Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

borrowed a U-87

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 10:03:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033 again on
my acoustic.

More about : borrowed

Anonymous
July 25, 2004 9:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033 again
on
my acoustic. >>

Well, yeah, that's what a real mic does for you.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 7:14:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Try using the Brauner VM-1, then see what you think of the U-87!!


"Mondoslug1" <mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote in message
news:20040724140357.12238.00002444@mb-m01.aol.com...
> geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033 again
on
> my acoustic.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 9:25:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040725014758.19192.00002193@mb-m06.aol.com...
> << geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033
again
> on
> my acoustic. >>
>
> Well, yeah, that's what a real mic does for you.

Oh, c'mon.. there's nothing wrong with a 4033 - they're perfectly useful
mics for lots of things. Might not be the best for his particular guitar or
the tone he's looking for, but they're not a bad mic by any means.
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 9:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil wrote:

>"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040725014758.19192.00002193@mb-m06.aol.com...
>> << geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033
>again
>> on
>> my acoustic. >>
>>
>> Well, yeah, that's what a real mic does for you.
>
>Oh, c'mon.. there's nothing wrong with a 4033 - they're perfectly useful
>mics for lots of things. Might not be the best for his particular guitar or
>the tone he's looking for, but they're not a bad mic by any means.

lol. Didn't mean to start a potential flame war. I've used 1 or 2 4033's about
a bazillion times & they're fine...I just hadn't had the opportunuty to bring
home a U-87 to mess with.



>
>Neil Henderson
>Saqqara Records
>http://www.saqqararecords.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 11:02:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< mondoslug1@aol.comwaht (Mondoslug1) >>
<< geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033 again
on
my acoustic. >>

Now try a micpre with a decent transformer as well.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 11:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Oh, c'mon.. there's nothing wrong with a 4033 - >>

Probably not, but what the OP has just discovered is what is RIGHT about a U87.

<<they're perfectly useful
mics for lots of things. Might not be the best for his particular guitar or
the tone he's looking for, but they're not a bad mic by any means. >>

No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in their
locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every engineer
knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have it result
in a known, useable, predictable sound.



Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:25:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
>No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in their
>locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every engineer
>knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have it result
>in a known, useable, predictable sound.

I don't even like the U87, but I have one here in the closet because, well,
customers are always asking for them. It's just one of those reference mikes
that you need to have to stay in business. I used to have several, but sadly I
sold them before the prices went up....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 6:29:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
>>No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in their
>>locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every
>engineer
>>knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have it
>result
>>in a known, useable, predictable sound.
>
>I don't even like the U87,

What don't you like about it?




but I have one here in the closet because, well,
>customers are always asking for them. It's just one of those reference mikes
>that you need to have to stay in business. I used to have several, but sadly
>I
>sold them before the prices went up....
>--scott
>
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 6:29:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in their
>>>locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every
>>engineer
>>>knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have it
>>result
>>>in a known, useable, predictable sound.
>>
>>I don't even like the U87,
>
>What don't you like about it?

I just don't like that huge, larger-than-life lower midrange and the exaggerated
top end. It adds an artificial sense of airiness to vocals which works now
and then, but generally seems over the top to me.

To be honest, I find the TLM103 more useful than the U87. But that's just
me. I've had plenty of gigs that I wouldn't have got if I hadn't had a U87
in the closet.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:23:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mr. Dorsey: >I don't even like the U87

Why not? I've been strongly considering buying one just to have a Neumann
around, I'm ashamed to say. I really like my other mics (mostly Gefells and
ribbon mics) but no one knows those names. I used to think these things didn't
matter, but recently I've been getting introduced to potential clients that
have been around and I'm expecting a problem. I've ruled out a 103. I used to
have a Groove Tubes MD1. It sounded great on my voice and some others
(incredible narration mic). But I got some flack that it was a "project studio
mic," so I got rid of it. The players that I'm trying to get seem to be a
fussy lot.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:47:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

<mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in
>their
>>>>locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every
>>>engineer
>>>>knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have it
>>>result
>>>>in a known, useable, predictable sound.
>>>
>>>I don't even like the U87,
>>
>>What don't you like about it?
>
>I just don't like that huge, larger-than-life lower midrange and the
>exaggerated
>top end.

lol. That's exactly what I like about it.
Makes my acoustic sound like a piano - as they say. In this day & age of
thinned out C&W geetar, it feels good.

