner but the WA would be plenty for a home studio
I have never understood these types of comments. Warm Audio 47s are plenty for a home studio? As opposed to a real pro studio? Your comment is particularly interesting because I have seen Warner Classics use these very microphones for some of their - amazing - productions. Unless you consider Warner Classics to be a home studio, not really sure what you mean. Here's the link for your reference, go to minute 2:06. Clearly they have absolutely no qualms deploying those mics as opposed to a matched pair of Neumanns, and I'm pretty sure it is not for lack of resources... ua-cam.com/video/CZ9zk7_lm2M/v-deo.html
@@vegaalbela1 it's a placebo, im sure that it you ran it through a oscilloscope and accounted for the tolerance differences that come with a 70 year old mic itd be exactly the same.
@@a-nus Indeed. It is very much a case of "the emperor wears no clothes."
The warm audio is clearly a competent contender. Just curious, was there any burn in time on the warm audio before the comparison?
Good question, the WA has been used probably a dozen times. I’ve accidentally left it on overnight at least once. So not a ton of break in time but it has been used.
Thanks for the demonstration. Very helpful!
I kinda quit listening for differences in the mics. Super good song. I hear super subtle difference but honestly the song made the microphones here
That u47 ufff
I've used a U87 in the studio. Tube mics, planar ribbon mics, you name it. With a few EQ tweaks, you can make a $100 AKG Perception 220 sound exactly like either of these. Spending more than $100-$200 on a large diaphragm condenser is stupid.
B - b - but - all those editing times add up over 20 years - how much do you pay yourself per hour? KSM32 my tip for saving cash - I do have a WA47 which I need to get out more
The U47 seamed a little brighter and tighter, more upper mids, maybe.
For sure. The WA has a boomier bottom and low mids around 300hz. More to subtract eq wise. Other than that, very similar.
the neumann has some more hi end silkiness/vintageness to me
I couldn’t hardly hear a difference wow that’s crazy
I prefer the tamer sibilance of the WA47 over the U47 on your voice.
Fascinating stuff. As you acknowledge at the outset that the two 1956 models do not sound the same, it would be interesting to know if the WA47 sounded closer to the U47 than the other U47. ?? So, you ask if I could hear a difference - ever so slight, but sure. Could I pick it out if the mikes were used in two different songs - I doubt it. Does it really make any difference - absolutely not. There are so many other things going into a vocal recording that this very minor difference is not what I would be worried about. By the time EQ, Compression, and Reverb are applied and the vocal is run through Autotune and set in a mix, I am pretty sure no one could tell which mike is which. If the WA47 were $2,000 cheaper than the Neumann, it would make me seriously consider it over the real deal. Knowing it is possibly more than $10,000 (or more) cheaper than a 1956 U47 makes this discussion purely academic. No thinking for profit studio would waste the money here. Only if you bought the originals way back when they were the only game in town and still have them - only then is this a reasonable comparison - the real question is then "which would you use, not which you would buy". Otherwise, it is clear that that you would not put your money into buying a used original (well, maybe if you were just so wealthy that you could do anything you wished, but.....). Does not mean I would not want to own an original, but I would not buy one for its sound alone. I love these shoot-outs. Thanks,
Great comment! I tend to agree. It’s more the historical significance or rarity of a vintage U47 that gives it it’s charm and demand. As with most vintage gear the difference in sound is going to vary from unit to unit. Technology has gotten so good nowadays that it kind of doesn’t matter. Not to take away from legendary vintage gear. The remakes are gonna be slightly different. Better or worse? Who knows. Mostly negligible and not important in the grand scheme of creating art.
Both sounded good. Overall I thought the Neumann sounded a bit more articulate.
Nice video! It's always sad to see an "engineer" who has not one but two vintage u47s and doesn't even know anything about the capsules, circuits, tube, etc. When he mentioned Vintage King that explained a lot, as they are infamous for selling $30k u47s without showing any internal pics and no description of the capsule that is in the mic they have "restored." A lot of people are getting Nuvistor scammed by VK. Do not trust that company and if you are buying a vintage u47 please do your research on what you're buying!
