Neumann U67 vs. U87

[DaveC]

Can someone tell me what's the difference in sound between a U67 and a U87?
I already recorded with U87 once, and it sounds wonderful with drum-ambience in a good room.
I'm planning to buy me a pair of good condensers for multiple purposes, like drum-overheads, acoustic guitar, vocals, ambience, etc...
Which one would you choose?

[vernier]

67 is different on the bottom and top, as solid-state can't do what tubes do. For drums, I'd leave the 67 in the closet (to save it), and use anything else.

[Grizzly]

As for the two condensers, I recommend the Gefell M-300, very useful and nice sounding...

You may want to try your U87 on the snare, it's my favourite for that purpose...

Olivier

[paterno]

Originally Posted by vernier

67 is different on the bottom and top, as solid-state can't do what tubes do. For drums, I'd leave the 67 in the closet (to save it), and use anything else.

I think that's putting it mildly, actually. They are quite different sounding, even though they look similar, in my opinion. The 67 is much, much higher on my 'useful' list than the 87. 67's sound great as overheads and as room mics, guitar amp mics, vocal mics, and a lot of other things. If you are looking for something of a similar style, i've been really digging the Soundelux U99S in places where I might use a 67.

Good luck,
John

[DaveC]

Damn, why put the U67's in a closet, if you have them available?
Well, maybe if you're about to record a band like 'Mixerman' (from the famous diaries) did, with 'Dumbass' as the drummer!

[AdamLazlo]

The U87 I have is an older model... generally darker than a newer U87ai.

The pair of U67's I've used sounded great, nice top and bottom, very natural in the way they brought out the best of any source. I used them mostly for drum overheads. They're the type of mics that work extremely well for a simple drum set-up (kick, snare, and X-Y OH) in a good room. I actually preferred them to a pair of U47 longbody tube mics (in cardioid X-Y position) as overheads.

I found the U67's to be a smoother (scooped) version of the CMV563's w/M7 caps.

If I had the money and found a good pair, I'd go U67.

Yet again, like others have said, there's the tube mod for the U87 but I haven't heard it yet. I'd suspect that the cost of getting a pair of U87's with the tube mod will probably cost roughly same (in the end) as a pair of U67's.

But, I should also say that I found more general uses for my vintage U87 (stock) than I did with the U67's.

I'd be happy if I owned one vintage U87 (check) and two paired U67's (un-check).

-- Adam Lazlo

[Bob Olhsson]

Both were serious pro studio workhorses that were used and often beat up day after day for many years so you can't count on them being in as good condition as the more exotic but far less frequently used mikes. Neumann will still supply new housings as replacement parts so you can't really judge them by physical appearance. The important thing is condition as opposed to tubes vs. transistors.

All things being equal, I think I prefer 67s but all things are rarely equal when it comes to these particular mikes. My personal preference is for them to be unmodified except for removal of the output pads and bypassing the 40Hz. high pass filter as is described in the manual.

[max cooper]

67 is a fave of mine, but 87 is great drum room mic.

[ricknroll]

Lately I've been rediscovering my Klaus U87. Last week I compared it to a very clean U67 (that had one owner most of its life) and the Klausified U87 sounded better to me. If I had bought this particular U67, I would have wanted Klaus to work on it - he removes some of the frequency-limiting filtering and I'm sure I would prefer it afterwards. I haven't heard a U67 he's worked on, but I have used a couple of M269s he's done (similar but uses an AC701) and they are amazing...probably my favorite all-around mic I've used.

Rick

[beats workin']

one of the great benefits of the 67 is the way it handles the leading edge of the sound- especially in the midrange. it's such a natural compression that it's nearly always flattering and the tracks sit well in the mix. they also take eq really well. i rarely find myself wanting more top, but sometimes a gentle shelf adds some more air. no question- if i could only keep one mic from my collection, this would be it.
david

[vernier]

[vernier]

[DaveC]

So it's harder to find a good matched pair of U67's than 87's?

[DeepSpace]

Originally Posted by DaveC

So it's harder to find a good matched pair of U67's than 87's?

It's harder to find good 67s than 87's - matched or otherwise.

[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".

[Peter Weihe]

Originally Posted by AdamLazlo

The U87 I have is an older model... generally darker than a newer U87ai.

And the older one can take high SPL better.
I have a U87 installed in front of my Vox AC 30 and the newer U87ai that I tried couldn't take the level it distorted inside of the mic.

[Numarek Music]

The old (non AI) U87 and the U67 use the same capsule. The old U87 is quite a bit noisier than the the AI version but has a transformer and can deal with higher SPL, like Peter said. One big problem that makes the U87 sound worse than any U87 is the distortion and lack of headroom. You can actually mod an old U87 to sound relatively close to a U67. If you need 2 matched U67 or U87, send them to Thiersch for reskinning and get all the resistors etc. matched by the same person that's doing the mod for you.