It adds an artificial sense of airiness to vocals which works now
>and then, but generally seems over the top to me.
>
>To be honest, I find the TLM103 more useful than the U87.

I've used those a few times and like them also - although I hear people
slamming them from time to time on here.. & there.

But that's just
>me. I've had plenty of gigs that I wouldn't have got if I hadn't had a U87
>in the closet.
>--scott
>
>
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 8:21:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jim Kollens" <jimkollens@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040725232331.24774.00000420@mb-m16.aol.com...
> Mr. Dorsey: >I don't even like the U87
>
> Why not? I've been strongly considering buying one just to have a
Neumann
> around, I'm ashamed to say.

Don't be ashamed, just do it... there's a perfectly logical reason to have
brands of gear that clients recognize, AND it's a good mic for lots of
things - you'll definitely find uses for it.
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 8:29:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040725150354.18203.00000405@mb-m03.aol.com...
> << Oh, c'mon.. there's nothing wrong with a 4033 - >>
>
> Probably not, but what the OP has just discovered is what is RIGHT about
a U87.

There's a lot of things that are "right" about an -87... I've used them
plenty, so i'm not dissing the mic.

> <<they're perfectly useful
> mics for lots of things. Might not be the best for his particular guitar
or
> the tone he's looking for, but they're not a bad mic by any means. >>
>
> No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in
their
> locker & no 4033s.

Yes, the reason - apart from the fact that -87's are also perfectly useable
mics, too - is that the brand helps to sell the potential clients... if
they had 6 to 12 Brauners & B.L.U.E.'s, they probably wouldn't get as much
business,despitethe fact that they could churn out an equally good - or
perhaps even better - product.


The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every engineer
> knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have it
result
> in a known, useable, predictable sound.

Or on drum overheads - my particular favorite for that application.
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 8:31:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mondoslug1" <mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote in message
news:20040725222909.26080.00000514@mb-m28.aol.com...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> >ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
> >>No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in
their
> >>locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every
> >engineer
> >>knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have
it
> >result
> >>in a known, useable, predictable sound.
> >
> >I don't even like the U87,
>
> What don't you like about it?

Speaking for myself (not Scott), it can come across as "whiney" on vocals
sometimes, IMO - particularly male vox. I still haven't found a better mic
for drum overheads, though; and i do like it on acoustic guitar sometimes,
as you've discovered.
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 9:27:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil wrote:

>"Mondoslug1" <mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote in message
>news:20040725222909.26080.00000514@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> >ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in
>their
>> >>locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every
>> >engineer
>> >>knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have
>it
>> >result
>> >>in a known, useable, predictable sound.
>> >
>> >I don't even like the U87,
>>
>> What don't you like about it?
>
>Speaking for myself (not Scott), it can come across as "whiney" on vocals
>sometimes, IMO - particularly male vox. I still haven't found a better mic
>for drum overheads, though; and i do like it on acoustic guitar sometimes,
>as you've discovered.
>--


The person who owns this mic prefers his Rode NT1 over the 87 on his acoustic -
me I'm heading for this next time I'm there. scratch vocal can use a 57. hahaha
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 11:45:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I just don't like that huge, larger-than-life lower midrange and the
exaggerated
top end. It adds an artificial sense of airiness to vocals which works now
and then, but generally seems over the top to me. >>

But that's what is good about them.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 11:51:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I've been strongly considering buying one just to have a Neumann
around, I'm ashamed to say. I really like my other mics (mostly Gefells and
ribbon mics) but no one knows those names. I used to think these things didn't
matter, but recently I've been getting introduced to potential clients that
have been around and I'm expecting a problem. >>

Perception plays a large part in the process. If people have mics at home that
you have in your professional studio, they tend to think you don't know
anything that they don't know about mics. If you have some boutique items that
they will NEVER shell out for, you're perceived as being in a different class
of seriousness about audio.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:15:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

AT 4033s have their purpose, and from what I've listened to of your music, I
don't find anything wrong with the recordings. Everything can always be
better and there's always a faster gun. The good thing is that nobody goes
looking for the slower guns and mic selection is a matter of what's
available and what's affordable.

