Neumann U87 AI vs. U89 i?

[herrvlad]

Hello all,

I'm going to record some vocals at the Christmas vacation. In that school, whose studio I'm using, there are a couple of Neumann U89s. I've heard before that the U87 is considered as a studio standard when it comes to vocals. But, I would like to hear your opinions about the U89 as a vocal mic. Does it compare to the U87?

My main vocal mic has been Shure SM7b, but now as I have this change to use a Neumann, I suppose I will give it a try.

Cheers!

[robertshaw]

the new ai is not very good. look for a used um57 it will hold it's value unlike the newer neumann oops I mean sennheiser offerings........

[syra]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

the new ai is not very good

Actually its almost identical to the vintage one so it is as good as a U87 can be.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by syra

Actually its almost identical to the vintage one so it is as good as a U87 can be.

I have a 70 and 80's u87. Had a newer ai like a 2003 model, not even close to the real ones. Maybe the original ai was good. None that Ive used in the last ten years were good at all. If they were identical to the vintage ones why are there mods? The new ai seemed to have an higher output but a very muddy honky mic that failed the classic 'key' test everytime. 'oooh ooh half way there ooh ooh Living on a logo'

Trust me look for an old UM57. Best bang for the buck that will always be worth what you paid. It's tube
but much better than any 87 new or or skool. I like the older 89s too. not sure if Ive heard and 'i' model is that the late 80's one? too many models to remember


peace man

[AllAboutTone]

u89 is darker.

[herrvlad]

Thanks for you replies!

robertshaw, I suppose those 'i' models are newer ones as they are still sold by Thomann for example. And I will surely take a look at a UM57.

AllAboutTone, yey, if it's darker, I think I'm probably going to like it even more than a U87! :-)

[Storyville]

Gefell UM92.1 is basically a Gefell-Neumann u57. Except with variable polar pattern.

I disagree that 57 trumps 87. Different strokes for different folks. I'm not a big ai guy though.

[hazelmossobrien]

I love the u89.

I don't have one anymore, but I do have a U87ai I've compared one with.

The 87 will sit in a mix better and really cut through. The 87 will be brighter and have a much hotter output. The 89 is smooth, really smooth, and flatter in frequency response than any other mic I've used. I think something like an 89 will sound better soloed on vocals than an 87, but will not mix as well. The 89 is also a medium diaphragm mic, with a very different character than the K87 capsule.

the 87 is a studio standard for vocals cuz it always sounds decent. The 89 is a studio standard for orchestral instrument recording, because it rules at that with its flat detailed response.

Oh yea, and the 89 has five polar patterns as opposed to the 87's three, which is super great awesome.

[captainj]

I just recently bought a U87ai and am very happy with it. Prior to making that purchase, I tried a bunch of mics I was interested in and I also read many people’s (mostly negative) reviews of the new U87ai’s. Well, I just wanted to be one of the few to pipe in and say I love it. I have used an older U87, but admittedly did not have the opportunity to compare one side by side with a new U87ai. I hate to be the one to use a cliche phrase that some smartass inevitably uses on threads like these, but here goes…..Use your ears to decide, not someone’s opinion who may or may not have even heard/tried the piece of gear they are talking about.

To the OP, sorry for being a bit off topic here as I have not tried a U89, I just wanted to show some love for the U87ai!

[The Elf]

I've had old and new U87 in the studio. The Ai might be a tiny bit brighter (if you listen with the ear of faith), but they otherwise sound near identical. If I was pushed I'd take the Ai version. There's really nothing to dislike.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by syra

Actually its almost identical to the vintage one so it is as good as a U87 can be.

Without getting involved in a quality judgment [I have mine, you should form your own] I will have to agree with Syra... except for the capsule and the amplifier the two microphone models are nearly identical.

When the "A" model was released they changed the capsule to a dual backplate [K-67] design... the amplifier was switched to a U-89 amplifier. Other than the nomenclature and having no window for the "battery level" they certainly look identical.

[syra]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

I have a 70 and 80's u87. Had a newer ai like a 2003 model, not even close to the real ones. Maybe the original ai was good. None that Ive used in the last ten years were good at all. If they were identical to the vintage ones why are there mods? The new ai seemed to have an higher output but a very muddy honky mic that failed the classic 'key' test everytime. 'oooh ooh half way there ooh ooh Living on a logo'

I have a late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s U87. If your old ones sound too different they need to be checked on. The vintage ones have lower output/more headroom and maybe a tiny bit more air. But otherwise they should be 95% the same mic sonically. Also there are no mods to make a U87ai closer to the vintage ones. The korby and klaus mods make the U87 a completely different mic. I have a korby one too.

