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%.

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.

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!

The vintage mic definitely has more air and openness.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

WARM 3:01 - 3:18 Neumann 3:56 - 4:14

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.

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!

Keep doing these shootouts!!!! I love it.

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.

Listen to the hihats on the vintage 67: exquisite! The warm audio mic is beautiful though :)

It's very close -kudos!

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

Awesome. Good alternative.

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.

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.

WA needs a high end boost, but they sound close enough.

vintage has the Warm marginally . really thought it would be a blow out. Nice job Warm

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!

The warm sounds like it has a blanket over it.

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!

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.

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 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 my WA-67 yesterday and can not wait to use it. With most of the affordable clone mics that I have heard(I have 2 Oktavamod U-87 clones), they always seem to be just a hair brighter than the vintage mics. The only time that I heard any significant difference between these 2 were when they shot out on the drums, that I noticed a bit more low end response/warmth from the vintage mic. Could have also been mic placement, being that it was a couple inches lower. Final analysis… both sound fantastic. BUT… let us not forget that the best sound you are ever going to get is from your source material. If you have a great voice, a great Ludwig kit, a Gibson J-45, etc… it’s gonna sound great if you are recording it with a tin can and a string. All of this stuff is gravy… really tasty gravy. 😂 Have a great one, everybody!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 👌😉

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.

I can hear it in the 10-12K range, it is very evident on the sound of the females voice characteristics. With the vintage you can pick up all the tonal qualities of her phrasing when she is done with the phrase and beginning the phrase. The WA 47 works quite well for this when paired with a 1073 pre-amp, however I do utilize the EQ on the Pre-amp and or the tone switch which boosts those sonic qualities depending on the vocalist. So far for the money the WA-47 has done everything I have needed it to do, and as a studio start up I have used it on everything from sax, to violin, to vocals, and acoustic guitar. I will say the noise floor of the tube mics in general is something to consider as I have found using an AKG 414c to be better for guitar and violin. I will say if you are looking for character in your vocal track, the WA-47, and yes I know this is a 67 shootout but I do not have one as of now, has been very effective, especially for jazz singers. I was hoping for this mic to be a bit more balanced in the upper range of the EQ as I am looking for a good vocal mic for Blues and Rock. I just don't think this is the one. Short of spending 9K on a reissue, I am looking at some other more favorably priced options.

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.

The capsule/circuit response is seemingly spot on.I always notice a blanket of pleasing electrical noise on almost every Neumann Mic. I used to think it was the tubes, but my U87 had it too.However, Neumann tube mics seem to have a more pronounced "blanket" than the solid state models. It's not bad, and I think we are so used to hearing it, that some things sound better with it. I think it contributes to the lore of their mic's. and separates it from even their own more affordable mics. I don't notice that "blanket" with the TLM line, but the capsule is still very Neumann sounding. I'm assuming it's the transformers imputing this "blanket". Im guessing its actually a design flaw that was passible at the time due to technical limitations, and later became a much loved attribute. Kind of like "char" on a steak. While still present, the warm mic, doesn't have as pronounced of a "blanket", and to me thats the only difference. Likely means it could take digital processing even better than the Original U67 does. Either way, it's so close you'd be a fool not to get a pair of these, instead of one of those. Unless you are mega rich, in which case you probably just rent a state of the art multimillion dollar recording studio with a "HOF" gear list.

BIG difference on drums. go figure. thanks!

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 👍

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.

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

The difference is not larger than between two vintage u67s. WA nailed it.

The WA is mad clean but the U67 catches the soul in the recording

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.

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.

ok I am buying one

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.

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.)

Vintage U67 win

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 liked the female vocal on the warm audio..

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 KZfaq ,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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The drum test really showed how the original has a little more bite on the attack. Something the repro just can’t seem to mimic. Both sound incredible though.

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. KZfaq 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.)

Huge difference in the 80hz response on the drum comparison. Punch with the Nuemann none with the Warm,

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.

Where did you find the accompanying music while you were narrating?

Way more present and detailed in higher frequencies, the original 67! Nice comprarison though!

The vintage might have sounded similar when its was 60 years younger ?

Solution: Buy the Warm...then every preamp and compressor Warm makes...invest the change in bitcoins.

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

i would like to hear them swap the tubes then the power supplies to see how close they are to each other. seems like there is some hi frequency noise coming through on the wa-67, could not figure out if its power supply are tube are mic parts. i thought warm sounded better on his electric guitar amp, it allowed more sustain fizzes come through from speaker, neumann sounded more compressed and gated in that scenario.

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).

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.

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.

Here on my studio rig, with Amphion One 15s and tone of treatment, the differences between the mics sound quite like variation of the singers' positioning in relation to the mics - literally a couple of centimeters can change the source sound. In the vocal tests, it feels like the singers were just a hair closer to the Neumann - it does have more presence in the high mids and its recording feels subjectively more focused and closer. But then, it could be a slight variation in the polar pattern, with the Warm picking up just a bit more room...who knows.

I have WA-251. This is really great mic for this money. During one record session, I compared WA-251 and C12 VR (green). The sound is a bit different, but it's almost the same league. It will be very interesting to listen to WA-67.

The U67 sounds a tad warmer, and more breathy. That could come down to the EF86 tube. They vary a lot.

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.

Neuman sounds more rich and smooth on the mid lows than WA. And also seems to glue the whole range together. They are super close but I would go with WA if cost mattered.

👍👍👍

Nice Warm 67 just 10 times cheap in money but very close.I will have one soon.And yes Neumann has little bit more resolution,but just a 0.5 db at 5 Khz and will be more close.

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 WA really is warmer and doesn't have the same top as the Neumann. The drums were night and day.

wa-67 vs wa-251 is it worth it for extra $100?

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'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.

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.

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.

For everyone knocking on the WA-67, for whatever sound differences/ presentation you think you might be hearing in preference towards the U-67, is it so much more of an advantage to spend that much more money on the Neumann?

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.

They sounded close to me. All you would have to do is change the tube in the Warm Audio 67.

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 Neumann does sound more lifelike and airy. Also, much more clear.

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

Warm WA-67 sounds warmer :o)

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 .

the WA67 feels like its picking up more room tones than the u67, dont know if it is room tone, or just mids that are picked up a bit more with the wa67, edit: it seems like its picking up more mids cause with the acoustic guitar the low e string is having the same sound/tone as the vocals

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.

Closely matched with minor differences addressed with a bit of eq.

What song is this at 3:01

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.

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.