hi there, i was just searching for infos about the M269c. i only found some specs but no hints to difference between sounding.

i know the U67 has fitted the EF86 and the M269c the AC701K (expensive!!!). the and the specs are little different esp. the output level. the M269c has got remote directional characteristic switching.

but the real question is the difference in sound. i know the U67 and i love it very much. but i have no idea about the sound of an M269c.

could anybody tell about it?

what is the difference in price?

thanks a lot!

Of course, age is a factor in both of these mics. As a rule, the 269c should have a more "airy" sound than a U67. If you open them both up, you'll see the similarity between them. Both are great mics. Both take EQ very well.

Hello, I have a modified U67(filters removed) and an M269c here at the studio. The U67 sounds a bit more natural and the M269c has an airy extended top end(more of that polished pop vocal sound, think Celine Dion) Both are very versatile and I think you would be happy with either one. If I had to just pick one I'd go with the U67 as you can dial in the air with a good eq. However, If I was specifically using it for vocals the M269c would get the nod as it has a presence that usually needs no further processing come mix time.
Best of luck in your search,
Sean

hi sean,

thanks for replying. does the M269c sound similar to the airy top end of a brauner VM-1 or phantom C or some other modern mic which is often heard on many r´b´m femal singer records? i don´t like this too much

i love the U67 cause of its smokey jazz club sound. i don´t line this sizzling thing in the vocals like in some later tracks of whitney houston. do you know this? does the M269c sound a little bit more like these mics?

bye

sini

Hi,

no the topend difference is not that drastic.
We have both the U67 and the M269c. For my ears the M269c is a bit more shiny then the U67 and a bid more clearer in the mid.
We also have the Sony C800G and the Brauner VM1, and these have quite a bit of high end, I personaly like that.
In regards of the Whitney Houston and other records, I don't think it's the mic only, these vocals are also EQd and sometimes Dolby A'd.


wolfgang


toolhouse studios, germany

One thing to know about is that the U-67 has a 40 Hz. pop filter that is very effective although instructions were provided with the mike for disabling it. I'm not sure if the M269 has it or not but it's a difference that can be misleading if one mike has it and another doesn't. Different impedance strapping and the presence or absence of output pads can also make different examples sound very different from each other.

The anti-sibilance filter is very effective when combined with a touch of eq. It makes these mikes work outstandingly well for a wide variety of singers. The pop filter means not needing to use a pop screen which can be quite an improvement in "openness" over any other mike with a pop filter. I'm frankly not a big fan of these mikes when they are modded.

Well, I haven't had the pleasure of hearing the Brauners so i couldn't offer a comparison. But I will say that the top end on the M269 is very silky, smooth, glassy, and not spitty or harsh sounding like a lot of bright mics can be. I have found the sibilance to be quite pleasing as well. If I'm not mistaken, Fletcher is a big fan of this microphone and many engineers are "vocal" about there preference for the M269 over the U67. On the other hand, the U67 is a stand by microphone for many engineers, myself included. The difference is not huge. It is a result of the M269 having a different tube that seems to make the mic more airy, or more excited in the top end if you will. It can be good for some stuff, with the right preamp. But other times i prefer the more natural sounding(to my ears at least) U67. You really can't go wrong with either mic. And I would take one of them over any of the newer vintage copy mics on the market. Both in terms of sound and an investment that will hold it's value. You've heard the U67 and you love it. So get it........Sometimes you just need a little prodding. Get it from a source that will let you try it for a couple days. If you feel it could be more airy or open for your purposes, return it and get an M269. FWIW Vintage King has 6 M269's in stock and usually have a plethora of U67's. I know they'll let you try a mic before you buy(as long as you put it on card). They might even send you one of each and let you keep the one you prefer. They are a bit more pricey than most dealers but all their mics are maintananced and cleaned, sometimes even modified by Tracy Korby before they offer them for sale. Another source i have had good dealings with on vintage mics is Bill Bradley at the mic shop.
Best of luck,
Sean

I would say that the M-269c's high end is most comparable to that of an M-49. If you can visualize [?] the midrange of a U-67 with the top of an M-49... that's about as close a description as I could get.

In comparison to Brauners... the top on an M-269c is closest to the top of a Brauner VM-1 "KHE"... it's a very intimate, very sexy kind of tone... if the M-269c is working/has been maintained properly... if not, all bets are off.

No, not the same at all. The 269c is much more smoother, I prefer it to the U67 in a lot of situations. Think U67 with slightly more opened hi end. It has a bit more bass too (like below 70Hz or so, not much). It is quieter and has a bit less level.

Have in mind that German broadcast companies ask for them because they felt the U67 was not meeting required specs (those germans are so difficult to satisfy when they read spec sheets)

As Fletcher described, think U67 with the M49 top. Side by side, M49 and M269c are very close. Maybe even closer than with a U67.

imho, both the M49 and the M269c are the best LDC vocal mikes Neumann ever made, and that sets the bar quite high.

malice

What do you think of the SM69, which is basically two M269's. Do you think they have the same sound as an M49 as well?

Have a friend who's selling one and I've been on the fence about it because I've been looking for a real M49 or M49B.

The SM69 is amazing. I own one. But it is not exactly stereo 269, much the way a C24 is not exactly a stereo C12, as there is no NFB circuit in the transformer secondary. It sounds pretty goddamn close though, and could be substituted for a U67 or M269 in a pinch.

