To be honest, yes the Neumann sounds like a Neumann but most of us here can tell the difference because we are studio professionals or have had direct use with the U67. The Warm Audio is remarkably similar, I would say close to 90% and in fact I would argue that the difference is almost negligible if cost is a factor. Practically speaking, I will choose the Warm Audio and challenge myself to bring in the 10%.
I have to rescind my previous statement. I ended up buying one, with the intent on testing it and I have to say it has become my go to mic for vocals. I do a fairly extensive vocal test for new artists to find the right mic for them, as I have the WA47', WA251', and SM7B, and this mic the WA67' has become my vocal mic go to for artists who are reminiscent of Wilson Picket to artists that sound a bit like Greg Allman, to female singers who are of a softer spoken vibe. It is truly fantastic for the price, and I am not sending it back.
On the vocal stuff, the vintage seems to be airier and more "open" - consistent with a bump in the 10 kHz or so range. But there's also an issue here that the vocals don't seem to be matched for loudness, with the Warm takes having a lower volume. The combination of the higher volume and the boost on the vintage plays to the advantage of the latter. But it seems pretty clear to me that with a bit of work (eq) you could make the Warm sound exactly like the vintage.
I've heard very good original, vintage U-67's and I've heard Ok ones. These old mics are vulnerable. I played a 60's Strat the other day which sounded crap. Old tube amps are the same story. Just because it's vintage doesn't mean it's going to sound like magic. The Beatles would have sounded just as good with a Warm Audio mic, I'm sure of that. I would buy a WA-67 and invest in a top mic cable and a very good tube pre-amp.
As I hear in all the warm audio mics vs the originals it seems the vintage models have more boost in the 10k-12k area that makes it sound sweeter to my ears. For the money I would pick the Warm mic and with the extra $9,000 in savings just buy a outboard EQ and call it a day!
Sorry, but it is clear why we always reach for vintage tube microphones in the studio. Not always but in this comparison it is clear. The WA 67 sounds good on its and is a very usable mic anyone who can´t afford expensive tube mics should buy. However, the original U67 has the sonic qualities that you want in an expensive tube mic, and the WA doesn´t. The male vocals and the drums made it very clear who the winner is.
Clear difference ..I use the Wa-47 an 251 wich I love both but heard the originals for the first time in a studio an instantly was wowed from the difference
Unfortunately it is very true. Even on the female vocals the lack of detail and the low-mid bump was very apparent compared to the vintage mic. On the male vocals it was even more apparent, very different beasts.
Who is this "we"? Does everyone reach for a Sony PMW-EX1 like I do when they want to record a video? Nope...they usually reach for their smart phone. The WA-67 is like a smartphone. Affordable for most and more than good enough to get the job done.
Congratulations to those who hear the difference... we're all very impressed. OF COURSE there's an audible difference between a 50-60 year-old mic and a completely re-engineered take on that mic! A fairer comparison would have been the WA-67 v. Neumann's re-issue. Also, a blind test would have eliminated some confirmation bias - a double blind test would be even better, but no audio retailer can do that when they have gear to sell. What I hear are two perfectly competent mics, both of which can do the job without much hassle. One may be better suited to a source than the other; but in terms of the entire recording process, it's splitting hairs, and we all know it. Keep telling yourself it matters... meanwhile, somebody with an AT4050 and a $300 USB interface is making the Next Big Thing in their bedroom.
Any mic test that involves a Neumann (or any other hero mic) HAS to be blind or you just end up with a comments thread full of people saying they can hear a massive and obvious difference.
The vintage sounded fuller in every single example but that being said, the WA held it’s own and is still a very clear and present mic. With a really good preamp, you’ll be recording platinum records all day! This video has convinced me to order a WA and it’s now on it way! Thank you!
Comments section proves to me that there's an unbelievable amount of snobbery in pro audio world, in a scientific double blind test there's pretty much no chance to reliably tell which one is which. And absolutely no one can tell the difference in the mix with all the processing. The difference is not 'massive' as some suggest, it's tiny, a few dB boost around 10kHz will yield the same result. It all really doesn't matter, what matters is music itself and musicians who record it. Praise WA for bringing to us all this equipment in affordable prices.
i m pretty sure, that enough people have the room acoustics and monitoring to reliably distinguish between the two. I only have a pair of tannoy reveal monitors in a semi-treated room and liked the neumann better on everything apart from the electric guitar (but even there i would have guessed which the neumann is). I actually did close my eyes for most of the comparisons and still heard a difference. But yes, the difference is so small, that considering the price difference the WA seems to be a great microphone, if you re looking for "that" sound and do not want to bankrupt yourself. Would go with a Stam Audio one though, imho (already have their u47 and u87 clones and love em).
The WA67 has a slightly higher noise floor according to reports. But in the end, most probably won’t hear the difference. The reason why the WA67 is so affordable is because they sell these microphones in large numbers all over the world. A small profit per each mic can add up. This mic is on my shopping list. The parts inside are high quality
Outstanding job Warm Audio.... On a day to day basis, if you swapped one for the other, no one would hear the difference. The only reason someone "may" tell the difference, because it's back to back, same voice, same recording conditions, at exactly the same time. I would go with the Warm Audio any day of the week after listening to this comparison. Nice job!
Listening in a treated room on big Focal studio monitors, you can certainly hear there is something magical in the vintage U67, especially in the dynamics between softness and loudness. The dynamics are treated like gold on the vintage one. The warm has something that almost wants to saturate the tube but not in that soothing pleasant way.
There really is a clear difference in the air on the U67 and the separation it creates in the low mid and air of its source. And tbh, its hard to try and create what isn't captured. I'd test the WA-67's reaction to air EQ. My gut is telling me some harshness could come up with it. Watching this impresses me with the U67 really. Someone mentioned attempting to get that extra 5-10% missing in the WA-67 with additional outboard gear but don't you buy great mics, build great rooms and capture great performances SO you don't have to overprocess to get a great sound. I'd just recommend a TLM 103 and keep it moving.
Wow, I generally have quite a few beefs against Warm, but listening to this with my good monitoring, I have to say they did quite an decent job on this mic. Of course, whether they sound the same is irrelevant because any pro can make music with both. And honestly, the differences between these two are less than the differences between two separate vintage 67s
Superb gear from Warm, but there's a nearly critical (albeit subtle) lack of congestion in the low mids and polish on the highs on the Neumann that give their mic the edge. It's just that little extra 10% that makes the difference. Both wonderful microphones, though.
Clearly it is a matter of nuances, the original sounds incredibly "warm", on the other hand Warm has again done a good job at a good price, a microphone that good processes can have great potential.
Warm sounds like a little more high end is rolled off, but that's actually what the frequency response on the spec sheet shows it should sound like, which is identical to the freq response of the vintage. Maybe the vintage has deviated from it's own original sound due to aging parts. Not that's it's a bad sounding deviation.
Warm Audio looks nice but it sounds like it needs to blow its nose. Sounds a little muffled. For that price range, you could get more value with something else (Lauten Audio comes to mind).