Having said that, I'm not doubting what you're hearing. Maybe the newer U87ai you tried was from a bad batch ...

[syra]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

Without getting involved in a quality judgment [I have mine, you should form your own] I will have to agree with Syra... except for the capsule and the amplifier the two microphone models are nearly identical.

When the "A" model was released they changed the capsule to a dual backplate [K-67] design... the amplifier was switched to a U-89 amplifier. Other than the nomenclature and having no window for the "battery level" they certainly look identical.

I see...why should we even bother listening to them then... different capsule/amplifier = completely different sound... right

[Fletcher]

I said I wasn't going to get involved in a quality judgment as that is question of personal taste and preference. Technically the tools are of different composition, that is a fact and not open to interpretation. In my experience, when you change the capsule and change the amplifier the resultant sound of the product also changes.

Whether or not this material change in construction gives a pleasing or less than pleasing response is a very much open to interpretation, an interpretation I have made on a personal level but one I will not share, nor will I participate in any discussion on that level .

I would highly suggest that everyone take the time to listen to both / all and form their own opinions as to how any of these tools will work for their personal sense of aesthetic and their general applications.

Peace.

[herrvlad]

The reason why I started this thread was actually simple: Does anyone like to use a U89 as a vocal mic? I haven't recorded, and possible won't be able to record, with a U87, but as I knew a lot of people love the mic I was curious to know if anyone would pick a U89 over a U87.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by syra

I have a late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s U87. If your old ones sound too different they need to be checked on. The vintage ones have lower output/more headroom and maybe a tiny bit more air. But otherwise they should be 95% the same mic sonically. Also there are no mods to make a U87ai closer to the vintage ones. The korby and klaus mods make the U87 a completely different mic. I have a korby one too.

Having said that, I'm not doubting what you're hearing. Maybe the newer U87ai you tried was from a bad batch ...

Yes there are mods.

[Yoda117]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

If they were identical to the vintage ones why are there mods?

For the same reason people were, and still occasionally do, mod the vintage ones...

Because everyone is looking for something a little different from the person in the studio next to them.

[hazelmossobrien]

Originally Posted by herrvlad

The reason why I started this thread was actually simple: Does anyone like to use a U89 as a vocal mic? I haven't recorded, and possible won't be able to record, with a U87, but as I knew a lot of people love the mic I was curious to know if anyone would pick a U89 over a U87.

Yes. Sometimes.

The thing about people, is we are all different. One person might shine on a U89, and another might on a U87.

The point I was making in my previous post is : studios tend to all have U87's because they are rarely a "miss". They may or may not be the best mic for that particular person, but they will rarely sound bad on anyone like other mics might.

The U89 is the same in respect to instrument or orchestral recording. With a U89 you have a good chance of getting a good sound in this dept.

If what you're wondering without coming right out and saying is this mic ever used for vocals in pro studios? then the answer is yes. This mic is awesome and versatile, and it is an excellent choice for a vocal mic or any other application for that matter, but get ready to eq some top end on vox. The TLM 170 and th TLM 193 share the K89 capsule also, and are similar in sound to the U89.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

[I have mine, you should form your own]

we know the new 87 is weird

[grrrayson]

I've heard several 87s from the 70's to brand new sparkly overpriced anniversary editions lined up all at once tested with the same voice–and they all sounded negligibly close. The main difference is the gain; the new ones are almost line-level.

Anyway, I love the 89 but always thought they sounded weird on close-up studio vocals. I'm surprised to hear someone say they're darker than an 87. The 87 has a smiley-curve frequency response whereas the 89 has a high shelf, and this is what it sounds like to me. The 89 does have a nice low end but the high end sounded really odd on voice to me–almost grainy in a way. Much better suited to instruments in my opinion (or perhaps distant choir/classical vocals).

[herrvlad]

Originally Posted by hazelmossobrien

Yes. Sometimes.

The thing about people, is we are all different. One person might shine on a U89, and another might on a U87.

