You don't like the U 87? No problem.

That's why I suggested you try the TLM 67. No, it's not a U 67 ( or a U 87) and I really don't care.

What I care about is what it is, not what it isn't.

Before you let others decide for you, give it a listen. It's the Schoepsiest sounding Neumann I've ever heard, and how bad is that?

Regards,

Ty Ford

What I care about is what it is, not what it isn't.

well put. May I ask what your signal chain is? Pre amp, channel strip, etc?

Before you let others decide for you, give it a listen. It's the Schoepsiest sounding [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.Neumann…"]Neumann[/]="http://www.Neumann…"]Neumann[/] I've ever heard, and how bad is that

Truthfully, I'm not really in the market for another condenser right now, I have a few 414's, a U89i, and a handful of SD's...

If I was going to purchase any mic, that next purchase will most likely be a ribbon; I currently don't own one, although I have borrowed them from colleagues and friends, and it has convinced me that I need one.

It's not GAS, it's not as if I just haven't bought anything in a while and feel the need to purchase something on a knee jerk impulse... I just really want a ribbon mic. I just haven't decided which one I want yet.

FWIW, this is the track that convinced me that I needed a ribbon:

[MEDIA=soundcloud]donny-thompson-4/youll-never-know

Originally, I tracked my lead vocal with a U89, and as an afterthought, I used an RCA 44. I don't own the RCA; as stated above I don't own any ribbon mics... a friend and colleague of mine was kind enough to let me borrow it.

-d.

That's what's so beautiful about a ribbon. Nothing edgy. Always smooth. Full, robust that which you cannot get from a condenser microphone or dynamic.

So pay attention kids... you purchase a microphone because you know what kind of sound that microphone will give you and where it can be used. You don't just purchase studio condenser microphones because they have the word studio on the box. That's part of the marketing. So while most microphones are pressure and pressure gradient types, you still want a microphone that responds to the velocity at which the sound is moving. And so that's why they are also called velocity microphones a.k.a. ribbon microphones. They work on a completely different principle than a dynamic or condenser microphone. A principle developed in the late 1920s before there were actually before any good condenser microphones ever existed. Today, with the harsh fluorescent light quality of PCM digital recording, these ribbon microphones while they are certainly not as bright or " better ", sounding than a condenser microphone, it really works for digital recording purposes very well. And that's principally why they have made such a remarkable resurgence back into the mainstream of recording.

And also, what we're also seeing is something I thought about 30 years ago. Putting an active electronics to boost and buffer the output of a ribbon microphone, produces an almost condenser like top end without ever sounding harsh. And those things both transistor and tube versions, sound just this side of auditory bliss. Though most of those do carry a rather hefty price sticker. And where passive ribbon microphones that today can, be had for as little as a SHURE, Beta 58. Of course that has a Chinese transformer and it will cost you another $100 for a good transformer. That will catapult that cheap ribbon microphone to sound almost indistinguishable from a 44, as most of these lesser expensive ribbon microphones are actually made from long geometry ribbons. Short geometry ribbons such as the old RCA 77 series and the Beyer M-130/160/260/500's, have been expressed to me by some of these companies that the short geometry ribbons are actually harder and more difficult to produce good ones. As opposed to the more old-fashioned longer geometry units. But Germany has been kicking out these microphones now since the 1950s with little change. And so the Beyer M-160, is by far, one of the most popular modern day short geometry ribbon microphones. Even Wes Dooley, who makes perfect RCA clone microphones confided in me that he could not get the 77 style, short geometry ribbons to sound right. So he does not offer any short geometry ribbons. His neoclassic 77, of which he used to offer, he told me was not like a 77 but was in fact more like the 44 with a long geometry ribbon in his 77 imitation. His 77 now it's not offered as a working microphone. It is only offered as a prop or equipped with a condenser microphone element. And that's blasphemy! So his 77 is really nothing more than for the look. But he said that he would re-ribbon my 77 if I wanted? After telling me what he told me, I don't think I'd want him to replace the ribbon in my 77? If he can get his right? How is he going to get mine right? So, again, I would necessarily send Wes my 77 for a new ribbon? Certainly not after what he told me. At first, I thought he was just talking about that acoustical labyrinth in the 77 DX? But he was telling me he couldn't do the ribbons right, to produce a cloned 77. So I really wasn't quite sure what to make of that? He'll do mine but he doesn't want to do his. This is a red flag for sure. And until my ribbon is kaput, I'm not going to try and make my own. Not until it breaks. And it's fine. Lucky for me currently. Of course there is the guy up in New Jersey whose father or grandfather did just that for RCA for many years and afterwards. And I think I might trust him? If he's still alive when I need it? Otherwise I still pull the foil lining out of my pack of cigarettes and making new corrugated ribbon, just like old-fashioned radio station chief engineers used to do. And after I fail at that, then I will send it out to somebody, if I fail. But those old guys are making ribbons for 44 type long geometry ribbons which may in fact be more forgiving? I would imagine, the shorter geometry ribbon microphones, show more flaws by virtue of their smaller size? Which is possibly what he was hinging at? Nevertheless, these 77's have been re-ribboned, in the past, by others. How successfully however, we do not know? So there must be some kind of fabrication tip or technique that was utilized in the original? That which has never been passed down, to anyone before their leaving from this planet? And that's possible. That precise same thing happened at Scully (a legendary American record cutters and tape recorders manufacturer).