I know it's difficult to really get an absolute on youtube, but I listen with a pair of Sony 7506's and what i heard between the 2 singers is. IMHO, the warm is absolutely in the ballpark. The U67 sounded as though it had more detail. The subtle intricacies of the voice in the high mids. They both sound like they are representing the high "airy" freqs well, but in the area just below, where the presence of the vocal is, I could pick up more from the U67 where the Warm sounded a smidge darker. Maybe that's something a db or so on a nice EQ can be used to bring them closer, but TBH I think the Warm totally sounds like the U67. Prob very similar to the difference between 2 vintage 67's. For $900 vs 10K...ALL DAY LONG!!!! I mean if you wanted to get even closer to the Vintage 67 you can swap tubes, certain caps adjust the de-emphasis filter maybe and still be able to own 8/9 WA67's for the price of the Vintage mic. I think once you get passed what the warm mic isn't and focus on what it is, it's a slam dunk...Just an opinion from a Non Professional Mix engineer who aspires to have "Golden Ears" It sounds great to me, again for $900!
I got the files and opened them up in my DAW and did a blindshootout A/B randomly soloing and switching not knowing which i was listening to until I opened my eyes. Consistently the warm was darker on the top end than the u67 and the upper mids were slightly more tamed on the warm compared to the u67's. The lows were practically identical with a slight edge to the warm. The low mids is where the biggest difference was. In the low mids, there was a noticeable bump around the 300-500hz area. It caused a sort of pinched boxiness. To my ears, the wa67 sounds like what i'd imagine an old, heavily used u67 that hasn't been serviced in a long while, would sound like. If one could figure out how to fix that low mid issue, it would be an absolute steal.
The WA67 sounds very good to me it's a perfectly usable mic. The U67 is maybe a bit sweeter in the top end but honestly they are both within the range of EQ moves I'd typically do in a mix so it really wouldn't matter.
Am I the only one who thinks the grill makes a tiny difference? The Neumann grills have a very tight construction (replacement grill alone is around $500cdn, I've always been amazed at how beautifully constructed these mics are). The Warm mics have a more open grill; I've always noticed how much I can see the capsule through the grills of my Warm 47 and 47fet. Compared to the Neumann U87, with the Warms I find I have to back off a couple of inches from the mic (singing, I like to sing close-ish). I still love them, but I find them a little more touchy, and the Neumann being slightly more mellow. Either way, I am not complaining and I will likely try one of these U67s soon enough. I am a big fan of the Warm Audio stuff.
in this instance there would def be a clear winner, as in, I couldn't see a ton of people saying 'they both sound the same to me'. if I heard them knowing which mic they were FIRST, I could def pick them each time
Really really close between them. I don't think the loudness was set quite evenly. I did hear a slightly deeper bottom end on the drums (kick) with the vintage but both vocals were virtually indistinguishable.
Vintage u67 clean tight and punchy low end and silky smooth high end without any harsh and shrillyness . This thing will make big difference in the mix . But overall price to performance wa 67 is good deal 👍
First, yes, I can hear the difference in female and male vocals easily (but I can't tell on acoustic guitar, and didn't listen to electric), but it's tiny and the slightest bit of EQ would make them sound the same. But like someone said, if you put up another vintage U67, it would likely have more difference so there is little point in trying to match. UA-cam audio is far from perfect, but after my listening evaluation, I pulled the audio into an analyzer and the frequency response traces are virtually painted on top of each other for almost the entire range, except where I hear the difference-in the upper mids and up a bit, mainly the sibilant range. Even there it's an incredibly tiny difference, I'm surprise I could hear it. That said, the math here is easy, if it's down to these two mics for anyone (and I do love the sound of a U67 myself): 1) If you're a big-time studio billing high-ticket sessions, you buy the U67. People will be glad to pay for a studio that sports U67 and U47, Pultecs, etc. Duh. 2) If you're personal studio or small project studio, get the WA-67. Er, "duh". Sorry to be simply saying the obvious here, but with the price disparity, it's really that simple if you're convinced this is the sound for you. (Still, ideally I'd want to personally audition any mic, but that's my conclusion based on this video comparison.)
My dad's a construction worker with 'golden hands', as everyone always tells me. He's a carpenter officially, but he does everything else as well, like painting, laying bricks... EVERYTHING!! I'm a guitar player officialy, but I also sing, play the bass, keyboards, a bit of drums; etc and I'd like to compare something my father once told me to this. He said: "I've got way better equipment at my disposal at work, but at home, I just use cheap stuff from our local mall (LOL). It takes me a bit longer to get stuff done, but at least I get stuff done in the end using cheap equipment. If you dó need the expensive stuff we use at work, you're not that much of a construction worker." LOL He said something like that 10 years ago. That's all I'm gonna say and hey... the Warm stuff isn't even cheap, apart from the WA-47Jr. Just EXCELLENT mics!
I think the big thing people are missing here is that by the time you get your vocal ADDED IN with the instruments in a song,mix it,master it,then get it squashed by Spotify,Itunes,Amazon and UA-cam ,can the average end user tell the difference listening through some $40 earbuds? If you're worried about it frequency response,buy the Warm, a Neve Portico II ,and you still save $3K over the new Neumann U-67. The warm gets the job done.
Great mics. For the money the WA67 is a killer. Honestly the Neumann U67 sound more 3D and the WA67 2D. The WA67 is a little duller too but nothing a little eq can't solve.
It’s clear all of you just be rich ? Because you must be a fool to spend $8,000 on a vintage mic to be in debt when you can easily get an alternative 67 that hits the spot. If you are smart, you would be better getting a telefunken mic for $1,400.
The Warm sounds equally good as the u67 on the female vocals. On male vocals (at least in this example) the Warm is so far behind the u67 that it's ridiculous. The guitars are similar enough that it doesn't matter which one you use, and none of them are better than the other on that one. But on the drum example, the u67 was just a lot nicer sounding.
That vintage Neumann sure sounds good on the drums. I can hear more low-mids. All the modern mikes including Neumann seem a tad brighter with a little less heft in the 350hz ranger
Great comparison. I do hear a slight differens but I'm thinking - does the WA-67 come straight out of the box? What about burn-in. My headphones sounded pretty stiff and disappointing first 20-30 hours but improved considerably later on. It would be interesting to hear the same comparison after 100h usage. WA-67 seem to be great value, no doubt.
I like Warm. I think they do a very respectable job with a lot of their stuff. Their mics are very usable. In this comparison you can hear the higher quality of the Neumann 67. But the Warm 67 is good. There're plenty of clone microphones out there, that when compared to the real things, sound bad, like there's something wrong with them. I have yet to experience that with Warm. I think they're doing a great service for people that don't have a lot of money but want to record things at a respectable level of quality.
Not even close. The Neumann has clarity and definition in every frequency while imparting. a sense of place. And it's a beautiful warm ,open clear place. The singer is present sounding. The Neumann puts you in the room with the music. The Warm does not. . For around $1000 you can get an iconic mic that is not a knock off that will stay in your mic locker forever.
Yes the U67 sounds better. No surprise. However, for the price, the WA-67 is a nice buy. It's in the sonic ballpark. Just lacking a bit of that detail, heft and dynamic tolerance of a Neumann. Even in a blind test you'll pick out the Neumann. Still, it's pretty good work squaring up with a legend and I could definitely see myself buying one. The CX-12, WA-251 and WA-47 R2 models are pretty good too. If they keep improving and keep their prices right, they could really make some noise in the market. I like these guys.
I thought Warm did a great job. For me the vocals were both captured with the 'weight' you would certainly expect from the original high end Neuman and the subtle differences could easily be tweaked in the pre or channel strip to get it exactly where you want it. I thought the drums were clearly different. I wondered if the placement was different until they showed it wasn't. The Neuman sounded way crispier to me. That would require a little more than 'tweaks' to match up. Vocally I would use the Warm mic for sure at the price point and by another Manley Core with the change! 🤣 (but seriously it sounds great to me in its own space.)