The point I was making in my previous post is : studios tend to all have U87's because they are rarely a "miss". They may or may not be the best mic for that particular person, but they will rarely sound bad on anyone like other mics might.

The U89 is the same in respect to instrument or orchestral recording. With a U89 you have a good chance of getting a good sound in this dept.

If what you're wondering without coming right out and saying is this mic ever used for vocals in pro studios? then the answer is yes. This mic is awesome and versatile, and it is an excellent choice for a vocal mic or any other application for that matter, but get ready to eq some top end on vox. The TLM 170 and th TLM 193 share the K89 capsule also, and are similar in sound to the U89.

Your insights have been very nice readings, thanks.

Yeah, I guess I basically wanted to know if the mic is ever used for vocals in pro studios - and if yes, in what kind of situations. Now I know I will at least give the mic a try. We already did a short test and both me and the singer decided that the U89 definitely sounded nicer than our SM7b, although I can't say the SM7b sounded bad. Just different.

[midnightsun]

Originally Posted by herrvlad

The reason why I started this thread was actually simple: Does anyone like to use a U89 as a vocal mic? I haven't recorded, and possible won't be able to record, with a U87, but as I knew a lot of people love the mic I was curious to know if anyone would pick a U89 over a U87.

I like my U89. I wouldn't hesitate to use it on vocals.

[foldback]

The U89 and U87ai are very different.

The 87 has a unique "hook" in the high frequencies that I like on many things. It makes the sound stand out in a mix with no EQ required. My girlfriend (a singer and guitarist) says the 87 has a sexy sound.

The U89 IMHO is a smoother, flatter response, that sounds more like an AKG 414.

When I'm in a hurry to record my drum set I put my 89 overhead (a bit in front of the drummers forehead) and it captures a very smooth and natural sound of the entire kit.

[Jim Williams]

Old U-87's used phantom voltage for capsule polarization. They are 5 db less output than the newer AI version. That mic has a DC converter to polarize at 60 volts. It also has oscillator leakage to the audio, common on DC converter mics.

Old 87's roll off at 16 k hz. A change to the polystyrene feedback cap can open it up to 20 k hz.

In 2002, Neumann changed the 87 preamp to a daughter board surface mount design. That was a mistake as mono ceramic coupling caps are used off the capsule in place of superior polystyrene film caps. That causes the hard midrange and strident top end.

89's are a fet U-47 discrete opamp design circuit, much more complex than the single jfet 87 design. It has lower THD than the 87 circuit which uses large amounts of feedback to retain linearity.

I never cared for the 87 sound. I do love the 89 sound. It has better low end and doesn't have the mid bump EQ built in.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[bewareofdogs]

A matter of taste.

[herrvlad]

Well, I want to thank you all - again - for your comments.

I heard that they have TLM103s in that school, too. Will probably arrange a little shoot-out between a TLM103 and a U89 and decide then. I suppose the TLM103 is almost like the U89 without so many polar patterns, am I right?

[didier.brest]

TLM 103 is likely closer to the U87 than to the U89. A shootout would be much intreseting to me.

[Jonathan Starr]

The U89i shines on background vocals, especially when using multiple tracks or layers of them. Also when there is background noise in the room, it is less sensitive to it while still providing usable tracks.

It's a great, easy to use all round mic, and I often leave one set up in the control room ready to go for miscellaneous and spur of the moment sources.

[chrisdee]

Recently a music sales person told me the following about microphones.

You don't put a screaming, saliva spitting rock vocalist in front of a U87. It will pick up all the different sounds coming in out of the singers mouth, not just the actual tones. Neither do you put a very soft singer in front of the SM7B because it takes loud volume to drive it.

If this is true or not I can't say because I have no first hand experience on this yet.

But many people say you have to get the right tool for the right job. It does sound very logical.

[herrvlad]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

Recently a music sales person told me the following about microphones.

You don't put a screaming, saliva spitting rock vocalist in front of a U87. It will pick up all the different sounds coming in out of the singers mouth, not just the actual tones. Neither do you put a very soft singer in front of the SM7B because it takes loud volume to drive it.

If this is true or not I can't say because I have no first hand experience on this yet.

But many people say you have to get the right tool for the right job. It does sound very logical.

Of course this can be true. But there are singers, like ours, who don't sing too softly but who aren't screaming, spitting rock vocalists either.