I was brought in when Amp-Pro purchased Scully, from Dictaphone. I was brought in to save the product. There were designs that were enacted upon for which, in many ways, no one knew why as they were awkward? And no one could ever ask the guy who designed that new circuit. He committed suicide shortly after the machine was released. And so there were questions about circuitry design concepts, for which there will never be any answers to. So sometimes, secrets, along with their techniques, are lost forever. We still don't know where the Mayans went. We still don't know where the Aztec went. And we may never know? There was nobody left to write an epitaph. So it's a couple of the great mysteries of the world. We still don't know how the Pyramids or Stonehenge were built without the use of heavy construction equipment? And for which, still seems impossible to this day. Which then brings everybody to the conclusion that there must have been some kind of outside support, that was never indicated in history. But who knows? They could have invented paper and written it down. Of course it would never have survived all of these years and so any record has been permanently lost. The same holds true for a lot of audio equipment. Though most of it is based on well-established electronics design standards, which we and others created. So who created their stuff? There is no record, no schematic. And the most brilliant collective of all the minds in the world today can't figure it out. What does that say about mathematics I wonder? Obviously there's a problem there. I mean these mathematic guys can't even find the proper answer for pi. And you want to trust these guys to put you on the moon? No thank you. Theory might be great but it might not keep you alive? And that's a real bummer when you realize it's too late. Kind of like when I electrocuted myself at 14 and during mine brief few moments of consciousness, before my oxygen in the blood was depleted, I knew I was going to die and I was really bummed out. I remember thinking how awful it was to be only 14 and to have my parents find their kid dead on the basement floor from electrocution. I remember it like yesterday and it was more than 42 years ago. And it could have possibly burned some of the connectivity of my synapses? It was bad. +350 V plate at 150 W, when I lost my balance and connected with the cold water pipe and couldn't let go of anything except my air in my lungs. And with all that gone, after a few more seconds, I began to pass out. As my body crumpled, it broke my thumb and forefinger free from the wire and blew me 5 feet across the basement, smashing my ass into the sheet metal side of our new gas furnace leaving a huge dent before falling onto the floor. It took me a full day to recover. My parents were convinced I was doing drugs LOL. I could never tell them what happened otherwise, I thought they would probably take my shortwave transmitter away from me? So in tuning my Knight Kit transmitter up, I nearly killed myself by accident because a wire had to be curved and positioned just right around the base of the output tubes, without touching it. And ya had to do this when the transmitter was on. I was simply bent over doing this, which was a necessary crucial adjustment and when I lost my balance. That's why they call these incidents an accident. Nobody intends to have this happen to them. So I was lucky in that I got away with my life as there was no one else there to separate me from this event. And ever since then, I've had a bit of a high-voltage phobia when it comes to working on any kind of broadcast transmitters for sure. So I'm not a transmitter freak like so many other broadcast engineering folks are because they have to be. Basically, I chose not to do a job like that anymore because it really scared me to death without dying. That just doesn't happen to teenagers alone. It happens to seasoned thirty-year veterans also. Because when you play with fire, you get burned. And transmitter engineers have to play with fire all of their lives. Some get burnt.