Warm Audio was very close....the U67 had a bit more detail on top and a tighter, punchier low end on the kick drum. But damn...Warm Audio is totally worth buying at a fraction of the cost.
I almost actually prefer the WA 67 on yhe Female vocals because of the slight presence lift. To me it feels like its not as smooth, but its almost as if it is more detailed. Either way, i love 67s in fact they are my favorite mics and i think that this would be a great piece of competition in the mic locker for sure. Great job WARM AUDIO 👌😉
the difference between these is narrow HF spikes that are smoothed out in the official spec sheets but are more prominent in the WA than the U67. They're very very close, but Neumann's capsule manufacturing and headbasket design has just had more time to cook
@@beigela none of them are perfect because Neumann aggressively guards a lot of the design decisions that makesl the high end this smooth. You can get circuit clone and stuff but nobody does things like the baffle to head basket reflections etc quite right. At what price?
I notice some differences, high end is harsh on the warm audio compared to the vintage. Also transients are more present on the U67… and I’m not even listening on my monitors right now which will show even more differences! Stam audio made a better clone imo. That being said, it’s not a bad mic by any means. But i feel it is slightly different in how it reacts to things than an actual U67. I noticed way more differences on the male vocal than the female vocal too. Acoustic guitar showed waaay more differences in regards to transient response and how it reacts the vintage is way more 3D. I felt this was most present on the drums, the ghost notes felt more present on the vintage than the warm. It’s probably more sensitive as a result. That’s why people choose it. These days I’ll say that clones are getting really close to the real thing. But the transient response and sensitivity is why professionals buy these mics, it isn’t for the frequency response. It’s for the transparency they give.
This is a super obvious difference. The Warm doesn't sound bad...but pretty wooly and would definitely need some help in post. The U67 has such a beautiful sparkle on the top end and sounds final mix ready from the start!
pretty close! biggest difference between the original and WA67 can be heard on male voice, acoustic guitar, and drums. theres just a really nice extension of the lows and detailed highs on the original that isn't in the clone.
I’m glad VK finally got Warm Audio in their lineup, I feel like at first they thought it wasn’t up to par for the level of gear they carry, but it’s undeniable that the hardware and mics are good and I especially like them because they made hardware accessible to me which led to me getting into more high end stuff later. Great shoootout and I will be ordering a WA87 now.
Seems like a great budget choice. I’ll definitely pick one up for guitars and if I like it maybe a second one for stereo. For vocals it seems more like a place holder mic till you can get something more on par with the vintage.
I was in the market for a U87 mic and tested out their WA-87 and the Stam SA-87. The Stam won hands down. Not as bright and brittle.This here sounds better though.
Sadly I agree. Just not a fan of Stam audio anymore. Paid deposit on a Buss comp over a year ago and nothing but “sorry’s” with every attempt to get my device or refund.
nice try WA! vintage u67 has those "in da face" sound, looks like it just has more highs. Not bad but WA-87 is much closer to vintage U87. Also those "neumann 2.5 kHz" which sounds awfull on vocals IMHO.
lol, there's a build-up in the mids alright. I wonder is it the head basket or construction. Neumann spent a lot on R&D to ensure a clean neutral sound with a great off-axis response. Warm doesn't seem to put much effort into this. I have the WA84 & it's a decent mic. I also got their 414 clone & while it sounds great on one source I haven't had the chance to see how it deals with spill, (it's got a weird head basket).
Good observation. They do sound slightly different. I wonder though if that has anything to do with the age of the electronics. I have to assume that that's why big expensive consoles have their electronics replaced periodically to maintain their sound. Just a thought.
Exactly. I am pretty biased toward the WA67 cause ill never afford a real u67 but i have to admit the wa67 has boxiness in the low mids and has a slight peakyness around 4-6k. I wonder if zenpros mod will fix this and changing the tube
I didn't find the WA to do that well with the vocals or the acoustic guitar. There was a mid-range richness missing as the U67 captured this very well. Something I don't feel an EQ can achieve because the mids were there, but harsh. An EQ would just boost the harshness or subtract the fullness. In all fairness, both mics didn't handle the high notes that well, but the mid-range was to die for on the U67. As far as the high notes, this is where a C12 or C800 would be your friend. I found the WA to be strange sounding on the vocal and boxy on the ac gut. However, the electric guitar sounded almost indistinguishable between the two mics and this is where I truly love the u67. I think the WA excels here. The drums sound great as well, but I could definitely tell a difference in the high-frequency content. Possibly a 1-2 db boost at 5-6k and you have a similar result. But I don't think that high-hat sound with the U67 is going to be recreated with the WA. For a mic that is more than 10k less, I would say this is worth it. Put a real 67 capsule and a vintage tube in it and you probably change the game with the WA and still be 9k or more or less. My 2 cents.
I was thinking something similar...klaus heyne goes into detail, from his point of view, regarding how Neumann missed the mark with their own recreation of this mic. He basically concluded, if memory serves, get a NOS tube, original capsule and power supply and the reissue sounds as good...again from his perspective..as a vintage 67. But Neumann 67 reissue is almost 7k and this mic is 900...get this ALL DAY LONG mess with it and you'll have a vintage 67 for pennies...or spend crazy $ on things the average listener will NEVER hear...I don't know. I love warm and what they're doing. I will prob get this mic just to play with it...Thanks WA!!
On the vocals I preferred the wa. On the drums and guitar, the opposite but to warms credit, the differences could be recovered in post. I have purchased the warm mic and replaced the factory tube with a vintage nos telefunken and I couldn't be happier for roughly 1100$ out of pocket. Bravo for this test and all the comments.
They're incredibly close (and yes we can all hear the difference, we're very special). But controversially I think I actually prefer the tone of the WA-67.
It doesn't compare to the genuine feeling of the sound the original adds. It's close to the sound but it's like the difference between vinyl and cd. The WA-67 is lively and the U67 is cured and settled in.
$900 vs $7,000. Hmmmm.. Could you notice the $6,100 (plus taxes) difference in the sound, after EQ, etc., through the a mix, then through .mp3? Only the highest grade audio equipment would "hear" any difference, and only then under in right sound environment.