If it comes down to it, find a rental house that can get you an 87 when you
need it, but just like any other mic, each 87 can be significantly different
enough as to blow your initial impression. Linda Ronstadt loved an 87 that
George M had but who considered it somewhat broken. He gave it to her. Go
figure.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Mondoslug1" <mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote in message
news:20040725135811.26080.00000491@mb-m28.aol.com...
> Neil wrote:
>
> >"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040725014758.19192.00002193@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >> << geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033
> >again
> >> on
> >> my acoustic. >>
> >>
> >> Well, yeah, that's what a real mic does for you.
> >
> >Oh, c'mon.. there's nothing wrong with a 4033 - they're perfectly useful
> >mics for lots of things. Might not be the best for his particular guitar
or
> >the tone he's looking for, but they're not a bad mic by any means.
>
> lol. Didn't mean to start a potential flame war. I've used 1 or 2 4033's
about
> a bazillion times & they're fine...I just hadn't had the opportunuty to
bring
> home a U-87 to mess with.
>
>
>
> >
> >Neil Henderson
> >Saqqara Records
> >http://www.saqqararecords.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:16:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20040725232331.24774.00000420@mb-m16.aol.com>,
Jim Kollens <jimkollens@aol.com> wrote:
>Mr. Dorsey: >I don't even like the U87
>
>Why not? I've been strongly considering buying one just to have a Neumann
>around, I'm ashamed to say. I really like my other mics (mostly Gefells and
>ribbon mics) but no one knows those names. I used to think these things didn't
>matter, but recently I've been getting introduced to potential clients that
>have been around and I'm expecting a problem. I've ruled out a 103. I used to
>have a Groove Tubes MD1. It sounded great on my voice and some others
>(incredible narration mic). But I got some flack that it was a "project studio
>mic," so I got rid of it. The players that I'm trying to get seem to be a
>fussy lot.

By all means get a U87, then. It's well worth it just in terms of making
your cabinet look more salable. It's definitely more effective in that
regard than the 103 is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 22:39:39 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article <ce1qtb$il7$1@panix2.panix.com>):

> Mondoslug1 <mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> No, but there's a reason that major studios will have 6 to 12 U87s in
>>>> their
>>>> locker & no 4033s. The U87 is sort of the SM57 of studio mics. Every
>>> engineer
>>>> knows he can tell the second to put up four 87s on the strings & have it
>>> result
>>>> in a known, useable, predictable sound.
>>>
>>> I don't even like the U87,
>>
>> What don't you like about it?
>
> I just don't like that huge, larger-than-life lower midrange and the
> exaggerated
> top end. It adds an artificial sense of airiness to vocals which works now
> and then, but generally seems over the top to me.
>
> To be honest, I find the TLM103 more useful than the U87. But that's just
> me. I've had plenty of gigs that I wouldn't have got if I hadn't had a U87
> in the closet.
> --scott

Scott usually posts this in most U 87 strings and then I repost that the
preamp makes all the difference. I've never heard an exaggerated top end on a
U 87 unless it was run through a punk preamp. The TLM 103 has a much more
lifted top end than a U 87 and a much bigger bottom.

We will continue to disagree on this mic.

It gets gigs because it works.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:26:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You know, having a Neumann around is like having a Jaguar or Rolls around.
Nice to say, but not always practical unless you use it. And an 87 isn't
any more usable in all circumstances than most any other mic, although I
would say that it's probably the SM57 of the Neumann line. Great overheads,
works for piano, although I have other choices I'd press into service first,
and on certain vocals, particularly female, it has a quality that actually
enhances what one is tracking. I even know a guy that uses it for kick, but
that's probably the last place I'd put it.

Then again, as JoVee says, the last mic in the closet is always the RIGHT
mic for the circumstance.

