A few weeks later, Castoro agreed to bring his CM7 to 5 a.m. Studios in downtown Austin for yet another shootout. This time his CM7 would compete against some worthy adversaries, including a Pearlman TM-1, Rode NTV, Soundelux U99 and U95s, Mojave M-200 and a vintage Neumann CMV-563 with the lollipop capsule. (For some reason never fully explained, Castoro did not bring one of his vintage U47s to the shootout.) The test was done using two vocals ­ my lower toned Jim Morrison-ish vox and Steve Hudson's higher toned, John Fogarty-ish pipes. Only the Rode NTV sounded truly bad to my ears, and unfortunately, I owned that mic. The others held their own, but the Neumann CMV-563 and the Wunder CM7 stood above the rest. Some at the shootout preferred the Neumann, but I absolutely preferred the CM7 on both my voice and Hudson's. It's the best vocal mic I've ever sung through, period. Did I mention that yet? Castoro says there are three primary elements used to create the U47-plus sound ­ the capsule, the transformer and the tube in that order. With the capsule, Wunder is shooting for a copy of what Castoro calls the Berlin M7, as opposed to the Gefell M7 capsule. The Berlin M7 is machined differently from the Gefell, with three isolator rims instead of two. The one-inch diaphragm is glued on with precise tension to a very thin rim, much the way skins are stretched over a snare drum. The rims are milled onto a piece of brass that contains 90 holes per side and then super polished in a process called "lapping." Unlike the original M7s, which were 8-10 microns thick and made of PVC, the Wunder M7 is made of a six-micron thick Mylar substrate because it ages better. If authenticity is a must, PVC capsules are available upon request at a higher price. You can also get the capsules set at different biases, with one emphasizing the high-end tones, another emphasizing the low end. The second key to the CM7 sound is the larger transformer used, based on the earlier Telefunken U47 design, the so-called "large badge" U47. Wound old-school style on vintage tool machines, these transformers allow for more saturation and a bigger low end, rolling off at 20Hz instead of forty. Finally, the third component is the tube. Yes, Wunder can make a microphone with the famous VF14 tube, but it'll cost one arm and leg more to buy. Fortunately, the lower priced EF14 tube comes standard and owner Castoro calls it the "savior of the mic." The interior tooling in the EF14 is identical to the VF14, but the difference lies in how the filament wire is attached. To make the EF14 behave like the VF14, a capacitor and resistor ­ called a "dummy load" -- is added to the back of the tube socket. 

Although the capsule, the transformer and the tube are the most important elements to the sound, there are other factors. The U47's unique grille provides a 1.5 db boost at 5k for presence, but then a cut at 8K to mitigate sibilance. Another 1 db at 10k allows for air, while a roll off at 11k prevents brittleness. Castoro says the grille design gives the U47 its legendary aggressive sound and a natural EQ, so they've gone to great pains to ensure the grille is an exact replica of the original. But some improvements in the mic's sound are due to innovations in the original design. For example, Wunder uses no PVC in the wiring, since wires sheathed with PVC tend to deteriorate and crack over time. Also, the mic uses high-end, metalized polypropylene capacitors instead of the now crumbling ones used when the U47 was originally made. And although it has nothing to do with the sound, the power supply used for the CM7 features better wiring overall and a voltage regulator that wasn't available in the original. 

The entire package includes the CM7 in an oak box, a historical shock mount, the power supply and an original, large Tuchel-connected mic cable. For those who can't spend $5K+ on a microphone, Wunder will be coming out with a GT version, a CM7-lite model priced under $3,000. It will still have the signature Wunder large-style transformer and the U47
look and feel, but the capsule will be a K47 (M7 available as an upgrade), the tube will be the Telefunken glass tube (hence the name GT) and other historical details adhered to in the CM7 will be adjusted in the GT version to keep costs down. And just in case you forgot how this review opened, let me remind you one more time -- the CM7 is the best vocal mic I've ever sung through. Ever.