For those that want that warmth and feel, that archaic groove. For under $1000. This should be a hit with anyone. It looks and sounds. Just like every other tube LDC. But at a great price point. I just sold both my pairs of original 67's & 87's and my KM-56 & 86's. That I've had since the early 1980s. And with the original Telephunken tubes. Because nothing else made. Sounded like a Telephunken tube. As I purchased in pairs. And tried them all. When they were still being manufactured. By the American manufacturers. And every one. Every single one including the newer Russian and Chinese offerings. Sound like total crap. Compared to an original Telephunken EF-86 pentode tube. Nothing makes any difference anymore. A hit? What's a hit? Label? What's a label? Whatever happened to Levi's bluejeans? Whatever happened to Jordache jeans? What happened to 3M Scotch reel to reel recording tape? What happened to the Marlborough Man? Right he died from lung cancer. So has our industry. So if you like those 3.0 Mil thickness mylar diaphragms? This microphone was made for you. If you miss that thicker sound of the famous Neumann 6.0 Mil mylar diaphragm? Oh well. Better just get a reissue U-67 from Neumann. Which will cost you approximately 5X times more. And then you'll get that authentic sound. Because I told them to reissue it some years ago back in 2012. And lo and behold they listened to me. I spoke to them in great depth. I said you shouldn't have released the TL M--67. You're not supposed to charge less for a 67 then you do for your 87. I told them. They gave me this excuse. Yeah but it's the cost of the transformers. I said you have devalued my pair of vintage original Neumann U-67's by your actions. I suggest we release the 67 and charge more for it than the 87. And so they discussed it and now they do. And I spoke with a couple of their officials in-depth. Back in 2012. And I said that was just a variable pattern TL M-103. And they realized I was right. So only an original 67. Sounds like a 67. Because it is one. Then for those discerning recordists and artists, in the know. Know what they want. It's like you won't find Paul McCartney on one of these imitations. He only uses the old originals. Because they have THAT sound. That can be imitated but never duplicated. Not even with the new Fake American Telephunken micro noise-O-phone's. And because only an actual real U-47 with the original tube. Sounds like a U-47. And nothing else comes close. When you've had your hands on the original. And you've used the original. Everything is just a lousy imitation. Like as in, lousy. As in not even really, imitative. As in, amateur hour hyped. Oh boy oh boy I got a 47 I got a 47!!! Sorry, no you didn't. You got a Chinese fortune cookie that read. One day you shall own fake Chinese 47. You have to be careful what you wish for. It's fake. It's going to sound, fake. Because it is. But hey a usable addition to anybody's, bedroom home studio. Plugged into an imitation Neve. Plugged into an imitation 1176. And nobody will know the difference. Of that you can be certain. And you say yup. That's my 47 and my 1176 plugged into my Neve. And the stupid little children will believe you. But only because it essentially was just that. And for anybody who's not owned the originals like I have in their entirety. As in big. As in lots of. As in one of the world's greatest control rooms, ever. Like in the movie only better. By Dave Grohl from 2013 about a Sound City place to be. Back in Van Nuys, California. During a record-setting and grungy period of time. But I'm selling everything and going for the knockoffs. You can't go wrong. Get some completely empty 500 racks. With external power supply. And design and create your own audio console. You'll have fun with the effects sends, channel bussing, solo and muting system. That's a lot more 500 modules. But hey that's how they do it at API. And have since the late 1960s. Now it's all DIY. And 500 series racks are the way to go. Start small. End, Big and bloated. Start with 2 inputs. Maybe stop at, 48. Some people want more. Bob Clearmountain has 72. I think CLA has the same. So you really shan't be needing more than, 72. I don't want to go more than 48. Because I'm old. I need both of my hands now to count up to 48. Four fingers on one hand and eight on the other. Though I haven't gotten the trick to that yet. And prefer to keep it under, 36. But I'll do more than that by request. And more money. A lot more money. Because then it gets into this word called, work. Just another four letter word I like to stay away from. Recording Engineer flows off the tongue so much more nicely. Ya know? Don't Bogart that joint! RemyRAD
The vintage U 67 reproduces noticeably more detail. The WA 67 sounds muddy by comparison. It’s not bad- but it isn’t worth $900. The WA 414 is a better microphone, closer to the original AKG 414, at a more attractive price point. Or- pick up a used AKG B ULS reference mic in good shape for the same price as a new WA 67, and have a world-class mic that blows all of Warm Audio’s mics away.
Hard to believe the Warm Audio will sound anywhere near as good a real vintage U67. I already fell for their ploy when I got their U47. It was super noisy and sounded bad. Had to re-record vocals on an album, sold it, and got a Lauten Audio ATLANTIS. The Atlantis is MUCH better in every way. No more WA for me.
The U67 sounded better on every single clip. The WA-67 is a little more sibilant and harsh, the high end is not as nice. But it does get close and for a very reasonable price. If you need a budget mic, this is a great choice. But I prefer the original (or even the TLM 67) if money is not a factor.
It looks too shiny with the Chinese Capsule. The interior work was not too neat. With that being said, it sounds similar to the Neumann. The U67 has a little weighter sound and smoother top. I like the U67 better even though I cannot afford one
Neumann U67 Vintage is like Michael Jackson or Mozart. You may be able to remake his songs, but you are not Michael Jackson or Mozart. Primary engineering always has secrets that are only current in the mind of the creator
I'm listening to these on a pair of DT770s right now. Not much a difference. The most difference I could hear was on the Male Vocal. The Warm was a little less warm. I'm a huge fan of the WA47, this mic sounds really good though.
The male vocals show the differences massively. The Vintage 67 sounds WAY more open/airier/not muffled. The Warm sounds kinda pinched off. The Vintage 67 makes the vocal jump out of the speakers with seemingly less effort. I'm not saying the Warm sounds bad, but for the life of me, I'm always blown away by people who can't tell the difference when you hear them back to back in immediate comparison!
The warm mic had more background noise / low static and the u 67 was crystal clear no noise at all you can really here the noise In the male vocals . But I guess that's why the u67 is much more money .
Both are great sounding mics and I would happily use either. As a traveler on the never-ending road of trying to record my own music as beautifully as possible, I've come to believe a really well-written song performed by creative and talented musicians will sound amazing even on 'budget' equipment. Still would love to own either one!
warm makes a ton of solid products. super impressed by the 251, 47, and 84 (have all of them). this doesn't seem to compare to the real 67 in any of the nuances that make that mic so venerable
The last example on drums really showed up the sweet highs of the vintage Neumann on the snare. The Warm mic didn't go down without a fight, it just didn't have that magic.
The WA-67 is impressive for the money. That said, the difference in sound between it and the U67 is apparent. I suspect what I hear is mainly due to the capsule. It would be interesting to swap out the capsule for a Thiersch and redo the test (under $300).
They don't really sound super similar to me but it's hard to say without a 3rd reference. Generally the Warm has more boomy lows and a certain pronounced high (the croaky part of the male vocal). It sounds scooped compared to the U67. While everyone mentioned that the Neumann has "more" highs, they're noticeably smoother. The transients are also much more tamed and smooth on the U67 (listen to the electric guitar at beginning of the passage). I used to own a U67 and that frequency response, transient shape and especially room bleed is rarely heard elsewhere.
To be honest, yes the Neumann sounds like a Neumann but most of us here can tell the difference because we are studio professionals or have had direct use with the U67. The Warm Audio is remarkably similar, I would say close to 90% and in fact I would argue that the difference is almost negligible if cost is a factor. Practically speaking, I will choose the Warm Audio and challenge myself to bring in the 10%.
I have to rescind my previous statement. I ended up buying one, with the intent on testing it and I have to say it has become my go to mic for vocals. I do a fairly extensive vocal test for new artists to find the right mic for them, as I have the WA47', WA251', and SM7B, and this mic the WA67' has become my vocal mic go to for artists who are reminiscent of Wilson Picket to artists that sound a bit like Greg Allman, to female singers who are of a softer spoken vibe. It is truly fantastic for the price, and I am not sending it back.
Since you have and used both - Is the Wa67 worth the extra $100 over the Wa251 for vocalist? What's the main difference you heard between both
On the vocal stuff, the vintage seems to be airier and more "open" - consistent with a bump in the 10 kHz or so range. But there's also an issue here that the vocals don't seem to be matched for loudness, with the Warm takes having a lower volume. The combination of the higher volume and the boost on the vintage plays to the advantage of the latter. But it seems pretty clear to me that with a bit of work (eq) you could make the Warm sound exactly like the vintage.
Differences are minimum, but the price tag is waaaaay different. If you cannot cut awesome tracks with a WA67, a U67 won't help you.
I've heard very good original, vintage U-67's and I've heard Ok ones. These old mics are vulnerable. I played a 60's Strat the other day which sounded crap. Old tube amps are the same story. Just because it's vintage doesn't mean it's going to sound like magic. The Beatles would have sounded just as good with a Warm Audio mic, I'm sure of that. I would buy a WA-67 and invest in a top mic cable and a very good tube pre-amp.
