The U87 is NOT a Very Good Sounding Microphone!

[TonyBelmont]

The U87 does not sound "great".





I believe we need a better understanding of the U87 for the newer members here and people who are new to audio engineering.

At one time, the consensus here was the U87 was a piece of sh!t.

We have now seen a complete 180 where I'm seeing people who think the U87 is the most incredible sounding mic and they NEED one to get a professional sound (but have never used one).

The fact is... the U87 will almost NEVER sound great unless the person turning the knobs is capable of making it sound great.

Now, I guess the same could be said about every mic... But, I've found this to be true more with the U87 than any other microphone. It is not a mic that will WOW you with it's incredible sound.

The U87 is my "don't have time to find a great sound, so I'll just capture this performance with this adequate sounding mic that will not let me down".

For people looking for a GREAT sound who are recording vocals... try a couple of different microphones and see which suits your vocals. Oftentimes, you can find a mic for half the price that will sound better.

[ciociosan]

For my voice, that mic is the MD421. Who woulda thunk it?
Coincidentally, I'm not a huge fan of how that mic sounds on toms.

[jakson]

Thats really shocking.. yet really interesting to know. I have no hands on knowledge of the U87. But have always been told its the bomb. Now i know otherwise.

Sent from my DROIDX using Gearslutz.com App

[jaye b]

my words tony, the u87 is nothing special sound-wise, but it sounds "adequate" on a lot of sources. a skilled engineer can make it sound great, but then again, he could probably do that with most mics.

[JoaT]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

The U87 does not sound "good".

...
Oftentimes, you can find a mic for half the price that will sound better.

Could we have a list of viable alternatives for all-rounder that sounds better than U87 and costs half of what U87 goes for?

I'm asking seriously. Such list would benefit a lot of people. The budget ones are not often compared to these more expensive classics in this way.

[MFA]

1. Define "good" !

2. The U87 is (as you stated) more often than not adequate.

3. Ten or more "good" mics will probably ruin your mix. No, even two of them.

[Solidtube]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

The U87 does not sound "good".

Not good sounding to you doesn't mean it's not good sounding to everyone. U87 has been the studio standard since the 70s for vocals, I'm sure you thought the Hasselbald 500C is a crap camera too.

[rhythmtech]

i hate it on vocals

much prefer a FET47 or something completely different.

i find the 87 will amplify any sibilance problems that may not even exist in the first place.

[ysf]

Originally Posted by JoaT

Could we have a list of viable alternatives for all-rounder that sounds better than U87 and costs half of what U87 goes for?

I'm asking seriously. Such list would benefit a lot of people. The budget ones are not often compared to these more expensive classics in this way.

I know Ill take heat for this but I am LOVING the MXL CR24 (2003a) on vocals. Have been using it on many voices over the last 2 months and I am impressed. I also must say no I havent used a U87 so I cant compare, nor should I. But I can say Im selling my SE Electronics Z5600 that used to be my main vocal mic.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by Solidtube

Not good sounding to you doesn't mean it's not good sounding to everyone. U87 has been the studio standard since the 70s for vocals, I'm sure you thought the Hasselbald 500C is a crap camera too.

.. and all of those recordings had talented people who were able to squeeze a great sound out of an adequate microphone... I'm sorry, but I am so SICK of people giving the gear credit for the great recordings of 40 years ago. The talented people turning the knobs were responsible for the great (and bad) recordings of that era. It wasn't a particular microphone or a compressor..

And that mic was (and still is) a studio staple because as I said before: The U87 is my "don't have time to find a great sound, so I'll just capture this performance with this adequate sounding mic that will not let me down". It will not let you down in a studio situation. But, the vast majority of people here are not in a commercial studio situation where they need a mic that can work on 50 different sources in a given week.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

At one time, the consensus here was the U87 was a piece of sh!t.

Well, there's your problem right there: The U87 has been around a whole lot longer than GearSlutz.

[Ron Vogel]

I've always considered the U87 a workhorse mic, but CAN be stellar on some singers (including myself).

I group it into the jack of all trades; master of none niche along with the AT4050 and KSM32...it's a touch better than the aforementioned at a substantially higher price.

I own the 4050.

[hossman777]

Originally Posted by ysf

I know Ill take heat for this but I am LOVING the MXL CR24 (2003a) on vocals. Have been using it on many voices over the last 2 months and I am impressed. I also must say no I havent used a U87 so I cant compare, nor should I. But I can say Im selling my SE Electronics Z5600 that used to be my main vocal mic.

I used a 2003a a lot. Loved it on acoustic guitar, but it seemed to still be missing something for vocals. It was pretty sibilant on the vocalists I tracked with it. Not so much so that I couldn't de-ess it and have it sound good, but....

I bought a KEL HM7U, and WHOA!!!! "Better" is such a subjective term, but to my ears and for my purposes, the HM7U is a MUCH better mic than the 2003a.

[ttown23]

I agree in stock trim... but try one with the Stephen Paul mods... sounds brilliant to my ears!

[SeanG]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

The U87 does not sound "good".





I believe we need a better understanding of the U87 for the newer members here and people who are new to audio engineering.

At one time, the consensus here was the U87 was a piece of sh!t.

We have now seen a complete 180 where I'm seeing people who think the U87 is the most incredible sounding mic and they NEED one to get a professional sound (but have never used one).

The fact is... the U87 will almost NEVER sound great unless the person turning the knobs is capable of making it sound great.

Now, I guess the same could be said about every mic... But, I've found this to be true more with the U87 than any other microphone. It is not a mic that will WOW you with it's incredible sound.

The U87 is my "don't have time to find a great sound, so I'll just capture this performance with this adequate sounding mic that will not let me down".

For people looking for a GREAT sound who are recording vocals... try a couple of different microphones and see which suits your vocals. Oftentimes, you can find a mic for half the price that will sound better.

And let me guess... you don't sell U87's but you do sell the mics that are half the price that will sound better.

That's the great thing about gearsluts honest unbiased opinions.



...

[Solidtube]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

.. and all of those recordings had talented people who were able to squeeze a great sound out of an adequate microphone... I'm sorry, but I am so SICK of people giving the gear credit for the great recordings of 40 years ago. The talented people turning the knobs were responsible for the great (and bad) recordings of that era. It wasn't a particular microphone or a compressor..

And that mic was (and still is) a studio staple because as I said before: The U87 is my "don't have time to find a great sound, so I'll just capture this performance with this adequate sounding mic that will not let me down". It will not let you down in a studio situation. But, the vast majority of people here are not in a commercial studio situation where they need a mic that can work on 50 different sources in a given week.

That was exactly my point, that's why I used the Hasselbald 500C as an example. Not many people actually know how to use it properly, but the ones who can will be rewarded with great and amazing pictures, whereas everyone knows how to use those cheap point and shoot digital cameras and gets decent pictures with them, doesn't mean the point and shoot camera is better than a Hasselbald.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

The fact is... the U87 will almost NEVER sound great unless the person turning the knobs is capable of making it sound great.

I totally disagree.

The U87 will sound great if a great vocalist or player is giving a great performance.

And the less knobs being turned the better.

There's a reason why the U87 is a broadcast/voice-over standard. If you want a transparent sound with good presence then it will be a good choice.

Whether a different mic will 'make up' for say a thin voice by adding grit and 'warmth' is another question and a high possibility these days but again you can't blame the U87 for that. It's a mic that came from an era where one could at least assume that people knew what they were doing and were ready to perform when they booked studio time.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by SeanG

And let me guess... you don't sell U87's but you do sell the mics that are half the price that will sound better.

That's the great thing about gearsluts honest unbiased opinions.



...

That's the other great thing about GS, there's always some negative nancy know-it-all who can't just take a comment at face value without thinking a conspiracy theory or ulterior motive behind it.