We compared the PEQ1 against our preamp collection, including a vintage Neve 1073. The results were very pleasing. When level matched the PEQ1 and 1073 were similar. We could hear how they hail from the same family. Both are top-notch units, forcing us to make comparisons that amounted to "shall we drive the Porsche or the Ferrari?" For most sources, the PEQ1 seemed to have more dimension and clarity than the 1073. On drums you could hear the room surrounding the kit. In comparison, the Neve imparted a round, gauze to sounds. Woody tones inherent in folk guitar sounded unbeatable when wrapped in that infamous Neve-sound. On distorted guitars the choice was clearer - the Wunder blew the Neve away. In our tests, the 1073 sounded like an amp simulator, or a recording of a guitar, while the PEQ1 gave the impression that we were in the room. This led us to the theory that the PEQ1 was particularly good a resolving fast or complex signals, while the 1073 handled slower straightforward signals with aplomb. Headroom is another area where the PEQ1 holds an advantage. With twice as many amplifier stages, the Wunder provides roughly double the gain of the 1073s. On bombastic acoustic guitar or loud drums, the PEQ1 maintained a clear signal when the 1073 distorted. The additional gain stages make the PEQ1 a great option for line level sources such as direct bass or pickups from an acoustic guitar. The PEQ1's EQ section is more flexible than a 1073, with 3db roll off points at 8.7Hz on the low and 118KHz on the top. In use, the PEQ1's low end seemed a bit more focused on items such as kick and bass guitar. But, both units were smooth and forgiving. If we had more time with the PEQ1 we would have tried it as a mix EQ just for good measure. If you're contemplating a multi-purpose preamp you would do well to consider the PEQ1. Given the thought, components, and craftsmanship that has gone into the PEQ1, it's no surprise that the unit can go toe to toe with a module of the caliber of a 1073. I highly recommend an audition.

Next, Chris Ware -creator and builder of the hand-made Branham custom tube amplifier -played a Fender Telecaster through one of his namesake amps. These tracks sounded a lot closer to each other than the kick drum recordings. After listening several times, I gave the edge to the Wunder on the clean guitar tracks and a slight edge to the Neumann on overdriven guitar. I'm calling this one a tie, but recording engineer Stuart Sullivan of Wire Recording -who's had a lot more experience with the U 47 fet sound than I have -said he heard a nice jangly presence on the guitars mic'ed by the CM7 FET and preferred it overall. For bass guitar, Harvey played his 1964 Gretsch on a rig that consisted of a Fender PA 135 tube head into an SWR 410 cabinet. When I listened to the tracks at home, I could not tell one from the other in a blind test. The Wunder might have been a little smoother on the fingerpicked bass, but the Neumann seemed to have a little bit more attack on the picked parts. Maybe. Then again, it could all be a psycho-acoustic illusion. I'll call the sound of the two mics on bass guitar a draw once again. For my contribution to the shootout, I played acoustic guitar and added a vocal overdub to that same guitar track, an up-tempo tune in the high end of my range. I then followed that with a few bars of the Johnny Cash version of NIN's "I Hurt Myself" so we could hear the low end. Pulling up the Pro Tools session in my home studio, I could not tell the difference between the acoustic guitar tracks at all, and I must have listened to them a dozen times. On vocals, the CM7 FET seemed a tad smoother than the U 47 fet, but both mics featured that famous Neumann high-mid sound -great for cutting through mixes. I added some echo and compression to both vocals, and when I played them back, I definitely preferred the Wunder this time. It was more than a subtle difference. While the Top Hat recordings covered things I couldn't do easily on my own, I wanted to hear the CM7 FET on vocals and acoustic guitar in the controlled environment of my home studio as well. I set up separate sessions with two female vocalists to make sure at least one of them showed up (let's not go there). Leslie Forbes brought a strong Mariah Carey-type voice to the tests while Molly Waldo's soft-spoken, alternative-rock vocal required a closely-placed mic about 6' away from her. For the male vocal, I used my voice again because it always seems to be available. We shot out the CM7 FET on all three lead vocals against three other mics -the AKG C 414 B-TL II, the Sanken CU-41, and the Gefell UM 70/MV 692 combo. For everything else -acoustic guitar, electric guitar, and background vocals -I used the CM7 FET. The chain for everything except the bass went to a Millennia HV-3 mic preamp to LavryBlue 4496 converters and then to the computer via Pro Tools. I took the Fender Precision bass through a DI as I always do. When everyone finished recording, I made two mixes of each vocalist. The first mix had no processing