The vintage mic definitely has more air and openness.
Solution: Buy the Warm...then every preamp and compressor Warm makes...invest the change in bitcoins.
As I hear in all the warm audio mics vs the originals it seems the vintage models have more boost in the 10k-12k area that makes it sound sweeter to my ears. For the money I would pick the Warm mic and with the extra $9,000 in savings just buy a outboard EQ and call it a day!
Sorry, but it is clear why we always reach for vintage tube microphones in the studio. Not always but in this comparison it is clear. The WA 67 sounds good on its and is a very usable mic anyone who can´t afford expensive tube mics should buy. However, the original U67 has the sonic qualities that you want in an expensive tube mic, and the WA doesn´t. The male vocals and the drums made it very clear who the winner is.
Clear difference ..I use the Wa-47 an 251 wich I love both but heard the originals for the first time in a studio an instantly was wowed from the difference
Unfortunately it is very true. Even on the female vocals the lack of detail and the low-mid bump was very apparent compared to the vintage mic. On the male vocals it was even more apparent, very different beasts.
Who is this "we"? Does everyone reach for a Sony PMW-EX1 like I do when they want to record a video? Nope...they usually reach for their smart phone.
The WA-67 is like a smartphone. Affordable for most and more than good enough to get the job done.
Congratulations to those who hear the difference... we're all very impressed. OF COURSE there's an audible difference between a 50-60 year-old mic and a completely re-engineered take on that mic!
A fairer comparison would have been the WA-67 v. Neumann's re-issue. Also, a blind test would have eliminated some confirmation bias - a double blind test would be even better, but no audio retailer can do that when they have gear to sell.
What I hear are two perfectly competent mics, both of which can do the job without much hassle. One may be better suited to a source than the other; but in terms of the entire recording process, it's splitting hairs, and we all know it. Keep telling yourself it matters... meanwhile, somebody with an AT4050 and a $300 USB interface is making the Next Big Thing in their bedroom.
Thank god there is a difference between two microphones with such a different price tag, but also thank god that a
Any mic test that involves a Neumann (or any other hero mic) HAS to be blind or you just end up with a comments thread full of people saying they can hear a massive and obvious difference.
Preach
The vintage sounded fuller in every single example but that being said, the WA held it’s own and is still a very clear and present mic. With a really good preamp, you’ll be recording platinum records all day! This video has convinced me to order a WA and it’s now on it way! Thank you!
Comments section proves to me that there's an unbelievable amount of snobbery in pro audio world, in a scientific double blind test there's pretty much no chance to reliably tell which one is which. And absolutely no one can tell the difference in the mix with all the processing. The difference is not 'massive' as some suggest, it's tiny, a few dB boost around 10kHz will yield the same result. It all really doesn't matter, what matters is music itself and musicians who record it. Praise WA for bringing to us all this equipment in affordable prices.
i m pretty sure, that enough people have the room acoustics and monitoring to reliably distinguish between the two. I only have a pair of tannoy reveal monitors in a semi-treated room and liked the neumann better on everything apart from the electric guitar (but even there i would have guessed which the neumann is). I actually did close my eyes for most of the comparisons and still heard a difference.
But yes, the difference is so small, that considering the price difference the WA seems to be a great microphone, if you re looking for "that" sound and do not want to bankrupt yourself. Would go with a Stam Audio one though, imho (already have their u47 and u87 clones and love em).
The WA67 has a slightly higher noise floor according to reports. But in the end, most probably won’t hear the difference. The reason why the WA67 is so affordable is because they sell these microphones in large numbers all over the world. A small profit per each mic can add up. This mic is on my shopping list. The parts inside are high quality
Outstanding job Warm Audio.... On a day to day basis, if you swapped one for the other, no one would hear the difference. The only reason someone "may" tell the difference, because it's back to back, same voice, same recording conditions, at exactly the same time. I would go with the Warm Audio any day of the week after listening to this comparison. Nice job!
Listening in a treated room on big Focal studio monitors, you can certainly hear there is something magical in the vintage U67, especially in the dynamics between softness and loudness. The dynamics are treated like gold on the vintage one. The warm has something that almost wants to saturate the tube but not in that soothing pleasant way.
There really is a clear difference in the air on the U67 and the separation it creates in the low mid and air of its source. And tbh, its hard to try and create what isn't captured. I'd test the WA-67's reaction to air EQ. My gut is telling me some harshness could come up with it. Watching this impresses me with the U67 really. Someone mentioned attempting to get that extra 5-10% missing in the WA-67 with additional outboard gear but don't you buy great mics, build great rooms and capture great performances SO you don't have to overprocess to get a great sound. I'd just recommend a TLM 103 and keep it moving.
I think Warm can pat themselves on the back with this Mic... There are differences but wow could a punter hear it?
Wow, I generally have quite a few beefs against Warm, but listening to this with my good monitoring, I have to say they did quite an decent job on this mic. Of course, whether they sound the same is irrelevant because any pro can make music with both. And honestly, the differences between these two are less than the differences between two separate vintage 67s
WA needs a high end boost, but they sound close enough.
WARM
3:01 - 3:18
Neumann
3:56 - 4:14
The vintage might have sounded similar when its was 60 years younger ?
Exactly.
Superb gear from Warm, but there's a nearly critical (albeit subtle) lack of congestion in the low mids and polish on the highs on the Neumann that give their mic the edge. It's just that little extra 10% that makes the difference. Both wonderful microphones, though.
Listen to the hihats on the vintage 67: exquisite! The warm audio mic is beautiful though :)
Clearly it is a matter of nuances, the original sounds incredibly "warm", on the other hand Warm has again done a good job at a good price, a microphone that good processes can have great potential.
Warm sounds like a little more high end is rolled off, but that's actually what the frequency response on the spec sheet shows it should sound like, which is identical to the freq response of the vintage. Maybe the vintage has deviated from it's own original sound due to aging parts. Not that's it's a bad sounding deviation.
The warm sounds like it has a blanket over it.
It sounds .... warmer.
My ear's heard the same thing. It's not even close.
Warm Audio looks nice but it sounds like it needs to blow its nose. Sounds a little muffled. For that price range, you could get more value with something else (Lauten Audio comes to mind).
I know it's difficult to really get an absolute on youtube, but I listen with a pair of Sony 7506's and what i heard between the 2 singers is. IMHO, the warm is absolutely in the ballpark. The U67 sounded as though it had more detail. The subtle intricacies of the voice in the high mids. They both sound like they are representing the high "airy" freqs well, but in the area just below, where the presence of the vocal is, I could pick up more from the U67 where the Warm sounded a smidge darker. Maybe that's something a db or so on a nice EQ can be used to bring them closer, but TBH I think the Warm totally sounds like the U67. Prob very similar to the difference between 2 vintage 67's. For $900 vs 10K...ALL DAY LONG!!!! I mean if you wanted to get even closer to the Vintage 67 you can swap tubes, certain caps adjust the de-emphasis filter maybe and still be able to own 8/9 WA67's for the price of the Vintage mic. I think once you get passed what the warm mic isn't and focus on what it is, it's a slam dunk...Just an opinion from a Non Professional Mix engineer who aspires to have "Golden Ears" It sounds great to me, again for $900!
I got the files and opened them up in my DAW and did a blindshootout A/B randomly soloing and switching not knowing which i was listening to until I opened my eyes.
