BeesNeez BU67/269 Version 2

I think Ben’s Classic series has had this magical ability to dig wholes in mic lockers around the world.

Tru dat.  The only hole bigger than the BN mic hole is the hole in my wallet.....

Is this how you who have used the real deal feel about it

Cheers, Ross

I don't believe you will regret it. I e only used one vintage U67 and I believe it had to be defective. It was thin and bodiless. The B67-269 doesn't sound like that at all. I can only compare to a 251 and a U48 for classics that I've used. To me, the low end is more controlled, like a 251 and the top end is more open than a U48. It doesn't have the big low mid thing or of the U48. Seems like it would be a very good all around mic, where I typically would only use the U48 for vocals or room mics.

I'm biased but I think Max Kircher's MK67 is still the one to beat.  But, I haven't compared the two directly.  And the BU67 clips I've heard have really been impressive.  My ears perked up at the very first one.  Also, the MK67 is maybe something other than a "clone" since it's using Neumann parts.  

My interest is fluctuating between this BN 67 mk 2 , the Chandler L and the AEA KU-5.
For mine it needs to handle with grace , vocalists who over excite the edgy 2 - 4k region. I also want it to handle a fiddle without that edge. e.g.. Not a U87ai!
Since getting the BN67 is your older U 87 seeing use these days Wiz?
Cheers, Ross

I was considering it to fall in the latter category because you actually have the Neumann capsule/parts in that case.  For me, the “clone” question: is how close can it get without access to/the cost associated with those elements?

Hi all. Coming from an engineering background and having spent my life focussing on 3 primary sectors of the engineering field (acoustic, electronic and mechanical) I have seen through experience how these fields are in fact steered by ones who actually have no education or practical experience in them. It is very easy to capture and replicate mechanical and electrical devices. In all trueness, any manufacturer that honestly desired to make a great reproduction of a product could do so and actually has the same access to parts as the original manufacturer might have (in this case Neumann).

I doubt that there is a single human alive that was involved in the manufacture of the original U67 and if they are, I doubt they would be much use from their nursing home! So this means that the playing field is even. Same end goal, same drawings to use, same types of machinery on hand to manufacture. Why then aren’t there many accurate reproductions? Why does it seem so unattainable?

In all honesty; it is because there really isn’t many companies in this field that are true manufacturers, they purchase parts from x amount of suppliers and hope that when it all goes together that it will sound the same as the one that comes from the company that makes all of the parts and has the ability to make small changes as needed (even mid batch).

Please don’t feel that I am having a go or trying to belittle other companies (this is not my intention) but I am merely trying to make the point as to why so many so called clones don’t sound the same (even between batches or mk versions). Many also change suppliers with certain parts and of course this will affect tone.

Manufacturing is a tricky business. If you haven’t got control of the major components then you get what you get and can’t really change the end result until the next round.

When you make the major parts (capsules, Transformers, PSU etc) this means that you have the technology and know how to actually exercise change at will. If you can do this, you have the same opportunity that the original manufacturer has to achieve the desired sound.

There are some great products out there these days. Our industry is really enjoying some healthy competition. There is though one part of this industry that hasn’t seen a lot of growth and that is in the Farm to Plate business (what I mean by this is companies that make as much as possible of their entire product and ready it for sale)
.

Cheers.

Spent an hour after a session doing some AB testing of the various internal switch settings on the B67-269. On vocals we chose the new 67 on all takes. Clear top but a bigger bottom or lower mids than the other settings. The dip switch was all switches to the right except for #5. If I figured out the settings correctly, that the new 67 mode.

Least favorite was the new 269. I was surprised. It was a bit thinner but had a nasal presence on this particular voice that we just didn't like. It may be great on someone else though.

Compared it to a CV4 with a K7 capsule. The 67 is definitely brighter. Probably would not need much EQ at all to sit in the mix. All my K47 based mics are smoother than the B67 but they need quite a bit of top end to open them up.

Tests continue...

Thanks so much Ben.
Hopefully my assessment sounds correct. I felt, at least on the one voice, that the new 67 was the biggest and boldest sounding. Seemed to have more top and bottom in comparison to the other settings. That's really a great sounding mic with multiple personalities.

From what I can tell from the photos and Ben’s post, here is how the dip switches work:

1. Pad Off/On

2. Hi Pass Off/On

3. S2 Broadcast Mod Off/On

4. NEW/OLD

5. 269/67

Ben has nice photos on his product page under the internal switch heading.

beesneezproaudio.com/product/classic-b67-269-version-2/?wmc-currency=USDhttps://beesneezproaudio.com/product/classic-b67-269-version-2/?wmc-currency=USD

And also with you