Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arf! Mastering]

Regarding the mid range prominence of the 87 ( around 1k) - I think a lot of this is due to the resonance of the grille cavity.  I've mounted K47 capsules in U87 bodies using an aftermarket tube replacement electronics that does not exhibit the HF roll-off of the stock 87 amp.  The mid range comes way up - it sounds like a completely different capsule than when mounted in a U47 or M49.  (Again, two different sounds due more to the grille shape than the tube or transformer, IMO.)

That mid resonance is what makes the mic so successful for voice, even if a little EQ for sweetening is needed.

[Klaus Heyne]

Sorry, Alan, but your logic is not compelling:
You remove the original processor and capsule from the U87, replace it with a totally different amp and capsule, and conclude that, because the mid range is even hotter now, it must be the shape of the grille?

How about the U67 then: do you find that same mid range there? (I don't.)

My experience: The honk of any U87-old or new- disappears as soon as you address the atrocious feedbacks engineered into the mic's amp.

[Arf! Mastering]

Yes, there are extra variables in my logic, but I know what the K87 capsule sounds like with the tube amp vs. the stock amp, and I know what the K47 capsule sounds like in the M49 and U47.

From that, and hearing the K47 with the tube amp, I can draw a conclusion that the U87/67 grille does emphasize the 1kHz range somewhat.  

From your post, however, I gather that it is no where near as significant as the effect of the negative feedback in the stock 87 amp.

Klaus, now you you've got me wondering just which mic I should send when I reach the head of the queue - M269, M49, or U87??

[Klaus Heyne]

Alan,
Did you ever notice the midrange prominence on any U67 you have worked with?

As I mentioned above, if that specific characteristic is indeed so prominently created by the shape of a capsule's surroundings, that to me would be the most compelling argument to prove or disprove your impressions and conclusions. (Suffice it to say: I never had that impression from listening to any U67, modified or stock.)

Best regards,

[Arf! Mastering]

At A&R we had around forty or so U87s and a handful of 67s.  Both models of mic had a relatively forward midrange compared with most others, however, I can't say that the 67s were in any way "honky" while some of the 87s definitely were.  In fact, the 87s could be all over the map.  Some were stellar in presence and some far from it.  Maybe we're using the same words to mean different things.  But, no, I can't say I ever met a honky U67!

[dekay71]

I have yet to understand why people who have good ears who own U67's or U47's or 269's  would ever use an 87.


I have never liked the sound of an 87 except on room drums;
it's a completely useless mic to me;I have a couple of B.L.U.E. Kiwis that I do use in the same way people seem to use an 87

Recently one of my engineers came over with his brand new 87 and he was extremely excited about his new mic.
We blind tested it through a neve 1066 flat and the Kiwi killed it; the 87 was flat with no character and had no presence in the track.  

What I'm saying is, I do not consider the U87 a vocal mic.
There is nothing to love about an 87ai.  It's just a mediocre mic, nothing excellent in my book

If you are excited about the way your 87 sound, you haven't tried enough mics.
david kalish
restarrecording

[MagnetoSound]

David, I find your blanket statement surprising.

So many top artists have favoured the U87 over the years.

Choice of microphone has so much to do with the voice you are recording,
and the way you want those vocals to be positioned in the mix.

Just because a particular microphone may not work for you, doesn't mean it is a bad mic.

I suggest you take a listen to any track from George Harrison's ultimate album, Brainwashed.
From the opening aside on the first track, and particularly noticeable on track three, Pisces Fish, for example,
that album has U87 all over it, and it's signature suits the material perfectly, in my opinion.

(I am lucky enough to have the promotional EPK for that album, in which the U87 can clearly be seen.)

George typically had a rather soft style of delivery, for which I think the U87, with it's forward midrange,
made the perfect choice of microphone.

I'm not saying the U87 is better than any other mic, of course not!

Just that, in my opinion, the homogeneity of modern production has made people very narrow minded.