Consistently the warm was darker on the top end than the u67 and the upper mids were slightly more tamed on the warm compared to the u67's. The lows were practically identical with a slight edge to the warm. The low mids is where the biggest difference was. In the low mids, there was a noticeable bump around the 300-500hz area. It caused a sort of pinched boxiness.
To my ears, the wa67 sounds like what i'd imagine an old, heavily used u67 that hasn't been serviced in a long while, would sound like. If one could figure out how to fix that low mid issue, it would be an absolute steal.
The WA67 sounds very good to me it's a perfectly usable mic. The U67 is maybe a bit sweeter in the top end but honestly they are both within the range of EQ moves I'd typically do in a mix so it really wouldn't matter.
Am I the only one who thinks the grill makes a tiny difference? The Neumann grills have a very tight construction (replacement grill alone is around $500cdn, I've always been amazed at how beautifully constructed these mics are). The Warm mics have a more open grill; I've always noticed how much I can see the capsule through the grills of my Warm 47 and 47fet. Compared to the Neumann U87, with the Warms I find I have to back off a couple of inches from the mic (singing, I like to sing close-ish). I still love them, but I find them a little more touchy, and the Neumann being slightly more mellow. Either way, I am not complaining and I will likely try one of these U67s soon enough. I am a big fan of the Warm Audio stuff.
I bet that if you did a blind A/B test, few folks would be able to correctly identify which is the vintage U67. Great job, Warm Audio!
Stfu
in this instance there would def be a clear winner, as in, I couldn't see a ton of people saying 'they both sound the same to me'. if I heard them knowing which mic they were FIRST, I could def pick them each time
Really really close between them. I don't think the loudness was set quite evenly. I did hear a slightly deeper bottom end on the drums (kick) with the vintage but both vocals were virtually indistinguishable.
Nah not even close
If I hadn't heard the Neumann I would have been happy with the Warm to make a good record. But the differences are clear.
wa-67 vs wa-251 is it worth it for extra $100?
Call it a placebo effect but the Vintage one has more presence and just captures you more. The wa sounds flat.
Vintage u67 clean tight and punchy low end and silky smooth high end without any harsh and shrillyness . This thing will make big difference in the mix . But overall price to performance wa 67 is good deal 👍
First, yes, I can hear the difference in female and male vocals easily (but I can't tell on acoustic guitar, and didn't listen to electric), but it's tiny and the slightest bit of EQ would make them sound the same. But like someone said, if you put up another vintage U67, it would likely have more difference so there is little point in trying to match. UA-cam audio is far from perfect, but after my listening evaluation, I pulled the audio into an analyzer and the frequency response traces are virtually painted on top of each other for almost the entire range, except where I hear the difference-in the upper mids and up a bit, mainly the sibilant range. Even there it's an incredibly tiny difference, I'm surprise I could hear it.
That said, the math here is easy, if it's down to these two mics for anyone (and I do love the sound of a U67 myself): 1) If you're a big-time studio billing high-ticket sessions, you buy the U67. People will be glad to pay for a studio that sports U67 and U47, Pultecs, etc. Duh. 2) If you're personal studio or small project studio, get the WA-67. Er, "duh". Sorry to be simply saying the obvious here, but with the price disparity, it's really that simple if you're convinced this is the sound for you. (Still, ideally I'd want to personally audition any mic, but that's my conclusion based on this video comparison.)
My dad's a construction worker with 'golden hands', as everyone always tells me. He's a carpenter officially, but he does everything else as well, like painting, laying bricks... EVERYTHING!! I'm a guitar player officialy, but I also sing, play the bass, keyboards, a bit of drums; etc and I'd like to compare something my father once told me to this. He said:
"I've got way better equipment at my disposal at work, but at home, I just use cheap stuff from our local mall (LOL). It takes me a bit longer to get stuff done, but at least I get stuff done in the end using cheap equipment. If you dó need the expensive stuff we use at work, you're not that much of a construction worker." LOL He said something like that 10 years ago. That's all I'm gonna say and hey... the Warm stuff isn't even cheap, apart from the WA-47Jr. Just EXCELLENT mics!
Huge difference in the 80hz response on the drum comparison. Punch with the Nuemann none with the Warm,
I think the big thing people are missing here is that by the time you get your vocal ADDED IN with the instruments in a song,mix it,master it,then get it squashed by Spotify,Itunes,Amazon and UA-cam ,can the average end user tell the difference listening through some $40 earbuds? If you're worried about it frequency response,buy the Warm, a Neve Portico II ,and you still save $3K over the new Neumann U-67. The warm gets the job done.
Great mics. For the money the WA67 is a killer. Honestly the Neumann U67 sound more 3D and the WA67 2D. The WA67 is a little duller too but nothing a little eq can't solve.
It’s clear all of you just be rich ? Because you must be a fool to spend $8,000 on a vintage mic to be in debt when you can easily get an alternative 67 that hits the spot. If you are smart, you would be better getting a telefunken mic for $1,400.
The Warm sounds equally good as the u67 on the female vocals. On male vocals (at least in this example) the Warm is so far behind the u67 that it's ridiculous. The guitars are similar enough that it doesn't matter which one you use, and none of them are better than the other on that one. But on the drum example, the u67 was just a lot nicer sounding.
There’s something wrong with my ears. The vintage Neumann sounds “boxy” to me compared to the new Warm Audio cheapish clone. 🤷🏽♂️
That vintage Neumann sure sounds good on the drums. I can hear more low-mids. All the modern mikes including Neumann seem a tad brighter with a little less heft in the 350hz ranger
Great comparison. I do hear a slight differens but I'm thinking - does the WA-67 come straight out of the box? What about burn-in. My headphones sounded pretty stiff and disappointing first 20-30 hours but improved considerably later on. It would be interesting to hear the same comparison after 100h usage. WA-67 seem to be great value, no doubt.
I like Warm. I think they do a very respectable job with a lot of their stuff. Their mics are very usable. In this comparison you can hear the higher quality of the Neumann 67. But the Warm 67 is good. There're plenty of clone microphones out there, that when compared to the real things, sound bad, like there's something wrong with them. I have yet to experience that with Warm. I think they're doing a great service for people that don't have a lot of money but want to record things at a respectable level of quality.
Not even close. The Neumann has clarity and definition in every frequency while imparting. a sense of place. And it's a beautiful warm ,open clear place. The singer is present sounding. The Neumann puts you in the room with the music. The Warm does not. . For around $1000 you can get an iconic mic that is not a knock off that will stay in your mic locker forever.
Yes the U67 sounds better. No surprise.
However, for the price, the WA-67 is a nice buy.
It's in the sonic ballpark. Just lacking a bit of that detail, heft and dynamic tolerance of a Neumann.
Even in a blind test you'll pick out the Neumann. Still, it's pretty good work squaring up with a legend and I could definitely see myself buying one. The CX-12, WA-251 and WA-47 R2 models are pretty good too. If they keep improving and keep their prices right, they could really make some noise in the market. I like these guys.
I thought Warm did a great job. For me the vocals were both captured with the 'weight' you would certainly expect from the original high end Neuman and the subtle differences could easily be tweaked in the pre or channel strip to get it exactly where you want it. I thought the drums were clearly different. I wondered if the placement was different until they showed it wasn't. The Neuman sounded way crispier to me. That would require a little more than 'tweaks' to match up. Vocally I would use the Warm mic for sure at the price point and by another Manley Core with the change! 🤣 (but seriously it sounds great to me in its own space.)
