U-87 or U-48 ?

Discussion in 'Microphones (live or studio)' started by Anel Paz, Aug 31, 2001.

  1. Anel Paz

    Anel Paz Guest

    Hi everybody
    I'm working on a project ,during the singer sound check
    we found that the U-48 was more efficient than the U87 .The point is : Is there a non-valve mic that features that kind of tube-feeling ?or do we have to go tube ,anyway ?
    BTW, except for its lack of gain ,we liked the 48 better ,

    Thanks in advance
  2. atlasproaudio

    atlasproaudio Active Member

    Feb 17, 2001
    Tampa Bay, FL
    Home Page:
    A mic can be tube or solid state and still have the character other than you think it is supposed to have as a tube or solid state mic. Coloration is dictated by what the desinger intends for the mic to sound like. If your singer sounds good on a U48/U47 then obviously that is the best mic. There are other mics that are lower cost that follow the same tonal tradition as that mic, but most will fall short. A BLUE Cactus or Soundelux U95s follow in that same tradition for the sub $3000 range. That's a damn good value when you also take into consideration consistancy among new units.
  3. miketholen

    miketholen Member

    Jan 28, 2001
    nothing can ever replace the real deal period.

    a shitload of money/research was used to come up with the capsule within the u48 and 47. over 120 prototypes were produced over 7 years, to get it right.
    as far as I'm concerned, it cannot be better.
    and who thinks they can make it better?
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    Feb 10, 2001
    Golly, I wish I were Mike...I've always been of the opinion that anyone who makes an "absolute" statement about anything concerning audio is a complete, total, unmitigated, asshole...but Mike wouldn't be a complete, total, unmitigated, asshole now would he?

    But here he is making a jackass "absolute" statement vis a vis "there is no non-valve mic that will give you that "feeling"" ...so who knows... maybe he actually is that ^#$%ing dumb, or inarticulate, or just has his head firmly implanted between his buttocks.

    As for the original post, if you found a "lack of gain" from the U-48, there is something wrong with it. If it sounds good for your application, then I would recommend you use it anyway, and have it looked over at the conclusion of the project, but the output from a U-48 should far exceed that of a U87 [maybe not a U87A, but definitely a U87].

    As for being 'stuck in valve world', what else have you tried on the singer? Sometimes a ribbon mic can work wonders, often a dynamic microphone can bring the depth and emotion of a singers' performance to the forefront. There is no law that requires the use of a lg. diaphragm condenser microphone for vocals, nor is there any law requiring the use of a 'valve' anywhere in the program. That's why it's "an artistic decision", there are so many potential variables. Use your ears, if it sounds good, it is good.
  5. Originally posted by miketholen:
    nothing can ever replace the real deal period.

    as far as I'm concerned, it cannot be better.
    and who thinks they can make it better?

    Too bad there are no original U47's or U48's on the planet that sound exactly the same.
  6. miketholen

    miketholen Member

    Jan 28, 2001
    what? hmmmffffph......? LOL!!! :roll:

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice