thoughts on neumann U89

[nkf]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Actually it was and it wasn't.

Neumann "discontinued" it a couple of years ago, at the same time they discontinued the GFM 132 - but they had enough stock for about a year.

During this time they had so many orders they decided, thank goodness, to keep it going.

Exactly. I got the same explanation. However, didn't know this about the GFM 132.

[hasbeen]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

I dunno, he probably says that an original U87 sounds the same as a U87ai too.

And there will always be people like me that say the transformer makes the U89 sound different from the TLM170.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by hasbeen

And there will always be people like me that say the transformer makes the U89 sound different from the TLM170.

Yes, that was kind of the point.

[hasbeen]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Yes, that was kind of the point.

Right, but why say it once when you can say it again in a different way. This is after all gearslutz!

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by hasbeen

Right, but why say it once when you can say it again in a different way. This is after all gearslutz!

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by John Willett

If you want something like a KM84 that is an SDC, then the consensus seems to be - go for the Gefell M300.

This OT looks like advertisement. If such a consensus does exist, it may be limted to the Gefell resellers community.

Originally Posted by nkf

I replaced my U89 and TLM170 with D-01s. I had the U89 and TLM170 for around 20 years.

I am much interested in what you could tell us about how the D-01 performs with respect to the U89/TLM170.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

This OT looks like advertisement. If such a consensus does exist, it may be limted to the Gefell resellers community.

Just a quote from what I have read very many times on Gearslutz from many people over the years, and nothing more.

I have seen over and over again that people who did not like the new KM184 and preferred the KM84 sound liked the M300 - that's all.

Actually, I posted the original post in January - I had nothing to do with Gefell when I posted that original comment. I only acquired the UK Gefell distributorship several months later - so it was nothing like an advertisement at all as I had nothing to sell when I posted.

Originally Posted by didier.brest

I am much interested in what you could tell us about how the D-01 performs with respect to the U89/TLM170.

The D-01 is very different - it has a different capsule and is different in every way.

A comment from a vocalist was that he could throw everything at it and didn't have to hold back like he had to with other mics.

You really have to try the D-01 for yourself.

[Elof]

Got a pair, and also a pair of 414 B-ULS mics.
I think the U89s are special, they´re flat yes, but boring, not a chance. More useful to me than 87s.
They sound more open and less strained than the 414s I have, they´re great on a number of sources (vox, piano, OH, ac guit, snare).
Here´s a U89 on a great female singer:

U89 on female

[Warren Beck]

Lovely for grand piano's

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by Elof

Got a pair, and also a pair of 414 B-ULS mics.
I think the U89s are special, they´re flat yes, but boring, not a chance. More useful to me than 87s.
They sound more open and less strained than the 414s I have, they´re great on a number of sources (vox, piano, OH, ac guit, snare).
Here´s a U89 on a great female singer:

U89 on female

Hi Elof, very fine voice and great recording! Yet I can't help but feel the voice could use a little more oomph exactly in the way people are saying the U89 might be lacking.

[nkf]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

I am much interested in what you could tell us about how the D-01 performs with respect to the U89/TLM170.

That could be very long, full of 'audiophile' sounding descriptions that come across too stupid, as it is IMO very difficult to describe subjective hearing impressions that could not be underpinned with technical data. John is correct when he described the D-01 as very different. The 'sound' of the D-01 is surprisingly clear and transparent as a LDC and surely for people wanting coloration a bit disturbing at least. The U89 and TLM170 have a stronger coloration and high frequency reproduction is not as good (with my Grace Design m201/AD in comparison). You have to have in mind that the capsule of the D-01 is a new design. Mr. Breitlow explained it in length to me but it would be far beyond my technical qualification and a disrespect to try to reproduce what he said. The D-01 is not without any coloration - which microphone is? But it's more on a neutral side with an extremely well behaving proximity effect. There is a signature in the D-01 sound but it's hard to describe as it always comes across 'neutral' and words would sound like a a gross exaggeration. As with every dual diaphragm LDC I don't like the omni characteristics very much, although they are usable. But I have better mics as omnis anyway.
What the D-01 and TLM170 have in common is that they are meant for universal use. I have used my D-01s (and before that loaner D-01s) for guitar, violin, oboe, cello, piano (including a Steinway Grand D), voice, vocals, percussion, drums and general sampling. I always got very usable results. That's for me sufficient to see the D-01s as good tools.

[whirl]

Originally Posted by Plush

U89 sounds nothing like a Schoeps mic or like a CMC622. They are different family sounds. The U89 is a much flatter sound than Schoeps.