[Steamy Williams]

Originally Posted by Numarek Music

The old U87 is quite a bit noisier than the the AI version but has a transformer and can deal with higher SPL, like Peter said.

The Ai version has a transformer as well. It's one of the few modern Neumann mics that does.

[paterno]

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

[popmann]

The old (non AI) U87 and the U67 use the same capsule.

Fopr the record, I believe it's the opposite. The AI uses the modern version of the K67...the old 87s take a K87.

I've used a lot of old 87s...and a few old 67s...the old 87s have all sounded, give or take a bit--the same. The 67s have each sounded very different. So YMMV.

The INnertube87 mod does not at ALL make it sound like a 67....if anything it takes it more toward the clean, high endy, C12 end of the spectrum. It takes away a lot of that "too thick" low mid thing...adds a sweet top...somehow makes the upper mid bump not grainy (still there-just not as raspy)...now, there may be other tube mods that ARE going for a 67ish sound.

[Numarek Music]

Sorry, wasn't talkin about the innertube mod but rather what people like Grosser do to them. I believe they leave it solid state and improve headroom and noisespecs. If one likes you can take the filters out, too. Also a lot of old tube mics sound vastly different because of the different capsule conditions. E.g. the old PVC M7 dries out over the years and develops a very pronounced midrange (which some people like) but it has nothing to do with how Neumann intended them to sound.

[max cooper]

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:

I think an 87 is kinda "hi-fi" in that it's pretty wyhiwhg.

Maybe too much so for our post-tape world.

To me, almost nobody beat Karen Carpenter's vocal sound... and it was 87 all the way.

[gamrecords]

[QUOTE=paterno;952629]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.

John,
what mics do you recommend or use in place of a u87 and 414? I guess what I'm asking is, what are a few of your "go to" mics? And is there a certain mic you will always put up, or take to every studio with you? Not trying to hijack the thread, just love to get the professionals opion on what they use instead.

thanks,
michael bliss

[T.RayBullard]

Stephen Paul audio u87s are phenomenal.. They replace the stock capsule with their sub micron version,....greatly increases transient response and sensitivity.

www.spaudio.com

I dont like the u87(especially the new ones) as is...too..I dont know the word.

[DeepSpace]

Originally Posted by max cooper

I think an 87 is kinda "hi-fi" in that it's pretty wyhiwhg.

Maybe too much so for our post-tape world.

To me, almost nobody beat Karen Carpenter's vocal sound... and it was 87 all the way.

Yes - umm WYHIWYG. That pretty much nails it AFAICT.

And therein lies the source of much controversy because not everyone wants the same thing in a microphone. Some want it to deliver back what they're hearing with maximum accuracy/fidelity (in which case the 87 may not be the best possible choice but it's certainly an excellent and reliable choice) whereas others want a mic that will produce something that "enhances" the sound in any of a variety of ways (or all of them at once).

So it depends on whether you want to capture the souce and all its warts or to capture the sound you're hearing in your head - thus "good" means quite different things to different people. Small wonder there is no agreement.

[u b k]

i'm starting to think i like 67's more than 47's. not like i get much time with 47's these days, but that damn 67 just sounds exquisite on everything. 47, sometimes, is not the ticket.

i think the 67 looks cooler, too.

all these 47 clones, i wish someone would make a successful stab at the 67. i've got a u99, it's no 67.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by u b i k

all these 47 clones, i wish someone would make a successful stab at the 67. i've got a u99, it's no 67.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

You are so right. The U99 is a pretty cool mic, but it's definitely no 67.

I think part of the appeal of a 67 is that it's bandwidth limited, and no modern designer could ever bring himself to do that. You always hear, "just like a 67, but with an airier top end, a thinner capsule, etc, etc". Totally misses the point.

-R

[popmann]

Na...I'd take a stock U67 "clone". Ideally, they'd actually clone the M269...but, I think that's just a different tube. It doesn't so much have "more air"...but, it does have a different quality to the top once EQ is applied.

The Mojave has been the closest "clone" to my ear--definately not the U99, which sounded really nothing like a U67 to me. Hell--an Sm7b sounds more like a 67 to me...albeit, you've got to be more "up on it" to get the richness.

I've used a modded 67 with "more air"...I flattened the capsule against the backplate from a foot. No thanks.

[Acko]

I was singing through both a 67 and an 87 today for an album we're doing, tracking through a lovely old neve board in a beautiful room in Montreal. Both mics worked well, I must admit though, it was'nt my choice to switch from the 67 to the 87, I was enjoying the 67 more, but whatever, the tracks we cut with the 87 came out great...the 67 just felt like a better tone zone for my voice through those sexy old neve pre's, but I did'nt feel like arguing the point as I was warmed up and ready to get on with the session. This records gonna kick arse. I'll post some samples when we're done.