Going back to the U87. It's amazing how often mic builders reference their mics to it. I was surfing around and found that at some point the studio project C1 was a pretenders to the U87 sound. I checked the frequency curve and yes it is very similar. It's been a long time since I used mine. I might do some testing since I now have better preamps. After ready about it, I think where the C1 failed compared to the U87 was when you get too far from it, the sound becomes thin..

Anyway, I'm not fooling myself, a C1 is not a U87, it's just that it's been a long time since I used it and I'm wandering if I can find a use for it.. ;)

pcrecord, post: 422484, member: 46460 wrote: Please explain the kind of vocal you have and what style of music you are signing. It will be easier to make suggestions.

The more colored the mic pre is the more mics will come together. On the other hand, a crappy preamps will make everything sound crappy ;)
In this case the MP-2NV definetly has a sound signature, more in this case where they said they dialed in a bit of saturation.
But it's a fairly precise preamp, so I doubt the comparaison was undermined by it.

Very good point, I guess I would say country, alternative country

audiokid, post: 422498, member: 1 wrote: I don't disagree :)

I have said about 100 times that there is nothing that rivals tracking with a good front end, which could include a console, tube comps and tube mics. Too much of a good thing however, turns into mud when we start mixing it all back through the same thing again.

But, once you hear what a stellar transformerless pre's sounds like with a high quality tube mic and (example LA2A/1176) a tranny based pre starts to sound like mud. So, depending on how we skin it, I'd rather use transformerless pres and look for other ways to get that mojo because the size a straight wire gives rivals everything else I've used.

I will say this, I'm not saying I don't love my tranny pre's, I just know you can do a lot more via hybrid when the capture is as big and clear as you can get it, first.

I wish I could right now, I just don't think I could swing that much.

Thanks for the replies everyone, I guess I could elaborate a little. First of all I chose the Rode NT1 because numerous people stated that it did nothing but reproduce what it captured, in other words what you hear is what sound was produced. So far I have found that to be right on the money and I like that. Anything I want to add to it I will do with the DAW. So I guess I would be looking for a pre that with not over do things and one that would keep the vocal track in a pre processed sort of way.

Also someone asked if I was talking about just a pre or a pre within an interface. Right now I was just looking into a pre.

pcrecord, post: 422519, member: 46460 wrote: Going back to the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://https://www…"]U87[/]="http://https://www…"]U87[/]. It's amazing how often mic builders reference their mics to it.

It's also amazing as to how many people will buy one with the expectation(s) that it will add a "special character" to their vocals. The U87 wasn't designed to be a mic with character. It was designed for transparent recording applications where you could get the highest possible integrity in terms of "what you record is what you will get".

I think many are often mislead into believing that the U87 (or U89i) are similar to U47's and 67's, which, before FET models were introduced for these mics, were originally designed as tube models, so they did offer up a texture and a certain sonic character... but the U87 wasn't designed to replace those mics - it was a mic of its own, and not meant to replace or substitute any of the other Neumann mics.

I have one, as well as a U89i, and I find them both to be very transparent. I don't use them for character, I use them for accuracy. They do sound great when used with hi end preamps, and they "take" EQ very well in a mix. I am one of those people who do believe that the U87 has earned its place as one of the comparative standards from which other mics are considered, in terms of transparency, frequency response, SPL, and sonic integrity. I feel the same way about the AKG 414. Although less expensive, the 414 has also become a standard - as one of "those" mics - that sound great on virtually anything you throw at it. I've heard it described as a high quality Swiss Army knife - LOL - and I can't disagree. OH's, vocals, percussion, acoustic instruments of all types, amps, group vocals, string sections, etc.
Much like the U87, I have yet to find a limitation to either, in terms of integrity and the ability to use in so many different applications with great results.

IMHO of course. ;)

d.

Boswell, post: 422501, member: 29034 wrote: About 20 years ago I invested in a Martin, mainly for the performance work I do but also to record with. It was lovely on stage and OK-ish in the studio. Then I had a guy come in for a session with a middle-range Taylor, and it blew my top-end Martin out of the door. He was kind enough to say he has the Taylor for recording but plays a Martin on stage, though.

If you can only get the one, choose carefully for what you will use it for most.

My story in a nutshell.. About 15 years ago I had decided that I would invest in an acoustic guitar that I would own the rest of my life. I had the money for a sizable investment and this opened a lot of choices to me. I went to a local guitar shop (no longer in business sadly) who had a large selection of acoustic guitars.....Martin, Breedlove, Taylor, and the rest....You get the picture...and a LOT from each manufacturer. I told them what I was doing and they set me up in a teaching studio that wasnt being used and I spent 4 or 5 hours playing 20 or so acoustic guitars in this room.Including a very very very (enough very"s??? No...) VERY nice Martin D41 with its then $3000+ price tag. I almost bought it. What I didn't need, it became clear, was not a STAGE guitar but a RECORDING guitar. Something level in all aspects of its response and sound levels throughout the frequencies. After an exhausting hiurs of this I had come to the conclusion that I was going to have to visit EVERY acoustic store in the area to find what I really wanted. Again, price was not an issue and the D41 played itself...My friend at the store then told me he had one left that was sitting on the dock and they hadn't even opened it up yet. So, cardboard box....foam wrap...and out came the Taylor 414CE which I still own. Still in tune from the factory through all the shipping and cold and heat changes. As balanced a guitar as I have ever heard...a superb recording instrument and a totally frustrating guitar in a live setting. Its too quiet to play live but put a U87 in front of it or a pair of SDC's in an X/Y and its the real deal. The only one better has been the old Gurian a friend has and there's NOTHING in this world that sounds better than that thing......My stage guitar is a 1971 Gibson J50.