[compasspnt]

Well, not to blow any trumpets here, merely for technical information, I have recorded quite a few well-known vocals that are now considered classics with 87's.

Is it my first choice today for every vocalist?  Not really.

Would I hesitate to use it if a studio had nothing else?  Not for a minute.

[Tomas Danko]

The Kiwi is a good mic, but in comparison it's a bit on the lean side in regards the meat and lower frequencies and fairly bright (albeit not strident). The U87 is none of these things.

So, whereas the Kiwi killed the U87 in the shoot out stated above, I can think of a lot of situations when the opposite would apply.

Then again, it *could* have been a bad (not broken, though) U87. I've come across a bunch of those over the years, and they get floored by even mics such as the Rode NT1000.

It wouldn't be correct to state that the U87 is not a vocal mic. there are hard evidence it may be one of the most used vocal mics in history. It's better to state that you don't like it at all as a vocal mic, I think.

Besides, Stevie Wonder managed to have his stuff shock full with character. There was nothing mediocre with Songs In The Key Of Life.

[Gone]

dekay71 wrote on Thu, 29 November 2007 05:01

I have yet to understand why people who have good ears who own U67's or U47's or 269's  would ever use an 87.

A large part of the success of the U87 is that studios / people who can't afford or justify a U67, 47, etc, CAN afford a U87.

dekay71 wrote on Thu, 29 November 2007 05:01

What I'm saying is, I do not consider the U87 a vocal mic.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it IS one of (if not the) most widely used vocal mics in recording history. The list of famous albums is almost endless (Back In Black comes to mind...). There are vocalists and voice talents who insist upon it.

The most famous use of the Kiwi I have seen is a commercial with Chewbacca...  

[Jim Williams]

The later U-87AI's have changed the front end preamp. It's now a small daughter pcb with all surface mount parts, including harsh sounding mono ceramic coupling caps off the capsule to the jfet. They used to use good quality polystyrene, but the minds at Sennheiser have thought that the same mistakes they did to the MKH rf mics would equally apply to the Neumann line.
This has created a strident top end on top of the midrange muddiness.

[Klaus Heyne]

Interesting observation, Jim.

The next factory fresh U87Ai I will have in here, I'll test: Leave everything stock, as is, except compare the sound I get with the daughter-pcb board front end to the classic front end (1 discreet J-FET, and associated components, including the original styrene coupling cap)

As I never bother to hear these mics in their relative states of transition from stock into modified form, I may have missed a change that unmodified U87s now may exhibit: the new front end, common to all v.4 electronics, may or may not affect the overall sound of the mic in a major or minor way...

[dekay71]

I did not mean to hit a nerve with my U87 comment.
i do understand the historic importance of this mic; my comment was more about the "we used an old U87 on this....wow"- It's about the hype!

Ii would hate to see an uneducated person buy a new U87 and think that's what a really great mic sounds like.

I understand the hype on a U47 or a C12; i can hear it- the quality is undeniable!

My apologies for being so opinionated
thanks
david kalish
redstarrecording

[Glenn Bucci]

Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 10:27

The later U-87AI's have changed the front end preamp. It's now a small daughter pcb with all surface mount parts, including harsh sounding mono ceramic coupling caps off the capsule to the jfet. They used to use good quality polystyrene, but the minds at Sennheiser have thought that the same mistakes they did to the MKH rf mics would equally apply to the Neumann line. This has created a strident top end on top of the midrange muddiness.

WOW if that is true, I am truly disappointed that they would lessen the quality of their U87

[Glenn Bucci]

Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 29 November 2007 08:28

The Kiwi is a good mic, but in comparison it's a bit on the lean side in regards the meat and lower frequencies and fairly bright (albeit not strident). The U87 is none of these things. So, whereas the Kiwi killed the U87 in the shoot out stated above, I can think of a lot of situations when the opposite would apply. ...

I would think this is because the Kiwi is a transformerless mic.

I believe, the only Blue mics with transformers are the Blueberry and Mouse.