Personally, I like the TLM 170R better than most Neumanns for versatility,
but for vocals, both live and studio, I'm satisfied with the KMS 105 as a
general purpose vocal mic in the Neumann line. I have others that do as
good of a job without the expense, but that's up to me, isn't it! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Jim Kollens" <jimkollens@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040725232331.24774.00000420@mb-m16.aol.com...
> Mr. Dorsey: >I don't even like the U87
>
> Why not? I've been strongly considering buying one just to have a Neumann
> around, I'm ashamed to say. I really like my other mics (mostly Gefells
and
> ribbon mics) but no one knows those names. I used to think these things
didn't
> matter, but recently I've been getting introduced to potential clients
that
> have been around and I'm expecting a problem. I've ruled out a 103. I
used to
> have a Groove Tubes MD1. It sounded great on my voice and some others
> (incredible narration mic). But I got some flack that it was a "project
studio
> mic," so I got rid of it. The players that I'm trying to get seem to be a
> fussy lot.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:26:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:
><< I just don't like that huge, larger-than-life lower midrange and the
>exaggerated
>top end. It adds an artificial sense of airiness to vocals which works now
>and then, but generally seems over the top to me. >>
>
>But that's what is good about them.

Absolutely.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:31:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And perception, on the whole, is about marketing buzz. Like 8 years ago
when people wanted Mackie 32*8s and ADATs, but what does that say about the
market? Obviously most of us stay far more ahead of the crowd who want to
use a studio, but perceptions can be deceiving. I had one woman who had
wanted to record strictly to 24 track analog, but after I did a live
recording of her, taking the audio over to a stupid VHS (not even SVHS), she
used that mix for a live release. She gave me credit, but hey, I'd also
done a multitrack and she didn't even ask. Going from a 24 track analog
request to a VHS to CD product is like falling off a 12 story building.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040726035111.04880.00001440@mb-m24.aol.com...
> << I've been strongly considering buying one just to have a Neumann
> around, I'm ashamed to say. I really like my other mics (mostly Gefells
and
> ribbon mics) but no one knows those names. I used to think these things
didn't
> matter, but recently I've been getting introduced to potential clients
that
> have been around and I'm expecting a problem. >>
>
> Perception plays a large part in the process. If people have mics at home
that
> you have in your professional studio, they tend to think you don't know
> anything that they don't know about mics. If you have some boutique items
that
> they will NEVER shell out for, you're perceived as being in a different
class
> of seriousness about audio.
>
> Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And why would it change his view of an 87? He may adjust his levels on
highest quality mics, but not on usability. The Telefunken 251 is extremely
nice, amongst a number of other mics that cost your first born male child,
but the fact is that one works within the confines of their clientele and
their budget.

Like I said earlier in this thread, there's always a faster gun. The
question becomes whether a client has a bigger smile on their face because I
purchase 'this' particular mic or 'that' particular mic. I leave that to
the big guys and then make plans accordingly.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Peter Hewitt-Dutton" <phduttonNOSPAM@GOAWAYbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ce0io4$oij$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Try using the Brauner VM-1, then see what you think of the U-87!!
>
>
> "Mondoslug1" <mondoslug1@aol.comwaht> wrote in message
> news:20040724140357.12238.00002444@mb-m01.aol.com...
> > geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033
again
> on
> > my acoustic.
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:39:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And for that, try a John Hardy with an SM57. Might change some people's
minds about what is what with mics and mic pres, don't you think?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"WillStG" <willstg@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040725150221.04811.00001557@mb-m24.aol.com...
> << mondoslug1@aol.comwaht (Mondoslug1) >>
> << geeezus & that's with Digi 001's pre. Remind me never to use a 4033
again
> on
> my acoustic. >>
>
> Now try a micpre with a decent transformer as well.
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:58:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <fO%Mc.5691$sR.287@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:

> Speaking for myself (not Scott), it can come across as "whiney" on vocals
> sometimes, IMO - particularly male vox.


Speaking for my iconoclastic self, if a singer doesn't sound a little
better than natural through a U87, he or she doesn't have a very good
singing voice. If that's the case, given that it's nearly impossible
(for many reasons) to replace the singer, you try a different mic
which may be more flattering. I've heard some of the singers that
Scott gets to record. <g>


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 5:10:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <41051390$0$5640$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> rnorman@starpower.net writes:

> Then again, as JoVee says, the last mic in the closet is always the RIGHT
> mic for the circumstance.