other than a touch of reverb, but in the second mix, I added some Massey CT4 (Tape Op #64) plug-in compression to each vocal. I bounced each mix from the 24-bit, 44.1 kHz Pro Tools session to 16-bit, 44.1 kHz and ran off a CD for each of us, with the exception of Leslie who downloaded the 16-bit files from my website. I then asked Molly and Leslie to pick their favorites from their own performances. The two different female vocals yielded two different results. Molly and I agreed on the same top two mics, and we both thought the UM 70 sounded best for her voice with or without compression. We also picked the CM7 FET for second best in the blind tests. Leslie and I disagreed completely on which mic sounded best. She preferred the CM7 FET for both compressed and uncompressed vocals, while I preferred the Sanken CU-41 on her compressed vocals and the AKG TL II on her uncompressed version. Interestingly, she picked the Sanken and the AKG respectively as her second picks, so we both picked the same top two mics; we just disagreed on the order. For my vocal shootout, I added one more mic to the mix, an SE Electronics H3500, yet another U 47 fet clone. This mic was much darker than the others, but that's not bad since most of the time, the high end wreaks havoc on my voice. Still, it didn't get the full sound I heard using the Sanken, my first choice. Listening blindly on my home stereo, I picked the CM7 FET as my second favorite followed closely by the SE H3500, then the UM 70 (which would probably work better for me on background vocals), and finally the AKG TL II. This shootout also revealed something I hadn't counted on; I absolutely loved the CM7 FET on electric guitar, specifically my Les Paul 1960 reissue through a Mesa Boogie Mark III. Here's my verdict. If you're looking for an exact replica of a Neumann U 47 fet, you will probably be disappointed. Yes, the capsule is a K 47 dual-diaphragm just like the original, and the grille is an exact replica as well. (The grille contributes greatly to the characteristic frequency response of the U 47.) However, the transformers and the circuit design differ from the original. In my opinion, the CM7 FET will work on kick, acoustic guitar, and bass almost as well as a U 47 fet and even better than the vintage Neumann on some applications such as vocals and electric guitar. I think the CM7 FET would make a great all-around utility mic. Sullivan, who owns three U 47 fet mics, agreed. "The CM7 FET would be a far better utility mic than a U 87," Sullivan said. "I'd love to have a stereo pair of CM7 FETs to use on piano." You'll have to take his word for it, because I never did test it on piano. At about two grand MSRP (including a wooden box, shockmount, and one-year warranty), it's at least a thousand bucks less than a vintage U 47 fet and around the same price as a new Neumann U 87 -and that puts the Wunder CM7 FET squarely in the game.

BUILD: The Wunder PEQR1 is built very well. The case is constructed of powder-coated steel and the screen-printing is nice on the front. I must admit that was a bit unsure of the colored knobs on he faceplate being both red and blue... but I think its a nice change and ties in well with the overall color scheme of the light grey, rather well. All the pots are extremely high-quality Elma rotary and dual concentric pots. Which is a surefire sign of quality components. The Neve I worked on for ages has these exact same types of Elma switched pots for the input gain on its 1073's. So they will be around for donkey's years to come and will suffer the use and abuse that one can only come to expect in a professional environment. Under the hood of the unit is VERY tidy and well constructed with a central PCB containing the inductor(s) for the EQ... big Sprague orange drop capacitors etc.. The quality of the componentry bears a high level of continuity throughout. Like my SHEP SN8 and I think the new AMS Neve re-issues all the amp stages are all located on the one central PCB board which is a great idea. IMHO as with the original Neves, the BA amp cards are sometimes subject to the gravitational forces of nature and they can slip out of their sockets, which in my experience is the cause of most of the troubles with 80XX consoles and their associated modules. So this is just another great feature that will help users avoid any technical hitches. Next come the mic & line input and output transformers. They are HUGE!!!!. Quite unlike what I was expecting to say the least but be rest assured they account for a fair proportion of the unit's weight. Which is ALWAYS a good thing from where I stand! This ain't no cheap or plastic box painted in a funky green color. The PSU is an absolute MONSTER! I wasn't sure what to expect when I last spoke to Mike (from Wunder Audio) and he mentioned that it would power an inordinate amount of Wunder units. From later emails with Mike, it became apparent that it would power well over 24 of the Wunder PEQ1R's!!!. They run on a simply 5pin DIN type (looking) power plug that allows units