Why do people dislike the U87?

[Bradahman]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

I have tried for years to replace using my 87s on overheads, and ambient mics. Sometimes there are more suitable choices, but I still use the 87s on every record I do, So, since I use them on 100% of the sessions I do, and they're on 50% of drum tracks on overheads/ambients, I think they're well worth the price.

To each his own, how can someone say that a mic is BORING. That's absurd. That means the SOURCE is boring. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. A compressor can arguably be boring, but not a microphone.

$6,000.00 for overheads are pretty expensive. The studio that I am at used to use a pair of vintage 87's for OH's... Now, they are in the locker and were replaced by some vintage AKG's... But those vintage 87's are pretty darn good for OH'S.

[DarkSky]

A *very* large number of world class mega-hit recordings have been made with both new and old U87 microphones -- with all kinds of voices (amazing variety), on many different instruments, in many studios, by many of the most gifted professionals in our industry.

If *your* personal experience with the U87 was not positive, there are several possible reasons. In the face of all the evidence, it's unlikely that the U87 is the source of the problem.

Maybe some folk here need to ask themselves a few searching questions. Really.

• If *you* don't bother to maintain your equipment and therefore get mediocre results, don't blame Neumann or the U87! Mics aren't magic, they require maintenance.

• If *you* manage to get mediocre or boring recordings with a well maintained U87, there is clearly a serious problem with either your technique, the source you're recording, or both. Again, don't "hate" on Neumann or the U87!

There are way too many threads like this one, where stellar "industry stalwart" gear (gear that continues to be chosen and used by professionals making hits) gets bashed to bits. Alas, it reflects more on the bashers than the "bashee".

And - umm - maybe it also exposes a certain truth about the nature of internet forums.

[Herb Utsmelz]

A *very* large number of world class mega-hit recordings have been made with both new and old U87 microphones

A large number of mega-hit recordings have been done with nothing but SM57s, but no one wants to hear that an expensive mic won't fix their problems.

Ears.

[Omega Arts]

I wish some of you guys with 87's in the mic closet would sell me one cheap so it would have a home forever. I only have one and really need at least two.
I'd love to have a pair for over heads.

One of the best guitar sounds I've recorded (lead) was with a Radio Shack Minimus Seven speaker powered with a Fender Vibrolux amp and you guessed it, my vintage 87 sitting two inches away with a Amek 9098 pre.

This was a high priced silk sustain I've never gotten any other way. By the way vintage Les Paul Standard with special wound 17ohm Gibson bridge pickup.

Come on guys someone PM me with a adoption offer.
Larry
Larry Howard
larry@larryhoward.

PS I think a Peluso might be the next purchase as soon as I make a home for my adopted 87

[videoracer]

>> Ears.<<

Exactly. People talk about mics like th e'87, 414, etc. as God's own mics. At least it's laughable.

[Bradahman]

Originally Posted by DarkSky

A *very* large number of world class mega-hit recordings have been made with both new and old U87 microphones -- with all kinds of voices (amazing variety), on many different instruments, in many studios, by many of the most gifted professionals in our industry.

If *your* personal experience with the U87 was not positive, there are several possible reasons. In the face of all the evidence, it's unlikely that the U87 is the source of the problem.

The U87 is cool... Just my personal preference to use a U47 instead.

[stagefright13]

I've had my brand new 87 for about a month now and it sounds awesome. I had a vocalist say they NEVER sounded so good in their life. He is now saving to record more songs.

I think that speaks for itself...

[Bradahman]

Originally Posted by stagefright13

I've had my brand new 87 for about a month now and it sounds awesome. I had a vocalist say they NEVER sounded so good in their life. He is now saving to record more songs.

I think that speaks for itself...

It is a step up from the rest of your mics... But for 3 g's you could have done better.

Microphones:

6 Shure SM57
1 Shure SM58
1 Shure SM7B
1 Shure KSM-32
1 Neumann U-87
1 Audix D-6
1 Audix I-5
2 Audio Technica 4033
1 Audio Technica 4054
1 Audio Technica 4050
1 Audio Technica ATM25
1 AKG Perception 200
1 Cad E200
1 Cad E300
2 Cad M179
1 Cad M9 Tube mic NOS Telefunken Tube
2 MCA SP-1
1 Electrovoice PL76A
1 Electrovoice PL6

[DarkSky]

Originally Posted by Herb Utsmelz

Ears.

Yes indeed, ears.

But...

Originally Posted by Herb Utsmelz

A large number of mega-hit recordings have been done with nothing but SM57s.

A large number? Sorry Herb, but I don't think so.

The number of hit recordings done *entirely* with SM57s (or any other single model of mic) is, I suspect very small. The number of mega-hits that use only one kind of mic throughout, I would say is infinitesimal.

However if your general point is that the disappointment some express regarding the U87 is because they were expecting a magic bullet (a cure for a lack of performer talent or engineering skill) rather than a microphone, then I would agree with that. But that is a problem with expectations, not a problem with the U87.

[stagefright13]

I usually rent the higher end mics. (Don't own) So I am quite familiar with and use a few but not all of the other mics mentioned. 414's etc... The 87 has been great here. I also do alot of VO and it has been flawless. High output and extremely low noise. I got it for alot less than 3k new. 2.2k to be exact and well worth it.

So I will be renting ALOT less.

[Herb Utsmelz]

The number of hit recordings done *entirely* with SM57s (or any other single model of mic) is, I suspect very small. The number of mega-hits that use only one kind of mic throughout, I would say is infinitesimal.