Maybe he says that, but I'd say that when you're down to the last mic
in the cabinet, you'll be a lot less fussy about whether there might
be a better mic for the application in your collection.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:47:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Personally, I like the TLM 170R better than most Neumanns for versatility,
>>

I use the TLM170 when I need transparency, & a U87 when I want excess color.
Pretty different mics with pretty different applications.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:47:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'd agree in live circumstances, but in the studio, it's exactly what I
want. Remember, I don't do a lot of creative recording. I do documentary
recording, so it actually fits the circumstance in both cases. In yours it
might be different.

But then again I'm not adverse to pulling out the 4050 or the Beta 87 for a
vocal either. I don't care because I don't have a preferrence. I have a
mission! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040726114751.22984.00002378@mb-m07.aol.com...
> << Personally, I like the TLM 170R better than most Neumanns for
versatility,
> >>
>
> I use the TLM170 when I need transparency, & a U87 when I want excess
color.
> Pretty different mics with pretty different applications.
>
> Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 8:56:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:


>
> Scott usually posts this in most U 87 strings and then I repost that the
> preamp makes all the difference. I've never heard an exaggerated top end on a
> U 87 unless it was run through a punk preamp.

Any idea why, technically, a pre would make this specific
difference? To this EE it is difficult to understand.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 9:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I'd agree in live circumstances, but in the studio, it's exactly what I
want. Remember, I don't do a lot of creative recording. I do documentary
recording, so it actually fits the circumstance in both cases. In yours it
might be different. >>

I'd say that all recording is both creative as well as documentary, but that
could lead down a long semantic path.
As an aside, I'll mention that some of the tracks on my current project involve
recording a string quartet through contact pickups I built out of 79 cent Radio
Shack piezo buzzers. The result is non-traditional, to say the least.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 9:40:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>In article <41051390$0$5640$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> rnorman@starpower.net
>writes:
>
>> Then again, as JoVee says, the last mic in the closet is always the RIGHT
>> mic for the circumstance.
>
>Maybe he says that, but I'd say that when you're down to the last mic
>in the cabinet, you'll be a lot less fussy about whether there might
>be a better mic for the application in your collection.
>
>
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
>
--
Especially, if you have less than five mics in your closet or closet shelf.
:>)


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 9:49:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mondoslug1 wrote:
>
> The person who owns this mic prefers his Rode NT1 over the 87 on his
> acoustic - me I'm heading for this next time I'm there. scratch vocal
> can use a 57. hahaha

I've mentioned before that my K2 make my U87 sound like a shoe-box , or
lighter grade cardboard. Only reason I keep it is for the 'name
recognition'. I have other mics too, of course.

geoff
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 9:49:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 01:49:48 -0400, Geoff Wood wrote
(in article <sY0Nc.361$zS6.54439@news02.tsnz.net>):

> Mondoslug1 wrote:
>>
>> The person who owns this mic prefers his Rode NT1 over the 87 on his
>> acoustic - me I'm heading for this next time I'm there. scratch vocal
>> can use a 57. hahaha
>
> I've mentioned before that my K2 make my U87 sound like a shoe-box , or
> lighter grade cardboard. Only reason I keep it is for the 'name
> recognition'. I have other mics too, of course.
>
> geoff
>
>

How do you tame that 11kHz spike in the K2? I find the NT2000 MUCH better
because it doesn't have that spike.

Regards,

Ty Ford

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 2:41:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>Ty Ford wrote:
>>
>> Scott usually posts this in most U 87 strings and then I repost that the
>> preamp makes all the difference. I've never heard an exaggerated top end on a
>> U 87 unless it was run through a punk preamp.
>
>Any idea why, technically, a pre would make this specific
>difference? To this EE it is difficult to understand.

Usually when I hear radical differences between preamps, it has something to
do with the microphone loading. Dynamic mikes have loading issues, but even
some condenser mikes with poor quality transformers get top end ringing if
not loaded right.

I don't think that's the issue with the U87. And I have tried the U87 with
the Great River and the Millennia Media, two very different loads, and it
still has what I don't like about it with both preamps.