to be powered in a daisy chain fashion without each unit going back to the central PSU there for creating a veritable 'spaghetti junction' of psu cords and confusion. So kudos here. I think that this is a great way to run units. As it often breaks down the pain and expenses of external PSU's and means that in future the user will just purchase actual units instead of having to pony up for additional PSU's. Also, it will lessen the load should any engineer be 'slutty' enough to own multiples of units and be upwardly mobile in their gigs. OK.. So I've bored the shit out of you so far with all the boring inane crap that I usually skip in reviews so HOW DOES IT SOUND????? In a word fantastic. But let me further qualify it against my much loved 1073's first. As mentioned the PEQ1R is NOT a NEVE!!!!!!!!!!! For which I'm kinda glad cos there are enough of them kicking around now in original, new or cloned incarnations... a change is as good as a holiday (isn't it?)! The PREAMP: Smooth and PHAT. Headroom for days! Not nearly as overtly upfront in the mid-range as a 1073, but still retaining that fantastic punchy Class A sound nonetheless. I can't wait to track some guitars and vocals. The PEQ1R seem to my ears have more HI-FI air around the preamp than a 1073, so I guess I'm just saying that it sounds a bit more open. Yet, whilst it is more open it doesn't take away from a shared characteristic of both the Wunder and Neve, which is that it also has a bit of that 'slowing' factor of transients that makes Neve's in general, so appealing for so many people. I'm guessing that the transformers are contributing a large part to this sonic characteristic THE EQ!!!! Overall I would have to say that the sound of the PEQ1R is PHAT and Smooth. The bottom end is tight and rounded and can add real life, size and dimension to both bass guitars and kick drums. The lows are deep and mellifluous that just makes drums and low register instruments, voices come alive. The midrange is nice and can remove or add detail at will. The Q of the Eq, in general, is very much reminiscent of the classic 'British' bell shape that so many designers attribute their musicality to... yes Rupert included! The main thing to keep in and that the overall design brief IMHO, based on the Allotrope EQ from which it is modeled on is that the EQ is musical. And musical it is! There is very little phase shift in the EQ except at the extremes of boosting which even then it was not nearly as gnarly as some other EQ's that I have experienced. Boosting was always a good experience and it was simply a matter of taste as too how much to boost and even at full tilt it never really got gnarly and had hairs on the back of my neck standing up. Which IMHO is just yet another hallmark of a musical design. The smoothness of the EQ is a real attribute and positive quality of the unit. A little can go a long way or just pile it on like a slut and get it all hard over the way that it can life 'dull' and lifeless voices into a mix with some zest and authority. The low-mids can add real depth and body to thin and wimpy snare drums and voices. The HF is sweet and adds the nice HF sheen that can lift things out of the mud into the greater context of a mix/song. One thing I must clarify is that the EQ is not a surgical one. Its a very musical design but it ain't no GML 8200. If you need to notch some nasty frequency go tot he right tool. It's no good maligning a tool like this when it's performing a function for which it was not designed to perform. Overall I am very happy with the Wunder and I can't wait to use it soon on some things I got coming up with an AEA84 (ribbon mic) etc. If you want to live on the edge and stand out from the pack I implore people to give the Wunder a go. It's not a Neve or anything else, it's close to a few things yet it has its own special X-factor which is all cool in my world. In the company that the Wunder was tested against they all held their ground on their own merits and it was simply a matter of taste and choice for a given application. Suffice to say people won't be disappointed with the Wunder PEQ1R. I took a gamble and it's paid off and I hope it will for you too! Thanx Wiggy


The company has also just released a 4-channel pre. The PEQ1R comes with mic, line, and instrument inputs; switches for phantom power, EQ in/out, and polarity; as well as a blue output fader that follows the 3-band EQ section. Although not small, the available power supply also powers up to 24 modules The module was compared on several sources with various pres. On vocals with a 251 replica, it was compared to an Amek 9098 with no EQ. The sound was really quite similar in some respects, but the Wunder was a little warmer. Where the Amek had a little bump of brightness in the high mid, the Wunder did not. In the mix though, the sound of the Wunder was slightly more forward and tighter in the track. On drums it was compared with a Neve 33114 and a 9098, this time with the eq (because I don't know anybody who doesn't EQ their drums). 