3:13 content
Português:
Percebi que os graves abaixo de 200 Hz estão um tanto embolados e um pouco longos demais. Acredito que o Neumann possa ter um som mais limpo, com menos vibração em toda a sua extensão. Mas para os vocais parece estar ok.
Inglês:
I noticed that the bass frequencies below 200 Hz sound somewhat muddy and a bit too lengthy. I believe the Neumann might produce a cleaner sound with less vibration throughout its range. However, it seems fine for vocals.
Yep, the main difference was in the low end for sure. Nothing a high pass filter can’t tame.
But if you do a blind test and compare a Neumann u47 with any other condenser people can barely tell them apart. Any other condenser if any price or any era 😂✌🏽
I listened on monitors and headphones and came to the conclusion that WA is better in every sense, including the absence of noise
trippin
You should have multitracked so that the mics could have shared similar placement in relation to the sound source.
Any difference is likely because they aren't in exactly the same position, or just differences from one mic to another. The positioning makes just as much difference as the mic.
The Warm Audio WA-47 sounds just as good until you go a little louder. Then the Neumann sounds clearer in the bottom.
But it's 800 vs 24-30 thousand.
Seems pretty clear to me.....
Yup Neumann it is LMAO.
I have used both the Neumann U47 and the Warm WA-47. Both sound identical when run thru a UA 610 pre-amp and LA2-A Indistinguishable as vocal tracks in a mix. Save yourself $24,000 and forget the Neumann. 'Nuff said.
I regret spending money on the WA47.... It depreciate a lot and that says it all. Oh well, one day I may change it for something else, so far it gives my studio a good look, specially with special lighting hitting at the shiny classic design that got my eyes, not my ears
the Neumann sounds more real, the warm has a slight veil over it s sound, less clearity and definition
Did you guys do any close up vocal takes to compare?
Unfortunately we did not. And I sold the WA47 shortly after this test.
@@Rv_Music108 ok thanks
I don't know if its just my mind fucking with me, but it sure does seem like there is definitely a better quality to the Neumann...
Why you normalized you 48hz record?
U47 carved out vocal, vocal appears 3d, compared to warm audio. Warm audio sounds great, but it does not sound like a U47, warm audio appears to blend in with the track.
Do you suggest the Warm Audio WA-47 to recording a double bass (mozt pizzicato, jazz contest)?
I’m sure it would be great. The WA-47 should be good for capturing the low end frequencies
I dont hear any difference.
I listened on my samsung tv and on studio monitors.
I really dont know where some people get theire " knowledge" from.
Similar to differenzes in ad/da converters.
Does anybody expect that a 14 year old girl or boy listening to the boom box in a not professionally fitted acoustic studio room in theire sleeping room can hear any difference?
I own a neumann m149 a wa 47 a neumann u87 and some cheaper microphones.
I just recenty msde a record of my drums.
It was a good sound. A friend asked at once, what mics did you use.
I had to answer a pair of fame sd 100 ( 100 euros for both) a sm 57 and a sennheiser e607 II (together 450 euros)
If i had told him i had used my mics for 10.000 euros he would believe it. I BELEIVE .......:-)
But old vintage gear has a charme and it makes us proud to spend 10.000 euros for a microfone.
So it must be better
Pesce
Thanks for your perspective. Its not always about the gear, its about creating!
Exactly
I'm not going to bullshit you here, if you don't hear a difference, you may have a problem if you're working professionally with audio, and there might be hearing damage you're not aware of. I'm not going to say one mic is better, because one is a lot brighter and nicer if you want that, and one is a lot darker and nicer if you want that, but HOLY CRAP there is a huge difference in the top end, and if you're serious about not hearing that, then you should get checked out. Hope you don't take it the wrong way, I was just floored that you weren't able to hear a pretty objectively big difference of several db's in top end, and thought maybe there could be something going on with your hearing. I have relatively shot ears too for my age, and it sucks, and I'm guessing eventually it will be difficult to hear the finer points of top end manipulation, which I'm not looking forward to. I suggest maybe listening with headphones and see if you can hear a difference then?
@@michaelcaplin8969 i fully agree with you!