BTW, I don't think M49s and 269s/SM69s sound anything alike. Once again, you get down to the differences in the K47 and K67 capsule. Or even the M7. In the case of a K67, you're talking about a dual backplate, with really pronounced highs, due to the phase shift induced by the capsule design. The U67, M367, M269 and SM67 all roll this off. Remember, the original variant of all of these, the U67, was built to German broadcast specs, which asked for attenuated highs.

The only thing in common with the M49 (except for the U67) is the tube. But in this circumstance, the capsule, preamp design and transformer are so different sounding from each other, that the comparison of a M49 to a M269c might not be the best juxtaposition.

The 269 and the 67 are I believe identical except the 269 uses the AC-701 tube which is why German Broadcasting asked Neumann to make it. Back they used all the Neumann mics with the AC-701 tubes and had standard power supplies that all the mics could be connected to built into their studios.

The 67 wasn't compatible so they asked for the AC-701 version... the M-269.

Anyway I own both and the diff. in sound imo would have more to do with the capsules then anything else.

BTW I currently have a tube SM-69 for sale on ebay.... Great stereo mic in mint condition.

$6600 on ebay..... If someone on GS wants it I'd sell it outside of evilbay for $6400.00

Mark

nice plug for your 69 lol. also while we are on the subject of radio stations, french radio had neumann make an amazing mic in the same family but alas only 140 were ever made, i have had the pleasure in playing with two of them. the M367. what an amazing mic or should i say mics as they are all amazing.

No, I wouldn't say the SM69 is sounding like a 269c. That said, it's an extraordinary mike that you should buy if you have the opportunity.

It might be one of the best Ohead mike of all time.

To a previous poster: Yeah, I know my statement about the M269c and the M49 sounding more alike than the U67 and the M269c is kinda opened to discussion, but I have done so many shoutout about these for vocal mike pickup session, I felt I had to make some kinda "balsy" statement.

Lemme rephrase it in a more acceptable way : any singer that feels at home with an M49 should like the 269c as well.

And vice versa of course.

Again, I'm biased: I'm sold to the cause

I like Neumann M** series more than anything else.

Gotta be honest with this

malice

M367 is very close in design to the M269c. It's an ORTF version of it.

interesting mike as well is the 397 wich is basically a TLM version of the 67 powered by a 9V battery.

malice

Malice, I was not referring to you, but to be fair, I think I took Fletcher out of context, as he was talking about a certain aspect of the high end, and not the over all sound.

I bought a M367 recently, and am loving it .

yrplace, did you mean that he difference would have to do with the tubes? You said the capsules, which are the same.

I'm inclined to agree. However, the only thing non-identical on the schematics are the values of R2 and R20. I'm not sure however what difference those would make. But you have totally different voltages being supplied to the mics, and since R2 biases the capsule, that difference might be due to the supply voltage differences. There are some other voltage differences inside the mic that might account for some of the difference in sound.

When I got my M367, the PSU was feeding the wrong voltage. You would not believe the difference in sound when I fixed the PSU. The guy who sold it to me was kind of bummed, thinking that the mic was a lemon or something, and I told him that he just has a PSU problem.

Wich are the same K67

Hey JJblair: congrats on your M367, it's a lovely mike indeed

malice

Thanks! It's quickly become my favorite guitar amp mic.

Gee... my SM-69 is solid state and sound nothing like anything else in my arsenal [Tony Merrill over at Stephen Paul Audio did some voodoo to the thing... the clarity and detail are stunning... even with stock capsules!!]

Thank you for taking the time to save me the time of clarifying my previous statement!!!

You're the best!!

Fletcher, anything for you, as long as it involves keeping my clothes on.

BTW, the solid state version of the SM69 couldn't sound any less like a tube one. I'm not sure that I like those, although you may have found it useful in some situation. I hope we've been talking about the AC701 version, with the OP. If he's thinking about getting the solid state one, DON'T!

JJ, if you ever get the opportunity to hear my SM-69 in action I think you'll get really pissed off waiting for us to break out the front end loader to get your jaw up off the floor... but you're right, it does sound NOTHING like one of the valve units

Then your SM69 would be called a USM69 if it is the solid state one. I think people keep getting the SM69 confused with the USM69 and not to confused by the QM69 or the M269... now do we have that all straight?!?!

or the M367 for that matter.

Actually, Larry, not quite right. there is the SM69, the SM69 fet, and the USM69, which has the pattern selectors on the front of the mic.

SM69

SM69 fet

USM69

That is correct but the SM69 is the tube/first version of this mike and that's it.
You would not call a U 47 fet a U 47....right?

Dynamo, exactly. But that's why I said not quite right. It's almost right. However, what Fletcher has is a SM69 fet, not an SM69 or a USM69.

Ticky tacky, but, I just thought I'd point that out.

JJ I was indeed commmenting on Fletcher calling his fet version a SM69 - which is not what it is. Cheers!

It is exactly what it is... on the U-47 fet it says "U-47 fet"... on my SM-69 it says "SM-69". Believe it or not... I actually do know all the differences between the 3 models as I just happened to be in the used gear business for a little over a decade.

My point was one of semantics... not trying to say one was the other.

I'm not aware how the solid state version is actually labelled on the body of the mike.
I'm assuming as the U47 there should be the "fet" word or otherwise it is USM 69.
The SM 69 is the tube version and calling the solid state version SM 69 it is indeed misleading and not accurate. Since you have been in the used gear business for decades you should know better.
Or maybe buyers have bought SM 69's from you without even asking which version they were getting..... Anyway, I don't care, you can call your microphone whatever you want.

Hey everyone!

I just bought this beauty, but as you see there is a knob missing on the powersupply...
Anyone got any ideas where to find one??

Thanks/

Truls.