All pres had a nice transient attack to them, but the Wunder definitely won in the overall transient headroom department. The Wunder's transients just seemed to hit a little harder, to move a little more mass. EQ-wise, I loved turning the gain knobs all the way just to see what sound might come out this box; it sometimes gave me inspiration for new sounds. Another way to explore the headroom of this box is to turn down the output fader and crank up the mic gain. This created a really cool overloaded effect-one that was totally usable. 
I can't think of an EQ whose performance I enjoyed more than the PEQ1's. The only thing I could ask here is, "When are they making a 4 band version?" The last test for this pre was bass guitar plugged directly into 1/4-inch input. Many a module skimps on the electronics behind this plug, and I am happy to report the Wunder has delivered the goods with their instrument input. We tested this option with none other than bassist Jackie Street, and compared it to the Avalon U5 and a custom made bass/pre by Demeter. We were experimenting with different combinations of gear, and then we tried the PEQ1 ala direct in with the same compressor we had been using. All I can say is, the sound just became more punchy and focused in the stereo field. I kept checking to see if all we did was increase the gain, but we had not. It felt as if the harmonics of the bass were now in proper alignment (or the planets were or something). 
While I don't believe there are any negatives in the sound department, if you know me, you would know that I would have to find something to be improved upon. First, the white dot on a chrome knob to indicate where the gain knob is pointing is not too visible if rack mounted lower than desk height, or if your studio lighting tends to be on the "vibey" side. Second, this unit has no filters. Just a little toggle switch with a few options would be nice. Finally, how about a handle on that power supply? It's about 12 pounds and 9 x 6.25 x 5.5 inches, something to consider if you are moving around a lot. 
With so many preamp/EQs on the market today, one might ask themselves "Why do I need this pre/EQ?" After hearing it you might say, "Wow, Wunder has outdone itself here. I gotta have it". Not a Neve clone, but a complete redesign with modern high-quality components, good looks, and great sound. It also has that elusive character that helps you discover new sounds, sometimes by turning the knobs as far as they can go.

This is a class A discrete 70s style solid-state mic pre/EQ. It has XLR mic and line inputs and output and a 1/4" TRS instrument/line in on the front panel. The line input uses a separate transformer so you can actually use the XLR line input on the back as a separate, different sounding mic input by cranking the input gain knob into the ­24dB to ­42dB "HiZ" zone. On the front panel moving left to right you have the 1/4" instrument input, mic/line, phase reverse, and EQ engage toggle switches. Next to those are three double-action knobs for the EQ section. All the controls have an outer ring frequency selector that has multiple steps including an off position and a continuously variable +/-20dB boost/cut knob in the center. The low frequency has five steps: 40Hz, 60Hz, 100Hz, 160Hz, and 200Hz. The mid has six steps: .36K, .7K, 1.3K, 2.4K, 3.6K, and 5.8K. The five high-frequency bands are: 7K, 10K, 12.5K, 15K, and 20K. The boost/cut knob in the center of each control has no 0 detent and the small white pointer on the knob is difficult to see. This makes it hard to recreate an EQ setting. Also having the frequency choice numbers under the knobs makes them hard to see from angles above the panel. I had to keep the unit racked high so I could easily see the numbers. To bypass a specific EQ control you must turn it to the off position so quick A/B-ing is difficult to manage. Continuing down the face, the gain switch is also a double duty control: the left side shows mic input gain and the right side shows line input gain. Of course you've got your 48v phantom power toggle and, lastly, an output level knob next to the power on LED. The PEQ1R's input gain is impressive - from 18 to 78dB for mic signals and 60dB for line and instrument inputs. When I deboxed the PEQ1R, I was surprised by how beefy the power supply was. Then I learned that it's capable of powering 24 of these units. Okay. I wonder if there could be an option to buy a smaller supply that would power two units? Maybe then it could be included in the price instead of having to shell out an extra $300 if you only plan to buy one or two units. Enough with the boring details - how does it sound? The very first time I powered it up was for a vocal session for an English band called Capricorns. They asked a gentleman named Eugene Robinson (why does that name sound so familiar?) from the band Oxbow to guest on one of their tracks, and we were going to record the vocals and upload the files to an FTP site in time for their final mixing crunch in London. Perfect