@@michaelcaplin8969 dude I don't know what you heard.. but I've got sensitive ears and the difference is very very very subtle and inperceptible that after a master mix of 2 ( one with the neuman and the other with the WA) no one will hear any difference..Plus, the listeners will not hear no difference or use a studio monitor..
😍😍😍
WA-47 24/7
Warm 47 is really good, however, if I were doing a professional recording that is intended to stand the test of time for decades, I would most likely figure out a way to use a real Neumann 47
To the average listener who buys music they couldn't tell the difference.
what is the name of the song and singer?
I would say the vocal is above and too far away from both mics to make a good comparison.
this is the same as effect placebo . everybody say that neumann better is because expensive but if you was change and say that neu WA 47 the neumann was i think that everybody was believe .
neumann has an audible noise whilst WA hasn't
WA all the way. Neumann is way overpriced even used. Btw did you know that an sm 48 is really all you need ? Studio microphone 48. The most important thing is " the song , the singer & a really good listening / attentive engineer. Nuff said ?
Big Facts we including myself tend to think we need more and the newest gear when in reality these days these you don't. You can get AMAZING quality with a cheap audio interface and a dynamic mic. Yes a dynamic mic. Imagine what you can do with a $99 condenser mic. Enjoy making music and stop worrying about the gear. If you've purchased any gear within the last 10 years you are more than capable of making pro level music. Technology has come soooo far that it exceeds the gear of old days. A $99 interface and a $99 mic can literally get you started making radio ready music.
The Warm WA-47 has the tiniest brittle honk at about 3k. You could easily fix that with a -1.5db EQ cut. Or swap the capsule for an M7 clone. The difference is sonically not worth $30,000. The only reason for having the real deal, is as a collector. It belongs in a museum. Why would you actually use the real one. Why get some dudes saliva on a museum piece?
There is a difference... I actually prefer WA-47 here. U47 is a bad choice for strumming anyway.
On a macbook air, the Warm sounded better. Most people who >actually< buy music would say the same. Because my 19 year old really doesn't care that you spent 30k on a 1950's mic. Either do I. Make music. Save money. The world will end soon...enjoy it while you can.
Casi no encuentro diferencia.
Crap. The U47 sounds better. It's so disheartening that there's no way other way to touch that sound.
The warm mic is sibilant and harsh
gang
Es macht keinen Sinn, zu vergleichen, wie ähnlich der WA-47 dem Original 47 klanglich ist, denn es spielt keine Rolle. Es reicht zu hören, dass der Neumann ein dreidimensionales Klangbild hat, während der WA 47 zweidimensional flach ist. Das ist selbst auf den billigsten Kopfhörern hörbar. Nach diesem Vergleich ist es unmöglich, die WA-47 zu kaufen. Da ich aber auch ein originales Neumann 47 wegen des Preises nicht kaufen kann, werde ich wohl ganz ohne Mikrofon dastehen😂
The sound in the video is the worst brother. Sheesh
Honestly, this is not a comparison at all. The mic placement is very unfortunate :)
How would you have placed the mics differently?
@@Rv_Music108Hi there. In this situation, I would first record the guitar, then the vocal. This way the mics can be used as intended by the manufacturer - as front addressed mic's. From what I see on your video, the upper mic points at the artist’s chest- way above the guitar- while the lower placed mic points at the guitar’s sound hole (almost). So, the lower mic can not capture the voice and guitar equally, and the upper mic can not capture any of the sources as intended. I don’t think you can equally capture with two mics of this size, and at the same time, at this short distance. BUT…your recording sounds great anyway, really 👍 And that is what matters after all. Imo one of the mics is more focused, the other smoother. I like them both very much:) I just wouldn't use this recording for a comparison, nor a decision weather to buy one mic or the other.
All the best 🙂
@@bobophone thanks for your perspective. Perhaps the camera angle makes it seem like the mics are closer to the source than they are. They are a decent distance away. Also the capsules are within an inch of each other so the difference in position is very minimal. Take care, thanks for watching!
Oh please... It's mic placement that's been used for decades.
compared to the u47 the wa 47 unfortunately sounds like tin garbage lol