DonnyThompson, post: 422524, member: 46114 wrote: It's also amazing as to how many people will buy one with the expectation(s) that it will add a "special character" to their vocals. The U87 wasn't designed to be a mic with character. It was designed for transparent recording applications where you could get the highest possible integrity in terms of "what you record is what you will get".

I think many are often mislead into believing that the U87 (or U89i) are similar to U47's and 67's, which, before FET models were introduced for these mics, were originally designed as tube models, so they did offer up a texture and a certain sonic character... but the U87 wasn't designed to replace those mics - it was a mic of its own, and not meant to replace or substitute any of the other Neumann mics.

I have one, as well as a U89i, and I find them both to be very transparent. I don't use them for character, I use them for accuracy. They do sound great when used with hi end preamps, and they "take" EQ very well in a mix. I am one of those people who do believe that the U87 has earned its place as one of the comparative standards from which other mics are considered, in terms of transparency, frequency response, SPL, and sonic integrity. I feel the same way about the AKG 414. Although less expensive, the 414 has also become a standard - as one of "those" mics - that sound great on virtually anything you throw at it. I've heard it described as a high quality Swiss Army knife - LOL - and I can't disagree. OH's, vocals, percussion, acoustic instruments of all types, amps, group vocals, string sections, etc.
Much like the U87, I have yet to find a limitation to either, in terms of integrity and the ability to use in so many different applications with great results.

IMHO of course. ;)

d.

The ORIGINAL U87 was supposed to be a remote soundstage mic. Thus the battery pack. Back then Nagra's and other sound track recorders for film didn't have phantom power so the mic had to provide its own. However, from what I can tell, the grips complained that the U87 was too heavy and unwieldy for their purposes so Neumann built the U89 which not only has more patterns but is less than a 2/3's the weight and slightly smaller and actually is a bit brighter than the original U87's.

I think that because of the apparent popularity that the U87 had in the recording studio's , Neumann decided it would be a safe bet to discontinue the U67 and tube mics in general at that point...at least the standard line of tube mics....

You lucky Dog,

I have a 314 CE, Dave. Its a bit brighter but as you describe, beautiful. I did the same, tried around 15 between two shops. There were a few 414 in there but none that stood out like the 314CE I settled on. I almost sold it before recording/ comparing it to the "bigger sounding bodies" that made me weep with envy lol! I have been wanting a 414CE for a few years after I tried one that I should have bought! Man, it was slightly warmer, made me smile. Once in a while you find the perfect one and this was it. After a week of fussing over it, it was sold. :cry:

My 314 has electronics in it which I don't need. If I was to buy another now, I would avoid this all together.

We ave a 414ce at the studio and it records quite well. It's got the top end that you here on records all the time. It's got nice cut, and it's one of the few things you literally can put right up on a mic and have instant record tone. For playing, myself, or tracking things that are more singer songwriter w a lot of space for the guitar, I'll use a darker fuller guitar like my cousins Martin. My personal acoustic, is $100 jasmine (takamine b brand) that sounds rather good for its price, and rather meh, in general. It's just been w me since I bought it in the late 90s, and it just feels comfortable, like n old pair of jeans. Next in my acoustic guitar hit list is a vintage J45. Or remake lol. Not for any other reason than its 'classic' appeal.

As far as the nueman 87 being a nuetral mic, I dissagree w d, who has more experince w it that me. I think it has a more forward mid and top, than what goes into it. Personally as a vocal mic I don't seem to find the singers it likes, but I used it all the time an instrument mic, basically a workhorse, like a 414 but more expensive and I think I fuller low end, and maybe a little less top.

The rode nt1 is not a smooth mic, nor is it flat, nor does it compete, with anything, thT bears a nueman name. It's mediocore at best given it's price, and an re20, or a senheisser and shure, would surely smoke it for the money vs quality. Given its class, it's one of the better cheap condensers out there, but exhibits the same harshness they all do to some extent. It's. Not an mxl, but AT 3035s at a third of the price used, do just fine, in cases where an nt1 may be a consideration.

It's clean an well built, but it is what it is, a cheap condenser. I fell for the hype, and when I tried it at the store, got tricked by its sonic hype. Which my lesser experienced brain interpretted as clarity and defintion on the headphones there. Nope. Hype. I Bash these mics so much, becuase they're marketing and the recordists using them talk them up so much.