Audio equipment is much safer.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Then again, sometimes the idea of a ribbon is more interesting than actually using a ribbon. Newer ribbons like the Audio Technica AT4080 have solved the low sensitivity problem that the early ribbons have. I have a Cloud prototype with extra magnets and an AEA R84 (along with an m160 and 77DX).

Back then we had tape hiss to cover condenser mic selfnoise and preamp hiss. Now we don't and you can hear that stuff pretty plainly. It's not pretty once you've become accustomed to the lower noise floor.

Ribbon frequency response starts going away pretty fast after 10-12 kHz. While there's not much voice energy up there, there's a clarity up there, without which all but the most irritating voices sound dull. My best experiments have been while double tracking a good condenser and a ribbon and mixing to taste.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ribbon frequency response starts going away pretty fast after 10-12 kHz. While there's not much voice energy up there, there's a clarity up there, without which all but the most irritating voices sound dull.

I dunno about that. I listen to old recordings by Nat King Cole and the silk and presence on those vocal performances sound amazing to me. I wouldn't classify Nat's voice as being even remotely irritating, or dull.
To the contrary, I thought he sounded spectacular. Now, of course, much of that was in the fact that he had an amazing voice to begin with, a magic resonance and timbre that was as smooth as 60 year old scotch, or at least it was to my ears, anyway.

I guess it all depends on the application, and what you like to hear. I wouldn't think to go with a ribbon every time any more than I would think to use a condenser or a dynamic all the time.

As far as top end, Remy thought that the top end on my vocal track with the ribbon was actually too much.

It's a matter of taste, like anything else, and the song drives the car, or at least it should in theory, anyway. ;)

FWIW

-d.

I think we're hearing a couple of interesting things going on here that explains much?

Today, technology has given everybody a great bang for the buck. Bang, hell, you get a great BLAST for a buck. Tiny IC chip converters have gotten very good. And where, a lovely preamp along with a lovely ribbon microphone still obviously produces an abundance of high-end detail. Which I had initially perceived as being a little bit too much. Because I'm used to so much less.

I believe most of Nat King Cole's recordings were done with the venerable Neumann U-47? And, at the time and the technology that was used, likely mostly tubes circuits with Transformers the size of your fist. That was recorded to a tube Ampex 300 or 350 or 351 to Scotch 111. And that single chain, along with the old-fashioned tape, showed the smoothness while the beauty of the classic 47 has not been hyped. And with all those tubes then Transformers and old-fashioned tape recorders with old-fashioned tape, all the distortion components, all of the mush combine together to produce a stellar sounding pieces of American history.

Today, those numerous extra stages and sound mushing quality of Transformers has been eliminated for the most part. Providing for a much shorter, direct more straight wire like single chain. So we've had to adjust our tone controls (in a manner of speaking) to reproduce these beautiful classic sounding examples from yesteryear. But you can't always get their using the same equipment such as a microphone without all that other junk they had in between.

Sinatra also typically used the 47, with other similar signal chains and types. And while those microphone still sound great today they are now perceived with so much more pizzazz. Because the signal chain is so much shorter, so much cleaner. A similar analogy to this exists in the land of high definition television.

Standard definition television was 525 lines NTSC in the United States at 30 frames per second. And good standard definition television still looks good when you view it today on our current high definition displays. Albeit 4 x 3. However, the female newscasters and other celebrities I worked with, didn't much care for high definition video. It shows up so many more flaws in their complexion. Then soon after high-definition television was introduced, new digital signal processing is being built into these studio cameras and field cameras that could detect skin tone and smoother texture of the skin tone. I also do the same thing today, in software of video shot without cameras such as those. And it's really a blurring filter that does that. In a sense, turning down the high frequency response of the video in order to smooth the complexion of their skin. And we are experiencing a similar phenomenon as we continue to tweak our way into the digital audio realm.