Regarding what you say here, would you advise against using the U89 in M-S with a Schoeps MK8 as the side mic?

[Plush]

Originally Posted by whirl

Regarding what you say here, would you advise against using the U89 in M-S with a Schoeps MK8 as the side mic?

I day give it a try. However U89 is not a Mic that is meant to be used at a distance. It is for near field use.

[Ward Pike]

I just recorded a horn section and used a U89 on the trumpet... as usual, it was flawless and breathtakingly beautiful!

[whirl]

Thanks for the replies. Does this mean you would prefer something else for a solo performance in a church/hall type of space (like saxophone or trumpet), or would you combine it with other mics farther away?

[Elof]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Hi Elof, very fine voice and great recording! Yet I can't help but feel the voice could use a little more oomph exactly in the way people are saying the U89 might be lacking.

oomph?
like in most pop productions I shelved off a lot under 300 in that recording.
the U89 might not have much "glue" like some tube based mics, if thats what you mean...
my main reason for liking it so much is that the capsule seems to have very little resonance, being very easy on the sibilants and take high sound pressure better than most condensers I've tried.

[666666]

I've since picked up a pair of U89s and am very happy with them. Excellent fidelity, the transformer does just enough to add a bit of softness / roundness to the sound (compared to a 170) but without dirtying things up or adding a very noticeable "color". Very nice compliment to the 170.

The transformer 414 B-ULS mics I had were, in my opinion, far worse by comparison. They sounded quite dirty, mushy, lack of detail. I'd have to say "poor fidelity". Too much transformer thing there. I could not find any use for these and am surprised at how popular they are. But then again, I like clean "sterile" gear in general so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt by anyone who is into mojo stuff. The U89s are far more high-fidelity, detailed, rich etc by comparison.

But, to my ears, you can surely hear the transformer in the U89 when compared against a 170. I was a bit surprised at the earlier comment about how it may be hard to impossible to tell the 89 and 170 apart by ear... can't agree with that. I guess it all depends on how hard you're listening. Maybe in a mix it could be a little hard, but easily detected when soloed, on good monitors. Similar overall character / behavior, but there's certainly an audible difference.

One slight "negative" of the 89... at first I did not realize that they were really intended for near-field use only. I put them up in a room about maybe 12 feet back from a low-level acoustic instrument (to capture room ambience), had to crank the gain pretty hard (on a GML) and was getting an unacceptable amount of noise from the mics. Well, maybe unacceptable is a bit of a harsh way to describe it, I still wound up using these tracks in a mix (faders pretty low) and they worked very nicely... BUT... I learned that day that these mics are not for quiet situations where you need to crank mic per gain hard. Maybe not "unacceptable", but I'd surely prefer something quieter next time for this type of situation. Aside from the self noise though, the tracks sounded excellent, they yielded exactly what I was going for in this particular situation, they somehow really complimented and flattered the "wood-ness" of the wood room, but still with incredibe detail and dimension.

Somehow my 170s are still getting the most use. They just work on everything. Always happy with the results. The tracks just always sit in the mix beautifully and sound incredibly natural and detailed. Its funny, sometimes when a track is first recorded on the 170 and listening back soloed, one could potentially comment that it sounds a bit "sterile"... but once in the mix, it always sounds just right, sounds simply glorious actually. This is just a reminder to always be most concerned with how your tracks will ultimately perform in the final mix (which is all that counts), be careful about getting too hung up with the concept of "sterility" when listening to something soloed, bone dry, etc (unless of course it is a minimalist, solo recording).

I look forward to using the 89s a lot more (haven't had them too long). Again, a nice compliment to the 170s. These are keepers, excellent mics for sure. My mic collection is now complete! The transformer 414s were sold long ago. (though kept a few transformerless 414s for knock-around duties)

If I could only have one I guess it would be the 170 because it would seem to be that much more versatile for what I do, super quiet, accurate, max detail, etc. But for those who are generally not so into things that might be considered "sterile", the U89 might be more preferred, it just seems to impart a little more earthiness or texture without giving up the detail. It's a little more "human" maybe...? Sorry, I'm at a loss for good buzz words this morning. The 170 delivers "scary detail" (for an LDC anyway), the 89 is maybe a teeny tiny tad more "euphoric" by comparison.