opportunity to put the PEQ1R to the test. Eugene is probably the most dynamic singer I've ever worked with. He goes from barely audible whispers and low growls to bone-splitting howls and lots of heavy stuff in between. I decided to use one of the review mics from EQ's Giant Mic Issue [Sept. '05] - the SE Electronics Titan with a ­10dB pad engaged going into the PEQ1R and then into a Summit DCL200 set with a fast attack and about 4dB of compression. We were doing the vocals on a loft over the control room and sometimes there can be some low-end mic stand coupling to the floor rumble, so I engaged the EQ and set the frequency selector to 60Hz and rolled off a few dB. It helped enough to get started. Getting a good, present level was easy, but when Eugene started performing on the track, I had to be quick with the gain knob on the Summit. I rode his takes all the way through and still missed some heavy peaks. Another challenge with recording Eugene is he likes the headphone level to be very hot. So hot that he wears earplugs under the phones. He really wants to be immersed in the sound. This usually creates quite a bleed problem during his quieter moments. I had been using the Sony MDR 7506 headphones and been experiencing some heavy bleeding. It just so happened that Eugene had a pair of Ultrasone HFI 550s to try out for the session. These phones have a tight ear cup that seals a lot better to keep bleed to a minimum and the efficiency of the drivers in the earpieces makes it so they don't need to be cranked as much to get that level of immersion that Eugene likes. But how did the PEQ1R sound at the end of the day? Perfect for this type of vocal. It has a quality that is very pleasantly "rock" and musical. It's almost a grittiness or a minute fuzziness like a pleasing high-end harmonic distortion that made this rocking vocal track sit so well in the midst of heavy instrumentation. You may think that I'm being led by the sound of the Summits. I compared the same Summit settings and the same mic using the Millennia HV3D mic pre and did not experience the same feel. While the Millennia HV3D is an amazing, clean, transparent preamp, it was too real - too detailed for a vocal track like this. And, I thought, especially for this type of music. But Capricorns really liked the sound - they even liked the spot where I couldn't ride the level down fast enough and crapped out with some input level distortion. Cool. While the PEQ1R worked for vocals in the heavy sludge track, it didn't fare so well in the quiet, sensitive, female vocal area. I used it on a quiet, intimate vocal with a Microtech/Gefell UM92.1S tube mic. The qualities that I liked with Eugene's vocals I didn't like with the quieter vocals. I tried to cut some 700Hz or a little 1.3k to get rid of some of the nasal quality that I heard that went away when I switched back to the Millennia mic preamp. It's just not the right tool for some jobs. But that being said, it excelled in many other applications. I'd also been recording a lot of cues for a marketing campaign where the producers are constantly changing their minds and where deadlines are ultra tight. The PEQ1R was an excellent and faithful, versatile tool in this arena. The HiZ input on the face got a lot of action. A guitar, bass, or a Rhodes piano was plugged in all the time. The variety of tones that I was able to dial in for electric bass was incredibly useful. I could pretty much find any sound I needed with my old P-bass, yet the sound of the unit was tight, deep, and rich without the EQ engaged. In conjunction with my Summit
compressor, it gave me one of the most workable direct bass sounds I've gotten. It was the same with the direct guitar. I tend to work very quickly on these types of cues, and plugging the Tele straight in and then processing it later with Amp Farm is what I have to do. But I used the direct sound many times without relying on the virtual amp effect. It's a
clean sound that can be carved up with the EQ to get interesting stuff. For mono percussion tracks, I used the PEQ1R with an AEA R92 ribbon and got a fantastic amount of gain. I've tried this pre/EQ with a huge variety of sources, and I have to say that it is a truly versatile unit with a big personality. If you are looking for a transparent pre like the Millennia HV3 or a John Hardy M-1, you are looking in the wrong place. The Wunder PEQ1R definitely has a "sound," but it's a sound that is very musical and pleasing to the ears. 
Pros and Cons Pros: · Well made with high-quality components. · Lots of gain for both mics (ribbons too) and line/instrument inputs. · EQ is bold - a little goes a long way. · Excellent for direct input applications. Cons: · If you ever only plan to buy one or two, the extra expense of the power supply that powers an entire console's worth is a bit much. · There should be another power option. · With the way the knobs for the EQ are situated, it's difficult to read the numbers from anywhere but under the box. · There is no way to quickly A/B EQ settings.