I started recording digitally as soon as I could get my hands on a Sony PCM-F1 which was affordable at $2000 for that converter and $1000 for the portable VCR you would need. And while I had items like Neumann original 67's, KM 56, 87's, 86's 84's and others, along with a lovely pair of API 3124 mixers, it became painfully obvious what these condenser mics did and didn't do with PCM digital recording. Up until that time, I had been using REVOX A-77's, G-36's, Scully 280 of both varieties LOL where those condenser microphones really sounded right fine. But this digital aspect changed everything to what I wanted to hear. Years earlier, I had used some ribbon microphones and while they were nice, they really didn't cut through the mix much in comparison to everything else we used. But now, I needed that. That's when I purchased my five Bayer M-160's & the 130, as I frequently used to use my multi-pattern condenser microphones for MS. And after that, I also purchased my 414 P 48's. But their top-end was a little hyped now. Would have been fine for analog recording. I was able to swap mine out with someone else's brand-new 414 B-ULS, Which smoothed out that edgy high-end and were a more linear response microphone. So it would work better with this horrible PCM format that was free of hiss, wow, flutter, azimuth errors, print through, biased rocks and other modulation noise. And when you take all of that out of the equation, you need something to mush up your signal so it sounds right and is wonderfully easy and not irritating to listen to.

You are not there as an engineer to prove to anybody that you can hear all of this incredible hyped better, cleaner, more transparent, neutral high-end. They don't give a crap about that. They only want something that sounds good and that does not necessarily denote good. It just denotes ultrabright ultra crispy you're a genius blah blah blah. Ain't going to happen. You don't mix with your eyes and technical specifications. Close your freakin' eyes, stop looking at the meters and the knobs and balance the firkin sound. That's what you're supposed to do. Not to recite magazine advertising marketing blather. And YouTube demonstrations. No.

You have to be a team engineer to work for a TV network. So was really quite fascinating during my tenure there when we would have actual audio broadcast meetings and discussions amongst my fellow colleague audio engineers. And you're not necessarily the only audio engineer on a TV show. There are many audio engineers where we are all working side-by-side. Then this teaches you a great deal more about audio then just pure bedroom singer-songwriters can ever learned because they have never been in any kind of environment such as that. Where other professional audio engineers that are highly skilled, all have to work together, all have to produce similar sounding results that all go about it in many different ways. Because you could configure your control room, anyway you wanted to do the show as long as the consistency of broadcast quality between shows was maintained.

Few people that work in mass communications broadcasting, work in studios under musical conditions. But there are engineers that work under only musical conditions and that's where their capabilities end, to think any further. Because that's the abstract of audio.

This is so cool.
Mx. Remy Ann David

I do a lot of location & live recording work and I have settled on the Neumann KMS104 as my favorite for recording vocals. I have found a number of great other uses for them as well, which makes them a really versatile choice if you like Neumann mics and don't have an unlimited budget for all of the various flavors. I recently finished a Jazz Clarinet recording, using the 104 for the clarinet work, and could not be happier with the results.

Here is a link to the rough mixes from the clarinet session. https://soundcloud.com/stevemilnersound/sets/capitol-klezmer-feb2013

Hi Steve,

Who was playing? Was it Seth Kibel by any chance?

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hi there Steve! Welcome to the group. Looks like we're kissin' cousins. And perhaps in more than one way? I mean did you record this over at the Washington Hebrew congregation? I feel like I just came back from a bar mitzvah? This sounds like the perfect music for a circumcision party? Who brought the Mogen David wine? No Mogen David? Man oh man oh Chev its, what a wine.

Yup, nice-sounding microphone. Now the percussion has some nice stereo going on. Everything else is fairly mono. Are you actually picking up more than one instrument with that microphone? I mean there really isn't a whole lot of instrumentation going on. And I was also wondering how you got your stereo ambience of the drums? You're talking about a single microphone but obviously, there was more than a single microphone used. So what up?

I had my second circumcision 12 years ago tomorrow.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Ty Ford, post: 401194 wrote: Hi Steve,

Who was playing? Was it Seth Kibel by any chance?

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty,
That was John Norton playing clarinet, he is a 20+ year military musician with great natural tone & control. It's his group / project I was working for.

Thanks!
Steve

RemyRAD, post: 401195 wrote: Hi there Steve! Welcome to the group. Looks like we're kissin' cousins. And perhaps in more than one way? I mean did you record this over at the Washington Hebrew congregation? I feel like I just came back from a bar mitzvah? This sounds like the perfect music for a circumcision party? Who brought the Mogen David wine? No Mogen David? Man oh man oh Chev its, what a wine.

Yup, nice-sounding microphone. Now the percussion has some nice stereo going on. Everything else is fairly mono. Are you actually picking up more than one instrument with that microphone? I mean there really isn't a whole lot of instrumentation going on. And I was also wondering how you got your stereo ambience of the drums? You're talking about a single microphone but obviously, there was more than a single microphone used. So what up?