I haven't tried it on vocals yet but it would seem to me to be really good for vocals, I will surely try it next time I have a vocalist here. I'm surprised that some feel it's not a good vocal mic, but those folks are perhaps familiar with using highly colored, highly "euphoric" classic vocal mics, if so then I could see why they might not be too excited by the 89, but for those who are interested in capturing a really good, solid, accurate, natural, high-fidelity signal for their vocals (or anything else), i cant imagine how the 89 will fail to please. If you like mega hype and coloration, look elsewhere, if you like "natural", enter here. Natural can be a very beautiful thing.

[mixerguy]

I'm trying to find a TLM 170 (non-remote version) for sale on the internet... and can't find anywhere

any thoughts why I can't find them anywhere?

awesome mic.

[DarkSky Media]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

I'm trying to find a TLM 170 (non-remote version) for sale on the internet... and can't find anywhere

any thoughts why I can't find them anywhere?

They don't come up so often. Probably because people who have them hand onto them. I know I'm hanging onto my two -- for exactly the reason you gave:

Originally Posted by mixerguy

awesome mic.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by DarkSky Media

They don't come up so often. Probably because people who have them hand onto them. I know I'm hanging onto my two -- for exactly the reason you gave:

I meant to buy one or two new........

the non-remote version is no longer listed on the Neumann website.

[Ward Pike]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

I meant to buy one or two new........

the non-remote version is no longer listed on the Neumann website.

There's really no difference between the two, you just don't choose the setting "R" on the TLM170r and manually choose the polar pattern. I use mine without a remote, and it sounds no different to the previous version I had that was non-remote.

It's like having a remote unlock opener for your car. You don't have to use it. The key still functions fine in the lock.

JMHO

[Plush]

TLM 170 R(emote) is the only one that has been made for more than a decade.

I cannot really tell any difference between the two types.

Does the poster mean that they are looking for a purple badge, very early 170?

[mixerguy]

Ah yes. I was looking to find a non-remote 170

I thought they were significantly cheaper. (?)

But if they are no longer made - bummer.

[kpboutote]

Really enjoyed reading this thread! I've used TLM 170s successfully for years in many different situations: vocal, close-miked winds and brass, etc. I'd rented in U-89s and been happy with them on soprano and alto saxes--they seemed to do a better job capturing upper harmonics and were smoother in the upper mids than the classic U-87.

Recently, renowned trumpeter Jon Faddis came in to play with our MSM Jazz Band as a guest soloist on an Ellington program. We had put a U-87 out for him as a solo mic; we'd used it successfully with him a few years back (with its -10 dB pad in--max SPL is NOT a highlight of the U-87 spec sheet!). When he arrived for the sound check, he said, "Can I bring in my U-89 and preamp? The U-89 is a LOT better on trumpet." We said, "Sure. No problem, we'll hook you up." (He also had a mystery device that plugged into the PA board; since I split before that [direct], I can't speak for that device.) The preamp was a well-used Grace m101. Well, I had to admit, I'd rarely, or maybe never, heard a close-miked solo trumpet sound so sweet or life-like. Miles better than we would have gotten from our U-87.

My conclusion? That the '89 wins when honest HF extension is needed, and when the xfrmr is an advantage, rather than a liability. Since JF had his Grace preamp, the cable run was short, but our usual run is 300-350' at mic level in a noisy (read theatrical) environment. We often prefer our Hardy M-1s over Millennia or Grace due to the superior CMRR of the Jensen xfrmr (we think). I'd love to do the U-89 / TLM 170 shootout to get a better grip on this. (Interesting that the street price of the two is identical!!)

Thank heaven for these great mics we get to use! More than ever before--the mic explosion is fabulous: Royer, Josephson, DPA, Schoeps, and on and on....

Let's go out and have fun!!

[Ward Pike]

Nice story, kp. I concur. I've never heard a more natural sounding microphone on trumpet. The U89 is the king in this application.

[Cathedral Guitar]

+1 on U89. Great mic for natural capture. Amazing value on the used market for $1300-$1500. 5 patterns that all sound good, very usable. Can't think of another mic that does classy sounding 5-patterns so well in that price-range. Not loved for Rock, but for Classical, Acoustic, Folk, Jazz it is a great all-rounder.

[kraftrourke]

Originally Posted by kpboutote

Miles better

- intentional trumpet mic pun?

[kpboutote]

Originally Posted by kraftrourke

- intentional trumpet mic pun?

Ha! Subconscious, if so.... However, I am renting in two U89s for Dave Liebman's soprano sax, soloing on a "Miles Ahead" program with our jazz band! So, there is a connection there. Probably though, it came from my years at CBS, later Sony: Miles (in spirit) and Teo (in person) were still all around us in the '80s and '90s.