But plenty of folks like it. Some folks whose ears I respect a lot like
it. Oh well.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
July 27, 2004 4:27:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ce1qtb$il7$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> >>I don't even like the U87,
> >
> >What don't you like about it?
>
> I just don't like that huge, larger-than-life lower midrange and the
> exaggerated
> top end. It adds an artificial sense of airiness to vocals which works now
> and then, but generally seems over the top to me.




Jeez Scott, what preamp are you plugging it into????? C'mon, come
clean. (I remember years ago hearing my pair of 87's thru the original
Mackie 1604 and thought the mics got damaged in transport or the
monitors where bad.)

And it doesn't sound like you do much multitrack stuff where a "real"
or "accurate" vocal sounds boring as hell when dropped into a mix.

You should hear the lower midrange and top of a Soundelux U195 with a
gml pre getting banged by an LA3 - one of my faves for vocals - it'd
really make you howl!! Sometimes I even add a touch *more* bottom and
airey top with a Summit eq when I mix if I ain't got enough happening.






David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 4:27:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
>
>And it doesn't sound like you do much multitrack stuff where a "real"
>or "accurate" vocal sounds boring as hell when dropped into a mix.

Boring as hell is good!

>You should hear the lower midrange and top of a Soundelux U195 with a
>gml pre getting banged by an LA3 - one of my faves for vocals - it'd
>really make you howl!! Sometimes I even add a touch *more* bottom and
>airey top with a Summit eq when I mix if I ain't got enough happening.

Ty Ford really likes the U87 and really can't stand the 77DX. I think
the 77DX is one of my favorite vocal mikes and can't stand the U87.
If everybody liked the same thing, they wouldn't need to make so many
different kinds of microphones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 4:27:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<ce4fj2$ep$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
> >
> >And it doesn't sound like you do much multitrack stuff where a "real"
> >or "accurate" vocal sounds boring as hell when dropped into a mix.
>
> Boring as hell is good!
>
> >You should hear the lower midrange and top of a Soundelux U195 with a
> >gml pre getting banged by an LA3 - one of my faves for vocals - it'd
> >really make you howl!! Sometimes I even add a touch *more* bottom and
> >airey top with a Summit eq when I mix if I ain't got enough happening.
>
> Ty Ford really likes the U87 and really can't stand the 77DX. I think
> the 77DX is one of my favorite vocal mikes and can't stand the U87.
> If everybody liked the same thing, they wouldn't need to make so many
> different kinds of microphones.
> --scott


I'm with Ty. The 87ai is one of the most useful mics on the planet and
sounds great on almost everything. Takes EQ extremely well too.
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 11:03:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< > Ty Ford really likes the U87 and really can't stand the 77DX. I think
> the 77DX is one of my favorite vocal mikes and can't stand the U87. >>

About the 77DX; I've only used them on narration & tenor saxes in the past, &
they've been quite wonderful for those. I just put 4 of them up last month on
the quartet & I have to say they did nothing at all for me on the strings. They
were OK, but sort of non-present & required more gain than the Neve 31105 pres
could provide without some real noise issues. On the other hand, I've had 4
U87s up on the quartet for the last 2 weeks with no complaints.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 12:03:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:
>>
>
> How do you tame that 11kHz spike in the K2? I find the NT2000 MUCH
> better because it doesn't have that spike.


I haven't noticed the hf boost so drastic so as to call it a 'spike', and
haven't felt the need to tame it on anything I've tried it on so far. As
it's the same capsule, though different electronics of course....

If that's a 'spike' then what is the mid on the U87 - a Himalayan summit ?
;-)

geoff
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 1:13:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:26:28 -0400, Roger W. Norman wrote
(in article <41051390$0$5640$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>):

> You know, having a Neumann around is like having a Jaguar or Rolls around.
> Nice to say, but not always practical unless you use it.

Roger you've been in political playland too long. I have no idea what you
mean by thiis.