I had my second circumcision 12 years ago tomorrow.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Remy,
Thanks for the message... I actually recorded this in an older church in Virginia, one night a couple of weeks ago. The session too maybe three hours from setup to strike, and we got six songs finished. I had them setup in a sort of circle, with the drums a bit farther on one side and the three other players in a arch facing him, to make the most out of the off-axis rejection of each mic in use.
The clarinet is just a single KMS104.
The accordion is a single AT3035.
Bass is a GT di-box along with an omni SDC on a short stand, pointed towards the bridge area.
The drums are a single e902 sennheiser in the kick w/ a pair of Shure SM27 LDC that I positioned low (below the cymbals) and pretty close in to the snare on one side & the floor Tom on the other.

I tend to like a wider drum space in my mixes, I love the separation and the room it leaves to utilize the center for other things. With this style of music, the clarinet & accordion need to be allowed to weave in and out of each other in that center space, which was my intent with this mix.

Hopefully that came across to you, you never know what other people are hearing until they tell you! I appreciate the remarks for sure!

Steve

DonnyThompson, post: 398222 wrote: Those thinner diaphragm condensers don't sound better to me either, Remy... especially within the digital format.

That hyped-up top end worked fine for tape, but to my ears, in the digital realm, it just sounds cold and harsh.

Now, that being said, there are plenty of workarounds of varying methods that can warm those mics up... options like front loading the DAW with a nice pre amp, either tube or SS, or a channel strip, or lunch box...

But, as far as plugged directly in, right out of the box, through your everyday run-of-the-mill $300 mic pre/audio I-O, I don't believe they sound as good as what the manufacturers claim.

And... ok... wait a sec... let me adjust my flame suit here.... ok... yup... adjusting asbestos-lined helmet...okay, here we go:

I'm not, and never have been a fan, of the U87.

There. Yeah. That's right. I said it.

I don't think it's a bad mic... I just don't think it's worth the MSRP that it commands. I don't believe that it sounds any better than the various 414's out there, which for the most part, can be had for at least half the cost of the 87.

I guess I'll wait for my pink slip now, and the email that tells me that I've been banned and blackballed from every single audio forum in the cosmos...

-d.

Ya know, I dont think that much of the ai versions of the U87 either and I had one in my room for quite a while. But I do like the old ones and have heard several that were on par with anything out there. Its all about the aging process.

I've heard that Dave from so many people about the most recent incarnation of the venerable 87. Mine are somewhere between the time they were introduced in 1968-1970/71? The one that takes the two, 22 volt, batteries. An original issue. And I know these particular 87's were used for nothing more than announcers for commercials. They really didn't start seeing any music action until I obtained them, back around 1980. And while it's one of my premium primary microphones it's not necessarily a regular go to microphone for most of my pop oriented recordings. And where I find myself using these more for lead vocals, backup vocals and drum overheads. And once in a while they may get some guitar cabinet action. Acoustic guitars also.

I'll never forget that day at Media Sound, NYC, where I ended up in the control room during a session for jazz trumpet great, Maynard Ferguson. I'll never forget seeing his trumpet screaming and nearly enveloping the 87 with the bell of the 87, with its pad switch on. I was almost sure even with the microphone pad switch on, he would be overblowing that microphone with that screaming trumpet high notes? It didn't. It sounded absolutely fabulous. I mean the bell of his trumpet was kissing the face of the 87 grill. I just stood there and watched and listened in awe, to those trumpets screaming jazz great. I loved him when I was a kid still playing trumpet. Never thought I would bump into him in a control room? I mean you can't be running up to these people when they come in processions, even if you are the maintenance technician tweaking the machine, to ask them for their autographs. I mean I didn't do that simply because I also knew they were thinking about their recording and I simply did not want to nor thought it appropriate to ever break someone's concentration. So ya have to handle yourself like a professional, around the professionals. Sure I would have liked to have recorded, mixed, overdubbed or anything else on those Barry Manilow sessions. But it's still a gratifying thought that while I did not receive any printed credit for what I did, it was just cool to be able to contribute to these chart topping folks. And in a sense, I was working for a very highly exclusive club. So some of his stuff as the sound of how I tweaked the 24 track machine in that control room. And because there are numerous ways to adjust the machines when you are not provided with a technical specification. Because if you tweak a machine one way, it will sound that way. If you tweak it differently, it will impart a difference in the recorded sound. We had general criteria we generally followed but you did have your creative and technical poetic license. So I always get a kick when I hear one of his albums knowing that there is a little bit of me that those millions of people have heard. And all the millions of people that have heard my jingles until they are probably sick of them. Actually that was the good part of my jingles. They certainly did not sound like all of those other local yokel jingle some rock 'n roll band made. And most of the time, those are pretty awful. Mine are starting to sound a little corny now because nobody cuts things like this anymore.

