Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

doorknocker · 11th June 2010

The difference between a U67 and a U87 is about 5k and I'm not talking frequencies.

Sonically the difference to me is 'Crosby, Stills and Nash' from 1969 vs. 'CSN' from 1977. (Disclaimer: I don't know to what extend U67s/87s were really used on these sessions but while I like both records, the 1969 one is sonically so much more pleasing to my ears).

Personally - unless I would win the lottery - I probably wouldn't go for either. The U67 is simply too expensive now and prices will only go up while there are plenty of alternatives to the U87 that arguably are as good or better. Or make that 'more useful in today's typical recording enviroment'. To be honest, I would take a SM7 over a U87 any day, especially when it comes to vocals.

11th June 2010	#30
doorknocker Lives for gear Joined: Nov 2002 Location: Basel, Switzerland Posts: 6,206 1 Review written	The difference between a U67 and a U87 is about 5k and I'm not talking frequencies. Sonically the difference to me is 'Crosby, Stills and Nash' from 1969 vs. 'CSN' from 1977. (Disclaimer: I don't know to what extend U67s/87s were really used on these sessions but while I like both records, the 1969 one is sonically so much more pleasing to my ears). Personally - unless I would win the lottery - I probably wouldn't go for either. The U67 is simply too expensive now and prices will only go up while there are plenty of alternatives to the U87 that arguably are as good or better. Or make that 'more useful in today's typical recording enviroment'. To be honest, I would take a SM7 over a U87 any day, especially when it comes to vocals. __________________ 'Ever since the Supreme Court overturned the Snare Act, it has been legal to use any mic you like on snare.' - joeq http://www.doorknocker.ch/