That's true. But I'll bet that most of the "mega-hit" recordings could have been recorded without Neumanns with no noticeable difference, and under budget.

[dylansmale]

why isn't neumann putting tubes in the 87 anymore? is it really that hard? or would you have to pump the price tag up another 2k you filthy slutbags?

[DarkSky]

Originally Posted by Herb Utsmelz

That's true. But I'll bet that most of the "mega-hit" recordings could have been recorded without Neumanns with no noticeable difference, and under budget.

Sorry Herb, but that's about as sensible as it would be to say that most Hendrix recordings could have been made without Fender guitars and no one would have noticed.

It's probably not true, but so what if it is? Saying so would scarely excuse a bunch of people rubbishing Fender because playing a Strat did not instantly turn them into a guitar hero. Nor would it support a contention that Strats are over-priced.

Seasoned professionals at the top of their game have frequently chosen (and continue to choose) to use the U87 - and many of them get stellar results and produce mega-hits while doing so. The availability of alternatives (at whatever price) only underscores the fact that the folk in question made a *choice* in favor of the U87.

I'd be the first to defend your right to make a different choice (indeed, a budget-conscious choice if you prefer). And if you manage to make mega-hits with your choice of microphone, then bravo. But that still fails to demonstrate that the U87 is not a superb tool, that it is boring or that it produces mediocre results, which appears to be the contention of several contributors to this thread (and elsewhere).

So, in short, there is a problem with your logic. It does not support the point you appear to be wishing to make.

[DarkSky]

Originally Posted by dylansmale

why isn't neumann putting tubes in the 87 anymore? is it really that hard? or would you have to pump the price tag up another 2k you filthy slutbags?

FYI the U87 has never had tubes (except as a third party retrofit from the likes of InnerTube). From day one it was a solid state microphone.

[Meriphew]

Originally Posted by DarkSky

A *very* large number of world class mega-hit recordings have been made with both new and old U87 microphones -- with all kinds of voices (amazing variety), on many different instruments, in many studios, by many of the most gifted professionals in our industry.

A large number of mega hits were recorded using a mere Shure SM7 on vocals. Should that stop everyone else from looking for something that they feel sounds even better?

[anteupaudio]

87's are not bad mics but I do think they're way over priced bang for the buck wise. We have a pair and, honestly, they see very little use. I keep them on hand because outside engineers/producers like to see them on the list and because OCCASIONALLY they are the perfect mic for the job.

This is just like anything else gear wise. People get caught up in what people made "big hits" with 20-30 years ago and figure they better be using that same gear now if they want to make a big hit. The fact is, there are a lot of newer, cheaper, and (yes... possibly) better alternatives now.

If a U87 is your favorite mic in the world and you get the results you want out of it, by all means, USE IT! Personally, I use it when it's the right mic for the job and I keep my mind (and my ears) open to other mics (whether they cost $50.00 or $10,000.00) that may be useful tools.

[erock]

Originally Posted by oscilloscope

I think that the U87 was, for a long time, a great mic and a great choice for a wide array of sources. I just think that in the past 10 years so many new mic manufacturers have cropped up with some amazing mics... some that would blow the doors off the u87... at half the price! Some manufacturers include Peluso, Charter Oak, Blue, Mojave, Groove Tubes and many others. I bought a Peluso 2247LE last year and although its a totally different mic than a U87 I'll use it above my 87 in a heartbeat... for just about any source. My point is that, you can get a superior mic for the same $$$ as a U87, or buy two great mics with different vibe for the same price as a 87.

+100

Consider the new options we have now.

My beef with the 87 is that I find it to be dull on vocals. I know there have been great vox cut with the 87, but a lot of them i'm less than thrilled with.

The best thing I've ever heard them on is a pair on OH's courtesy of Matt Malpass/Matt Goldman. Very good.

Another thing. I really really don't like the gear list of a lot of recent graduates from recording schools. They all have an 87, some 414s, an 81, 421s, 57s and a royer. Granted, they're the 'standard' but come on...think about gear beyond what your instructors say you need to get and what's the best. The 57 and 421 are no brainers to me, but all the others i would ditch, maybe except the royer. anyway, this isnt about me. its about the 87

personally i've only worked with an 87 once through an MCI board and a Tube Tech CL 1B tracked to 1/2"...sounded alright but definitely would have gotten better results with something like a Peluso

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Herb Utsmelz

I've never used a U87, but I can't imagine it being worth $3000 more than my AT3035. Heh, maybe I have tin ears...

No one pays 3000 for a U87ai. Cut it out;)

TH

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by dylansmale

why isn't neumann putting tubes in the 87 anymore? is it really that hard? or would you have to pump the price tag up another 2k you filthy slutbags?

Possibly because it never had a tube in it.

TH

[Chris Kress]

possibly because they have never connected it to a real analog mixing console..?

[spockstudio]

I suspect some folks commenting here on the U87 have never used one.

[dylansmale]

Most of Sigur Ros's CD's were recorded with only a U87 (except for for some of the drum kit). The singers voice sounds amazing through it along with the rest of the acoustic section.

I have also heard recordings using the Tube retrofit for the U87, and they just blow me away, You just don't hear things like that.

[Bob Olhsson]

A stock, unmodified 87 combined with the right eq. for the singer is pretty hard to beat when heard within the context of a mix. An 87 or 67 has been my "go to" vocal mike anytime I've had no experience with the singer and no time to experiment.