Why was I talking about that?
Mx. Remy Ann David

I'm not, and never have been a fan, of the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.Neumann…"]U87[/]="http://www.Neumann…"]U87[/].

There. Yeah. That's right. I said it.

I don't think it's a bad mic... I just don't think it's worth the MSRP that it commands. I don't believe that it sounds any better than the various 414's out there, which for the most part, can be had for at least half the cost of the 87.

i'm surprised to hear you say that Donny and i find it a bit puzzeling in view of your comments

That hyped-up top end worked fine for tape, but to my ears, in the digital realm, it just sounds cold and harsh.

U87 and 414s are completely different animals. the 414 has more in common with a C12 than a U87 (ai or not).

the 87 has a smooth top end with a slightly scooped mid range and is a very smooooooth sounding mic to my ears. 414s of all variants and C12 for that matter are much more aggressive and bright in the top end. each has it's own application but if you have a problem with an agressive top end with digital, i would think you would lean more towords a U87 than a 414 ... yeah they are pricy, pehaps more than they should be. has Neumann moved production to the far east yet?

I think they only moved it to a different section of Germany? LOL. Germans like being in command of what they build. Hitler taught them well. So even after WWII, the Germans still commanded the bulk of the pro audio market. Because if they hadn't built superior groundbreaking products, they probably would have been put to death? So maybe if we had the same kind of business plans here, there wouldn't be as much junk equipment that sounds simply awful in such abundance? Otherwise we would have to kill them. And then we'd only have good stuff, again. And the same thing would happen to Greg Mackie and Behringer the same thing that happened to Mussolini?

What kind of sample rate did they use on Mussolini? I heard it was quite a few samples? I think they actually used DSD? Direct Strangle Death? And then they put him through an analog to digital converter that sampled at quite a few bits per minute. And Mussolini was forever digitized and ingested. Though I think that those masters are unrecoverable today? And they wouldn't know how to put Humpty back together again?

And then everybody fell off the wall so I guess Pink Floyd is no longer applicable?
Mx. Remy Ann David

and another thing ..... hee hee ;

sure an 87 costs a lot new but you can sell them for a lot used ... so it all comes out in the wash don't it?

fwiw; i found th KEL HM-1s to sound an awful lot like a U87 in the cardioid position. hard to tell them apart side by side. HM 1 was 100 bucks ...

although i'm not sure how we got from the beginning to here. ... none of these mics would fit the criteria the op was asking about. :confused:

I hated to sell my U87ai last month but I'm with Donny on this a bit more. I think the new digital world is somewhat conflicting with old standards, especially with condensers on vocals. I am collecting ribbons.
What is it, 50 years of developing gear to work with tape and we are now recording direct to digital.

The BAX EQ is a very useful EQ because of its LPF and that Baxandall Curve. Put that on a mic and its pretty impressive. Put it on your master 2-bus, LPF the top end and the mix sounds sweeter and tighter. Its a sonic marriage for converters.

Today I'm recording Choirs with a Royer SF-24 and it is silk butter, vocal sweetness. Man, does it sound great. A U87 compared sounds Metallic. I'm not saying I'm not going to try and get another U87 one day but a ribbon like the SF series on vocals going into Sequoia is to die for.

audiokid, post: 401341 wrote:
The BAX EQ is a very useful EQ because of its LPF and that Baxandall Curve. Put that on a mic and its pretty impressive. Put it on your master 2-bus, LPF the top end and the mix sounds sweeter and tighter. Its a sonic marriage for converters.

yep
i have couple Baxandall eqs i bought from Dane and they are nice!

