Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC  I actually started this topic, because I read many posts about the U87 sounding shrill and thin, but I don't get it:
So many great recordings were made with U87's for so many applications.
How come they get 'bad' reviews?
I'm not thát slutty, I only want to have a "stereo-flavour of excellence". |
I'd never characterize the 87 as 'shrill and thin'. I personally would say it is more on the 'thick' side. A bit too much for my taste. Over the years I've tried them on different things, but invariably they only end up as conga mics and rooms mics. I know others have had very different experiences, but this has been mine.
There is no doubt it has been used on a ton of records, as Bob O mentioned above. For me it's one of those mics, like a 414, that has limited application in my world. I have found the 67 to be much more useful and versatile.
best of luck sorting it out...
John