Broken link !:unsure:

Fixed. Sorry about that.

The U87 is one of those ubiquitous mics - lots of studios have them, lots of people like them.

I don't believe there's such a thing as one "end-all be-all mic", because it all depends on situation and context - which pre it's being gained up on, which singer is using it, the room, the song, etc.

I have a U87, a U89i, AKG 414's ( both vintage and newer) an EV RE20, several 57's, 58's, Sennheiser 421's and 409's. I think they all sound good, sometimes better, sometimes not as, again, depending on the scenario.

I've had a U87 work great on some singers, and not quite as well on others - and this includes myself - my voice sounds better on the U89i, and even better on an older AKG414 (EB ) that I have, but, I'm also one of those guys from the camp that thinks that the preamp matters a lot in the equation, too.

But IMO, all in all, there's no doubt that the U87 is a great microphone.

d.

The U87 are no doubt very good mics and the vocal is not a bad vocal. It would be if it was too pitchy or if it had a defects in the vocal cords or something but no, it's ok.

It's true that the track sounds good like this but it's alone, out of context.
I won't ever say that it needs no EQ or compression etc when listening to a single track, simply because in the context of the song I'm sure it will need some work.
In fact, I'd rather avoid more than 2-3db of compression on it, because with more we would start to hear the room quite and it's already on the limit of what I'd accept on vocal track.
Just my opinion, no offence intended ;)

Thanks for your input, guys! Much appreciated. PCRecord: No offense taken! :^)

-Chuck