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 1:16:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:56:08 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article <ce459c1173p@enews3.newsguy.com>):

>
>
> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Scott usually posts this in most U 87 strings and then I repost that the
>> preamp makes all the difference. I've never heard an exaggerated top end on
>> a
>> U 87 unless it was run through a punk preamp.
>
> Any idea why, technically, a pre would make this specific
> difference? To this EE it is difficult to understand.
>
>
> Bob
>

capacitive reactance in the form of impedance differences.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
July 28, 2004 6:56:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ce4fj2$ep$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
> >
> >And it doesn't sound like you do much multitrack stuff where a "real"
> >or "accurate" vocal sounds boring as hell when dropped into a mix.
>
> Boring as hell is good!



Again, it doesn't sound like you do much multitrack recording and
mixing Scott. It's what I do. Kinda obviously, what a vocal sounds like
soloed and then subsequently sitting in a mix ain't the same sound.
Even tho it's the same track.

Boring, a rather imprecise term to be sure, is *not* what I'm going
for. Larger than life is.





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 1:26:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
>
>Again, it doesn't sound like you do much multitrack recording and
>mixing Scott. It's what I do. Kinda obviously, what a vocal sounds like
>soloed and then subsequently sitting in a mix ain't the same sound.
>Even tho it's the same track.

Most of the multitrack work I do is folk and jazz stuff, where the mixes
are probably a lot more sparse than what you are used to, and there isn't
the need to fight for space so much. And I'll do a lot of work where
there are vocals, but where the song isn't about the vocals.

>Boring, a rather imprecise term to be sure, is *not* what I'm going
>for. Larger than life is.

Then get a U87! There's nothing wrong with it, it's just not a tool I
find all that useful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 1:29:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:38:16 -0400, Roger W. Norman wrote
(in article <41051655$0$5623$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>):

> And why would it change his view of an 87? He may adjust his levels on
> highest quality mics, but not on usability.


Damn it Roger, for your own good, get away from the politicos. They're making
you sound like a fortune cookie.

Ty Ford

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 1:30:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:03:11 -0400, Geoff Wood wrote
(in article <xsdNc.459$zS6.71597@news02.tsnz.net>):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>>>
>>
>> How do you tame that 11kHz spike in the K2? I find the NT2000 MUCH
>> better because it doesn't have that spike.
>
>
> I haven't noticed the hf boost so drastic so as to call it a 'spike', and
> haven't felt the need to tame it on anything I've tried it on so far. As
> it's the same capsule, though different electronics of course....
>
> If that's a 'spike' then what is the mid on the U87 - a Himalayan summit ?
> ;-)
>
> geoff

If it were a summit, we'd hear it. It's more like an Ayers rock.

Ty



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 2:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tom wrote:

>I'm with Ty. The 87ai is one of the most useful mics on the planet and
>sounds great on almost everything. Takes EQ extremely well too.

Have to say with my limited experience acting as an "engineer"...I did an
acoustic guitar/vocal demo here last night for someone using the borrowed U-87.
I could get used to owning that mic.
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 2:32:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GJGdnZ39g63xyJvcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
>
> Roger you've been in political playland too long. I have no idea what you
> mean by thiis.

You wanna stop now, Ty? I haven't, except for maybe one or two slips in the
last two weeks, said anything on the political threads.

My next door neighbor has a Rolls and a Jag, but where's he going to drive
them? To the grocery store?

A U87 has it's pupose, which is with the right voice on the right music, but
as nice as it is in those situations, it's not always the mic one pulls from
their closet. It then becomes an expensive piece of speculative purchase
because of where it works and how many times you might use it in that
circumstance. Depends on what you've got your eye on. Personally there are
other Neumanns I'd grab first, or pay the money for, because my working
situation is such that a U87 would be there for the name and recognition
more than for the use. I know a couple of women that I'd immediately pull
it out for, and I think just one man (not me), but other than that, it
wouldn't be my first choice for vocals. Then again, in the right room with
a good drummer, a pair would probably be my first choice for overheads.

It's choices. As the OP opined, it's given him a new look on that level of
mics. If one has the money, then it's nice to do so. But I keep thinking
back to that Tudor mansion with some 200 Marshall, Fender and Boogie amps in
the picture and I have to wonder just how many times do each one of them get
driven! <g>

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
audiocentric
> stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
>
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 10:29:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger wrote:

> I know a couple of women that I'd immediately pull
>it out for,

Okay, that just had to be snipped <g>
!