Warm Audio was very close....the U67 had a bit more detail on top and a tighter, punchier low end on the kick drum. But damn...Warm Audio is totally worth buying at a fraction of the cost.
Awesome. Good alternative.
I almost actually prefer the WA 67 on yhe Female vocals because of the slight presence lift. To me it feels like its not as smooth, but its almost as if it is more detailed. Either way, i love 67s in fact they are my favorite mics and i think that this would be a great piece of competition in the mic locker for sure. Great job WARM AUDIO 👌😉
U67 is more focused and tight mid. WA67 slightly less focus slightly more high than mid to my ears.
the difference between these is narrow HF spikes that are smoothed out in the official spec sheets but are more prominent in the WA than the U67. They're very very close, but Neumann's capsule manufacturing and headbasket design has just had more time to cook
you have a preferred U67 clone?
@@beigela none of them are perfect because Neumann aggressively guards a lot of the design decisions that makesl the high end this smooth. You can get circuit clone and stuff but nobody does things like the baffle to head basket reflections etc quite right. At what price?
I notice some differences, high end is harsh on the warm audio compared to the vintage. Also transients are more present on the U67… and I’m not even listening on my monitors right now which will show even more differences! Stam audio made a better clone imo. That being said, it’s not a bad mic by any means. But i feel it is slightly different in how it reacts to things than an actual U67. I noticed way more differences on the male vocal than the female vocal too. Acoustic guitar showed waaay more differences in regards to transient response and how it reacts the vintage is way more 3D. I felt this was most present on the drums, the ghost notes felt more present on the vintage than the warm. It’s probably more sensitive as a result. That’s why people choose it. These days I’ll say that clones are getting really close to the real thing. But the transient response and sensitivity is why professionals buy these mics, it isn’t for the frequency response. It’s for the transparency they give.
The U67 is more fine and transpoerts the Vox emotions better. WA67 is more agressive, but does a good Job as well, but Qualirywise cant compare.
The U67 sounds a tad warmer, and more breathy. That could come down to the EF86 tube. They vary a lot.
This is a super obvious difference. The Warm doesn't sound bad...but pretty wooly and would definitely need some help in post. The U67 has such a beautiful sparkle on the top end and sounds final mix ready from the start!
Keep doing these shootouts!!!! I love it.
The WA really is warmer and doesn't have the same top as the Neumann. The drums were night and day.
Vintage U67 win
It's very close -kudos!
pretty close! biggest difference between the original and WA67 can be heard on male voice, acoustic guitar, and drums. theres just a really nice extension of the lows and detailed highs on the original that isn't in the clone.
BIG difference on drums. go figure. thanks!
I’m glad VK finally got Warm Audio in their lineup, I feel like at first they thought it wasn’t up to par for the level of gear they carry, but it’s undeniable that the hardware and mics are good and I especially like them because they made hardware accessible to me which led to me getting into more high end stuff later. Great shoootout and I will be ordering a WA87 now.
if you are going for a mic that emulate other, why not buy the sphere or antelope or slate
Seems like a great budget choice. I’ll definitely pick one up for guitars and if I like it maybe a second one for stereo. For vocals it seems more like a place holder mic till you can get something more on par with the vintage.
I was in the market for a U87 mic and tested out their WA-87 and the Stam SA-87. The Stam won hands down. Not as bright and brittle.This here sounds better though.
Sadly I agree. Just not a fan of Stam audio anymore. Paid deposit on a Buss comp over a year ago and nothing but “sorry’s” with every attempt to get my device or refund.
I liked the female vocal on the warm audio..
nice try WA! vintage u67 has those "in da face" sound, looks like it just has more highs. Not bad but WA-87 is much closer to vintage U87. Also those "neumann 2.5 kHz" which sounds awfull on vocals IMHO.
WA-67 sounds like singer is in a cardboard box...
lol, there's a build-up in the mids alright. I wonder is it the head basket or construction. Neumann spent a lot on R&D to ensure a clean neutral sound with a great off-axis response. Warm doesn't seem to put much effort into this. I have the WA84 & it's a decent mic. I also got their 414 clone & while it sounds great on one source I haven't had the chance to see how it deals with spill, (it's got a weird head basket).
You are joking, right?
Good observation. They do sound slightly different. I wonder though if that has anything to do with the age of the electronics. I have to assume that that's why big expensive consoles have their electronics replaced periodically to maintain their sound. Just a thought.
Exactly. I am pretty biased toward the WA67 cause ill never afford a real u67 but i have to admit the wa67 has boxiness in the low mids and has a slight peakyness around 4-6k. I wonder if zenpros mod will fix this and changing the tube
lol
Placebo effect on Comment Section.
Guitars sound pretty good with the WA. However, the U67 excels on vocals in a way the WA simply doesn't. Good mic though.
Agree
I didn't find the WA to do that well with the vocals or the acoustic guitar. There was a mid-range richness missing as the U67 captured this very well. Something I don't feel an EQ can achieve because the mids were there, but harsh. An EQ would just boost the harshness or subtract the fullness. In all fairness, both mics didn't handle the high notes that well, but the mid-range was to die for on the U67. As far as the high notes, this is where a C12 or C800 would be your friend. I found the WA to be strange sounding on the vocal and boxy on the ac gut. However, the electric guitar sounded almost indistinguishable between the two mics and this is where I truly love the u67. I think the WA excels here. The drums sound great as well, but I could definitely tell a difference in the high-frequency content. Possibly a 1-2 db boost at 5-6k and you have a similar result. But I don't think that high-hat sound with the U67 is going to be recreated with the WA. For a mic that is more than 10k less, I would say this is worth it. Put a real 67 capsule and a vintage tube in it and you probably change the game with the WA and still be 9k or more or less. My 2 cents.
I was thinking something similar...klaus heyne goes into detail, from his point of view, regarding how Neumann missed the mark with their own recreation of this mic. He basically concluded, if memory serves, get a NOS tube, original capsule and power supply and the reissue sounds as good...again from his perspective..as a vintage 67. But Neumann 67 reissue is almost 7k and this mic is 900...get this ALL DAY LONG mess with it and you'll have a vintage 67 for pennies...or spend crazy $ on things the average listener will NEVER hear...I don't know. I love warm and what they're doing. I will prob get this mic just to play with it...Thanks WA!!
They sounded close to me. All you would have to do is change the tube in the Warm Audio 67.
true to name, the warm is warmer, less detailed. The neumann has that magic detail tho, that no mic I know of has, it's in their capsule.
U67 clearly better
On the vocals I preferred the wa. On the drums and guitar, the opposite but to warms credit, the differences could be recovered in post. I have purchased the warm mic and replaced the factory tube with a vintage nos telefunken and I couldn't be happier for roughly 1100$ out of pocket. Bravo for this test and all the comments.
The difference is not larger than between two vintage u67s. WA nailed it.
Great point!
Weird. This is like the one time the real Neumann is brighter than a copycat
Buy the warm... then slight tune the warm..... and save $$$
Or if you already have the U67 you can slightly tune it to sound like the Warm67
They're incredibly close (and yes we can all hear the difference, we're very special). But controversially I think I actually prefer the tone of the WA-67.
It doesn't compare to the genuine feeling of the sound the original adds.
It's close to the sound but it's like the difference between vinyl and cd.
The WA-67 is lively and the U67 is cured and settled in.
$900 vs $7,000. Hmmmm.. Could you notice the $6,100 (plus taxes) difference in the sound, after EQ, etc., through the a mix, then through .mp3? Only the highest grade audio equipment would "hear" any difference, and only then under in right sound environment.