How about we have a discussion about something and not worry about what I sell? Sure... We sell the U87... that and the KM184 are the only mics from their current product line that we offer. If you want to buy a TLM, you would have to shop elsewhere. Anyway, let's get back to the topic now.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by Solidtube

That was exactly my point, that's why I used the Hasselbald 500C as an example. Not many people actually know how to use it properly, but the ones who can will be rewarded with great and amazing pictures, whereas everyone knows how to use those cheap point and shoot digital cameras and gets decent pictures with them, doesn't mean the point and shoot camera is better than a Hasselbald.

I would have to take your word for it. I'm not a cameraman, so I have no idea.

[T_R_S]

I have 3 U87's I love them.
We do metal vocals with them...

You're right Tony it's not a good sounding mic

It a GREAT mic!

[Rob Ellis]

Blue Kiwi here

[psycho_monkey]

Its more than adequate in my book - not always the "best" mic for a source, but rarely less than useable on anything. A failsafe yes, hence the reason it's a standard.

[AllBread]

I'll agree that the U87 is not the end all mic but all around "bad sounding" I can never agree with. I agree that credit is due to those underpaid knob turners making great records, but without a doubt the U87 running hard through an 1176 is a very recognizable rock n roll vocal sound (bright, edgy, in your face and aggressive) that works great on some vocals and always gives the client the "holy crap, that's the (x,y, or z) vocal sound from my favorite (x,y, or z) album!"

As far as FET mics goes (or large diaphragm condensers in general), it's one of the best in the family (although totally overpriced at 3k new for the reissues). For a third the price I love the Bock U-195 and it gets close enough that it's certainly worth saving the two grand, in my opinion but the U87 certainly sounds more "finished" right at the source without any eq.

Also works just fine as drum overheads, on acoustic guitar, and a foot back from a guitar amp. Might not put it on a violin but I'd put it on a cello in a heartbeat.

So, yeah, the U87 is an overrated and often over priced mic but it's a solid workhorse condenser that still has it's place in a pro mic locker. Beats the hell out of a 414, anyway.

[Roland]

The U87 isn't and never was my favourite microphone, but it's hardly a piece of "sh*t" either. It was a good studio workhorse of it's day, it now suffers from being far too expensive for what it does. When compared to the vast array of cheap, rubbish Chinese mic's that are all too common these days it's a good prospect.

Consider this, you can pretty much record anything with a studio full of U87's and nothing else, and make a good sounding record. Now consider how many other mics can do the same, feel free to name them below if you can.

[peaksofvalleys]

What I don't get is the price increase in the U87 over the past few years. About 5 years ago it was selling for about $2400-$2600. Now it's at $3200?? That's a pretty huge increase when other mics have maintained a consistent price in the the same timeframe.

Same with the TLM103. It used to be $700 and now it's over $1000.

[shobud]

"The U87 does not sound "good"."

What an odd thing to post...

I think the only better understanding we need is that people need to hear things for themselves so as to form their own opinion.

Dan

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by peaksofvalleys

What I don't get is the price increase in the U87 over the past few years. About 5 years ago it was selling for about $2400-$2600. Now it's at $3200?? That's a pretty huge increase when other mics have maintained a consistent price in the the same timeframe.

Same with the TLM103. It used to be $700 and now it's over $1000.

... and 10 years ago you could buy them for around $1600 brand new.

The current new prices are painful to look at.

[Chris Parsons]

Our U87 sounds incredible on most vocals, acoustic guitars, and percussion. Did your U87 get stolen Tony? Is this your way of coping?

[AlexK]

Absolutely agreed. The modern Ai version is really not a 'great' sounding mic. It has it's uses, and can be a problem solver sometimes, but frankly there are other microphones (which cost a quarter the amount) which IMHO sound considerably better as vocal mics. Hate the U87 on a lot of instruments (saxes, horns in general etc).

[Rob Ellis]

The price is part of the reason I suppose, that I got rid of mine. Why, when
I had already paid the price? (we're talking ai here, not vintage U87)

Because it was kind of galling to be reminded every day how much I had
overpaid. And there was a nagging feeling that there was something else out there that sounded better to my ear
and cost less (which turned out to be true)

That's me. YMMV.