Skip to main content
forums, blogs, song critique, support & more...

differences between U87 and U89

Hi...

Kurt, AudioGaff or anybody...can you tell me the main diference between the U87 and U89? and what mic you prefer? i just found an oportunity to grab a U89( 197?) for around 600$ thanx in advance...

Aziel

Tags

Comments

Profile picture for user johnwy
Member for
18 years 5 months

johnwy Thu, 11/11/2004 - 10:50

the u89 is a little smaller and lighter than the u87 but the u89 has 5 polar patterns and can handle a little bit more spl (134 dBspl for the u89 with the pad in, 127dBspl wi the pad in for the u87Ai.)

Profile picture for user Kurt Foster
Member for
18 years 11 months

Kurt Foster Thu, 11/11/2004 - 13:10

From Neumann US website

U89

This studio microphone presents improved acoustical and electrical characteristics and better high end response when compared to the U87A. It has a dynamic range of 123dB, five polar patterns, a 6dB pad, and a 2 position LF roll-off switch. The U 89 has little or no off-axis coloration.

Famous for broadcast use, the U 89 is recommended as a general orchestral microphone and for narration and vocals. All high impedance components are protected against contamination, making it highly reliable and stable over long periods of operation.

U87ai

The U87 has been the standard of the recording industry since 1967. This microphone is famous for its warm sound and well balanced characteristics. The current U87A yields a 6dB improvement in signal-to-noise over its predecessor. It is equipped with a LF roll-off switch to reduce proximity effect and a 10dB pad. Used extensively for vocals and orchestras, the U87A is also particularly suited for cello, brass, piano, and percussion. U87A is sold individually or in configurations mated with popular accessories for stand mounting.

Member for
51 years 5 months

huub Thu, 11/11/2004 - 16:56

I personally prefer , for vocals and drum oh's , the u89i....u87s sound a bit too 'real' for my taste..
Also, in the long run, u89's seem to be more reliable than 87's..
cheers
huub

Profile picture for user anonymous
Member for
20 years 9 months

anonymous Sat, 11/13/2004 - 06:15

FWIW, I have found the U87 [even the U87A though to a lesser degree] to be a great 'all purpose' lg. diaphragm FET condenser... and the U-89 to be absolutely worthless.

Possibly the most boring microphone I have ever heard. I wouldn't waste $6- on one, never mind $600-

Member for
51 years 5 months

huub Sat, 11/13/2004 - 17:53

boring, really?..hmmm i think close miked vocals sound fat, and the snare sound coming from u89 oh's is supersweet..
But i'm not sure my opinion on u87's is valid, we (the company i work for) have 2 u87's and 2 u89i's from the 80's, all 4 of them have never been sent to Neumann, possibly since they were new...
I think there's something wrong with the 87's, they sound dull and, dunno, just wrong..the 89's still sound great after all these years though..And, like i said, the 89 vocal sound ( with modern ams-neve pre, and 1178 compression) I seriously like...

I'm interested why you think they sound boring?
thanx,
huub

Profile picture for user anonymous
Member for
20 years 9 months

anonymous Sun, 11/14/2004 - 05:28

I like it when I can put a microphone in front of a source and it sounds a wee bit better than being there. There is a tactile event that is experienced when you're in the room with a sound that is not translated to the speakers unless you have good signal path with the right mic in the right place.

I like it when the sound coming from the control room monitors has a bit more excitment, a bit more "sex", a bit of 'hyper reality'/'larger than life' kind of quality to it but still works and plays well with the other sounds that comprise the presentation.

To me, the U-89 is like a beautiful woman that lies on her back like a dead fish during sex. It's still getting laid but overall it's just not that satisfying... same goes for the U-89... it'll transform variations in air pressure to magnetic pulses... but at the end of the day, it's just a very unsatisfying transfer.

Member for
16 years 7 months

Clayphish Sun, 11/14/2004 - 05:41

LOL Well said.

Fletcher wrote: I like it when I can put a microphone in front of a source and it sounds a wee bit better than being there. There is a tactile event that is experienced when you're in the room with a sound that is not translated to the speakers unless you have good signal path with the right mic in the right place.

I like it when the sound coming from the control room monitors has a bit more excitment, a bit more "sex", a bit of 'hyper reality'/'larger than life' kind of quality to it but still works and plays well with the other sounds that comprise the presentation.

To me, the U-89 is like a beautiful woman that lies on her back like a dead fish during sex. It's still getting laid but overall it's just not that satisfying... same goes for the U-89... it'll transform variations in air pressure to magnetic pulses... but at the end of the day, it's just a very unsatisfying transfer.

Member for
51 years 5 months

shock Mon, 11/15/2004 - 13:15

I'd prefer an U87 over an U89 anytime. And just because the U89 isn't able to deliver those brilliant highs does not necessarily make it sound warm.

Huub: Personally, I find it hard to believe that you like them as drum OH mics as they sound really dark and boring IMO. I wonder how exactly you're using them and what kind of sound you get because I never had satisfying results with these mics.

Profile picture for user maintiger
Member for
17 years 6 months

maintiger Mon, 11/15/2004 - 14:28

huub wrote:
I think there's something wrong with the 87's, they sound dull and, dunno, just wrong..huub

Wow, after thousands and thousands of hit record vocals tracked through 87's there is something wrong with them???? The only thing wrong with the 87's IMHO is that they cost too much...
but the sound is there, man. Maybe another mic will deliver better for a particular singer at a particular time but if the mic available is an 87 I'll take it, babe>>>:D

Member for
51 years 5 months

radioliver Tue, 11/16/2004 - 09:19

Maintiger, I think he was referring to the 87s at his studio. He thinks the 87s he heard have something wrong because they don't sound as good as he thought they would...makes sense??

Profile picture for user maintiger
Member for
17 years 6 months

maintiger Tue, 11/16/2004 - 10:03

he still saying there's something wrong with the 87's, not his 87... (or the one at his studio)
The only thing wrong with an 87 IMHO is that they cost a lot. But you can't go wrong with their sound. This is an all around versatil mic that usually makes the source sound good. I am sure you can find better for an specific project, but if all I have is 87's I'll take'em anyday, anyway, anywhere and anyway! 8)

Member for
17 years 1 month

frob Tue, 11/16/2004 - 15:27

ive used 87's before and they still blowme away in our most resent recording they hooked one up and just talked into it to check it and it was like butter. let alone the where the singer got in there and did his thing. if you htink it sounded wronge it could have been used for the wrong thing, in the wrong direction or flat out the wrong way. and lastly hows the accoustics in your studio?

Member for
51 years 5 months

huub Tue, 11/16/2004 - 15:58

nono, i meant there's propably something wrong with OUR u87's..
To answer the other question: my snare sounds really crispy through the u89i oh's.. I dont think they're dark?! not bright but certainly not dark..are there different 89 versions? any Neumann historians around?
cheers
huub

x