If rode offers a "poor mans 87" then I say it is the original nt-2 that exhibits those sort of characteristics, and I feel like anyone who I'd use a nueman 87 on would be served similar, on an nt2, albeit with differences, in the quality, but same General tendencies.

The nt1a is a marketing phenomenon, and really isn't as good as u think it is. Especially given the demo video. It's almost sick to suggest that they would be similar like that, and also just as insulting to try and say a preamp is gonna make an nt1 comparable w a 67. Until it's w my own ears I can't say for sure, and having not used a 67 it's a lot of speculation, but I sure know the nt1a, and if that's what a 67 does than good riddance. But come on, seriously, it costs more the price of the the entire nt1 just for the replacement capsule for an 87. Obviously nueman is overpriced like all the high end gear manufacturers, but still. Rode is lying to the public, and as a dissatisfied owner of their nt1a, I cannsaynthis with full confidence, to anyone here at rode, or anywhere. The nt1a is a snake oil product. Rode makes some excellent mics, like the nt5, which holds its own as an indiviual mic, and definately contends favorably sometimes to the other usual suspects. Nt2 a decent mid priced LDC, tough to beat for the price, w AT being the obvious other company putting that quality into that price range. The nt1 is a joke, and this video makes it look worse, becuase this is not typical or even close, to the real world of thenpotentiL buyers.

They don't have the luxury of matching the singer to the mic like they did here, or usually don't have enough mics to match the mic to the singer. Anyone who doentbelieve me is welcome to borrow my almost new5 year old nt1 that's been in its box since. (GC won't let u return vocal mics because of a regulation about sanity, I mean sanitation). You will be disappointed, and especially if you think there is much truth to this video besides they spent a lot of time in pre production, making sure the illusion went well, between settings, positioning, and singer voice type.

I love expensive things that work well, from saws, to mics to cars, but, I am not impractical or an elitist, or rich ;). I use AT 3035s regularly, as drum OH and there are pairs of 414s, sm81s, 451s, and 87s to choose from. Yes they are going into a Manley tube pre, which is the best the 3035s have ever sounded, (I own one as well so I have used it w stock pres, in a bunch of rooms), but so were the other mics too.

Bottom line is things like a 57 a 47, 421, 414, 87 (to some extent) are things anyone can safely buy based on reputation (okay so your probably gonna try the 47 before you shell out the rest of your life's income). From the bottom to the top echelon a recordists, they are all gonna say about the same things. A rode nt1 is not one of those mics, and I agrue, far more particular to its source, and offers a much much wider range of results, than blown away home studio users, and the exquisite marketing of rode, would like you to believe.

This shootout again : I'm having fun listening to it with earbuds. The only mic that sounded different was the U89

[[url=http://[/URL]="

[/]

So from that shootout, I'm buying a sm57 ! Oh wait I already have one and sh..t it's not sounding like that!!! :ROFLMAO:
I better buy the pre they used then (neve 1073) :cautious:

Thanks for linking that video, pc. It really goes to illustrate what we have been saying over the years that an SM57/58 into a good pre-amp is not to be overlooked.

Seriously? I'm listening on my computer speakers and even on these crappers I can hear the open upper end on the Neumanns as compared to ALL the chinese capsuled "others" . The 4050 as the AT choice was kinda silly. A 4047 is a much more complete vocal mic. They're under a grand....The 57 isn't as sensitive in the low mids as the condensers, but everything in the vocal range was clear. One thing I also noticed....all the mic choices are very similar...as was said...SO, if it was this studio's or producer's mic collection then he/they obviously hear something that needs to be there in his usage.

I might have exaggerated there. Yes they sound different. My point was that they share a common sound quality that may more come from the neve pre than the mics. If I would do a mic shout out on an LA-610 just on the break of saturation. I would be fooling a lot of people on how the mics sound. If you buy one of the mics, they would sound very different on an audiobuddy !! Cause let's face it, those who can benifit of those shoot out are the budget studio that can't afford buying all those mics but then they often don't have the preamps to make those mics shine ! It's a shot in the dark !

Just saying ;)

In my own experience, working at many home studios as an engineer for hire and as a consultant, the cheaper condensers all share the same common thread, and that's the "spikey-ness" on the top end. Neumanns, AKGs, and yes, some of the nicer AT's, ( I agree with Dave that the 4047 is a nice mic) all have a nice silky top end. The cheap condensers I've experienced all sound brittle - around 5k and up.

I've personally only ever used one Rode mic, it was a tube model a friend lent me for a couple days a few years back (I'm thinking it might have been the K2?) and it sounded very nice and well balanced ( on my voice and to my ears, anyway) throughout the frequency range. I didn't hear any serious "wow factor" to it, but I certainly wasn't unhappy with it.

But, then again, we're back to the preamp being used. I once heard a $100 Sterling Audio Cardioid Condenser through a Lavry mic pre, and surprisingly, it sounded pretty darned nice on a female vocal.
Now, it was certainly not a U89 or 414 "kind of nice", but still, it was more than just "useable".

FWIW

d.