For those that want that warmth and feel, that archaic groove. For under $1000. This should be a hit with anyone. It looks and sounds. Just like every other tube LDC. But at a great price point.
I just sold both my pairs of original 67's & 87's and my KM-56 & 86's. That I've had since the early 1980s. And with the original Telephunken tubes. Because nothing else made. Sounded like a Telephunken tube. As I purchased in pairs. And tried them all. When they were still being manufactured. By the American manufacturers. And every one. Every single one including the newer Russian and Chinese offerings. Sound like total crap. Compared to an original Telephunken EF-86 pentode tube.
Nothing makes any difference anymore. A hit? What's a hit? Label? What's a label? Whatever happened to Levi's bluejeans? Whatever happened to Jordache jeans? What happened to 3M Scotch reel to reel recording tape? What happened to the Marlborough Man? Right he died from lung cancer. So has our industry.
So if you like those 3.0 Mil thickness mylar diaphragms? This microphone was made for you. If you miss that thicker sound of the famous Neumann 6.0 Mil mylar diaphragm? Oh well. Better just get a reissue U-67 from Neumann. Which will cost you approximately 5X times more. And then you'll get that authentic sound. Because I told them to reissue it some years ago back in 2012. And lo and behold they listened to me. I spoke to them in great depth. I said you shouldn't have released the TL M--67. You're not supposed to charge less for a 67 then you do for your 87. I told them. They gave me this excuse. Yeah but it's the cost of the transformers. I said you have devalued my pair of vintage original Neumann U-67's by your actions. I suggest we release the 67 and charge more for it than the 87. And so they discussed it and now they do. And I spoke with a couple of their officials in-depth. Back in 2012. And I said that was just a variable pattern TL M-103. And they realized I was right.
So only an original 67. Sounds like a 67. Because it is one. Then for those discerning recordists and artists, in the know. Know what they want. It's like you won't find Paul McCartney on one of these imitations. He only uses the old originals. Because they have THAT sound. That can be imitated but never duplicated. Not even with the new Fake American Telephunken micro noise-O-phone's. And because only an actual real U-47 with the original tube. Sounds like a U-47. And nothing else comes close. When you've had your hands on the original. And you've used the original. Everything is just a lousy imitation. Like as in, lousy. As in not even really, imitative. As in, amateur hour hyped. Oh boy oh boy I got a 47 I got a 47!!! Sorry, no you didn't. You got a Chinese fortune cookie that read. One day you shall own fake Chinese 47.
You have to be careful what you wish for. It's fake. It's going to sound, fake. Because it is. But hey a usable addition to anybody's, bedroom home studio. Plugged into an imitation Neve. Plugged into an imitation 1176. And nobody will know the difference. Of that you can be certain. And you say yup. That's my 47 and my 1176 plugged into my Neve. And the stupid little children will believe you. But only because it essentially was just that. And for anybody who's not owned the originals like I have in their entirety. As in big. As in lots of. As in one of the world's greatest control rooms, ever. Like in the movie only better. By Dave Grohl from 2013 about a Sound City place to be. Back in Van Nuys, California. During a record-setting and grungy period of time.
But I'm selling everything and going for the knockoffs. You can't go wrong. Get some completely empty 500 racks. With external power supply. And design and create your own audio console. You'll have fun with the effects sends, channel bussing, solo and muting system. That's a lot more 500 modules. But hey that's how they do it at API. And have since the late 1960s. Now it's all DIY. And 500 series racks are the way to go. Start small. End, Big and bloated. Start with 2 inputs. Maybe stop at, 48. Some people want more. Bob Clearmountain has 72. I think CLA has the same. So you really shan't be needing more than, 72. I don't want to go more than 48. Because I'm old. I need both of my hands now to count up to 48. Four fingers on one hand and eight on the other. Though I haven't gotten the trick to that yet. And prefer to keep it under, 36. But I'll do more than that by request. And more money. A lot more money. Because then it gets into this word called, work. Just another four letter word I like to stay away from. Recording Engineer flows off the tongue so much more nicely. Ya know?
Don't Bogart that joint!
RemyRAD
You really notice the difference on the drums....the vintage u67 killed the warm audio
The vintage U 67 reproduces noticeably more detail. The WA 67 sounds muddy by comparison. It’s not bad- but it isn’t worth $900. The WA 414 is a better microphone, closer to the original AKG 414, at a more attractive price point. Or- pick up a used AKG B ULS reference mic in good shape for the same price as a new WA 67, and have a world-class mic that blows all of Warm Audio’s mics away.
Hard to believe the Warm Audio will sound anywhere near as good a real vintage U67. I already fell for their ploy when I got their U47. It was super noisy and sounded bad. Had to re-record vocals on an album, sold it, and got a Lauten Audio ATLANTIS. The Atlantis is MUCH better in every way. No more WA for me.
The U67 sounded better on every single clip. The WA-67 is a little more sibilant and harsh, the high end is not as nice. But it does get close and for a very reasonable price. If you need a budget mic, this is a great choice. But I prefer the original (or even the TLM 67) if money is not a factor.
It looks too shiny with the Chinese Capsule. The interior work was not too neat. With that being said, it sounds similar to the Neumann. The U67 has a little weighter sound and smoother top. I like the U67 better even though I cannot afford one
Neumann U67 Vintage is like Michael Jackson or Mozart. You may be able to remake his songs, but you are not Michael Jackson or Mozart. Primary engineering always has secrets that are only current in the mind of the creator
I'm listening to these on a pair of DT770s right now. Not much a difference. The most difference I could hear was on the Male Vocal. The Warm was a little less warm. I'm a huge fan of the WA47, this mic sounds really good though.
The male vocals show the differences massively. The Vintage 67 sounds WAY more open/airier/not muffled. The Warm sounds kinda pinched off. The Vintage 67 makes the vocal jump out of the speakers with seemingly less effort. I'm not saying the Warm sounds bad, but for the life of me, I'm always blown away by people who can't tell the difference when you hear them back to back in immediate comparison!
The warm mic had more background noise / low static and the u 67 was crystal clear no noise at all you can really here the noise In the male vocals . But I guess that's why the u67 is much more money .
Both are great sounding mics and I would happily use either. As a traveler on the never-ending road of trying to record my own music as beautifully as possible, I've come to believe a really well-written song performed by creative and talented musicians will sound amazing even on 'budget' equipment. Still would love to own either one!
warm makes a ton of solid products. super impressed by the 251, 47, and 84 (have all of them). this doesn't seem to compare to the real 67 in any of the nuances that make that mic so venerable
The last example on drums really showed up the sweet highs of the vintage Neumann on the snare. The Warm mic didn't go down without a fight, it just didn't have that magic.
The WA-67 is impressive for the money. That said, the difference in sound between it and the U67 is apparent. I suspect what I hear is mainly due to the capsule. It would be interesting to swap out the capsule for a Thiersch and redo the test (under $300).
The funny thing is that a professor at my friends music school said he wanted to get rid of his U67 for a WA
They don't really sound super similar to me but it's hard to say without a 3rd reference. Generally the Warm has more boomy lows and a certain pronounced high (the croaky part of the male vocal). It sounds scooped compared to the U67. While everyone mentioned that the Neumann has "more" highs, they're noticeably smoother. The transients are also much more tamed and smooth on the U67 (listen to the electric guitar at beginning of the passage). I used to own a U67 and that frequency response, transient shape and especially room bleed is rarely heard elsewhere.