Kurt Foster, post: 401286 wrote: i'm surprised to hear you say that Donny and i find it a bit puzzeling in view of your comments

U87 and 414s are completely different animals. the 414 has more in common with a C12 than a U87 (ai or not).

the 87 has a smooth top end with a slightly scooped mid range and is a very smooooooth sounding mic to my ears. 414s of all variants and C12 for that matter are much more aggressive and bright in the top end. each has it's own application but if you have a problem with an agressive top end with digital, i would think you would lean more towords a U87 than a 414 ... yeah they are pricy, pehaps more than they should be. has Neumann moved production to the far east yet?

I didn't say it was a bad mic... I just don't think it's worth the $3000 + msrp that they want.

And, it all depends on the vocalist. For my voice, the 414 EB sounds better than the U87 and the U89.

I think the U87 I had ( I bought it used) was a newer model. I've heard from Neumann enthusiasts that the older U87's were better sounding mics.
The one I had was dull and muddy, and the top end sounded "brittle".

fwiw
-d.

"Vintage" U87 have more nicotine. I have a feeling a new U87ai would be the choice in a shoot out if we were all using tape lol. U87's sound stellar and cost this because they work. But, A ribbon to me sounds pretty sweet in the digital domain.

It appears one of the most obvious mics has been ignored, or "missed." The Electro-Voice RE 20 is one of the most natural sounding mics available (IMO).

The RE 20 has been discussed as being the great mic it is in many other posts here on this forum. It just wasn't brought up here on this particular post, and you're right, it should have been included.

Being a favorite mic of mine I am surprised I did not bring up the RE-20, I thought we had covered it earlier in the thread?
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/] as you are now collecting ribbon mics i am surprised many other dynamics are not on you radar as well: )

pan60, post: 401510 wrote: Being a favorite mic of mine I am surprised I did not bring up the RE-20, I thought we had covered it earlier in the thread?
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/] as you are now collecting ribbon mics i am surprised many other dynamics are not on you radar as well: )

I agree.

One of the most fascinating things about ribbon microphones is that they were the first high fidelity microphone that was created just in time for electrical recording. I believe 1928 is the actual intercept date by Harry Olsen? And to think back in the analog days those that were literally just disposed of, couldn't find any more, today is all the rage. And it's because of how bad PCM digital actually sounds, at any bit depth or sample rate. Don't kid your self for a minute that anything PCM digital can re-create with the same kind of pleasant perceptible advantage of analog recording. It's cold, it's digital, it's linear. And if people were created the same way? We would all be clones of each other. We're not. We are not linear. We are not clones. We are analog beings. And there are flaws. Some to be appreciated. Others to be avoided. And those that blow up always seem to take a lot of them with them.

So if we were all living in a perfectly linear digital world and we were all clones of each other, what music would be listen to? There wouldn't be any. 98% of the populace is not musical. It would disappear like leaded gas. We would use some other kind of digital simulations/emulations/imitations and we would have a great time playing with just ourselves. And with which people don't seem to need much instruction on how to do well?

I have a degree in musical masturbation
Mx. Remy Ann David

Update to original- thanks as always for the inputs. I have a bunch of different mics now since I originally asked my question and each mic has a purpose and is valuable in it's own right. Cascade fathead ii/ AT 4047/ AT 3035/ SM58/ SM57/ E-100. I never did shell out the clams for an AEA Ribbon, but maybe soon. What I did shell out for though is some 500 series stuff that is wonderful. I bought the MA-5 and a buzz audio essence comp, but left that stuff back in Germany. I'm in Afghanistan for a year and wanted something new so I built a lunchbox with API 512c, lindell audio compressor, and the amazing API 550b eq. The API stuff is just so amazing and beautiful and musical i just will never regret or sell those two pieces. No one can really explain that sound to you, but once you hear your own voice and guitar going through it, it's like your listening to someone else as your singing and playing. All these details and nuances I've heard in so many recordings are now coming out of my computer! You just can't compete with those old school circuits. I picked up some bargain stuff too and got one of the greatest sounding acoustic guitar tracks from a 100 dollar jasmine (takamine) acoustic someone gave me, recorded with a AT 3035 (60$ on ebay) plugged in to a joe meek 3Q (140$ on ebay). Mic placement, setting up your equipment correctly and creatively and learning to really tune in your ears and listen to the differences are priceless. By the time I get really good I'm sure I will start to get old and lose my hearing!