If you can't afford a U87 what's the next best thing???

Richard Monroe said:
Yep, that's a challenge. My general approach is to find something that sounds *good*, rather than trying to find something that sounds *similar*.-Richie
Click to expand...
Ah, but that's the challenge; to find something that sounds similar. Can it even be done with a Chinese mic? I think it can (with the right Chinese mic, and some eq, and some compression, and playing with the mic placement). I believe that I could come pretty damn close to duplicating the sound of a stock U87 on a specific singer's voice.
 
The fact that it was recorded in a completely different environment (and on a different day) will probably have just as much if not more effect than the differences in mics, so the goal of getting the vocals to closely match is already halfway down the shitter. :D At that point, you just do what you get paid the little bucks for, and you grab the closest thing you have in your collection, throw it up ... sounds good ... move on.

At that point, if you (the vocalist) don't like it, then tough. Go back to the other studio or quit your whining.
 
Harvey Gerst said:
The challenge:

Can you get close to the existing U87 vocal sound, using one or more of these mics, and some judicious use of eq and compression?
Click to expand...

Hey harvey, I bow down to you sir! Anyway, I think I already answered that in my comments about the tlm103, whether richard and others have found that they can't do this is just a question of how they do things IMHO. I can do it, it's not difficult at all when the capsule sounds so similar.

Richard, you're one of the people I was thinking of who consistently puts down the tlm103 as having no vibe and sounding dissimilar to a u87, and I wholeheartedly disagree, when you take into account it's electronic design etc. For me, understanding the frequency responses, distortion characteristics and natural compression (U87 here) of the two mics made it seem like a good candidate for U87 mimicking, and it's done so very well for me in the past. And I stand by what I said, even without doing anything more than choosing an appropriate preamp for the tlm103 (which is one of the pickiest mics for preamp choice I've ever come across), you will get a sound that is so similar to a U87 that anyone listening (without A/Bing it with a real U87) would have a very difficult time guessing that it was anything other than a U87, especially if you play some mental tricks with them (like having a U87 in your hand when you walk out of the room).

I know there are differences, but they're MUCH more subtle than you say IMHO.

Just standing my ground, not trying to argue, but I feel it's worth writing what I've found from my experiences. I'm probably not nearly the successful engineer that you are Richard, but for me in my relatively small time experience compared to some of the people on this board, but still with decades of professional experience, this has been my what I've found.

Cheers,
Don
 
ah, well if it can be done with a chinese mic that's a different thing completely. I'm certain it "can" be done, the question is what on earth do you have to do to it?

If I had the time I'd love to play with my m179 to see how close I can come with it.

cheers,

Don
 
Harvey Gerst said:
Ah, but that's the challenge; to find something that sounds similar. Can it even be done with a Chinese mic? I think it can (with the right Chinese mic, and some eq, and some compression, and playing with the mic placement). I believe that I could come pretty damn close to duplicating the sound of a stock U87 on a specific singer's voice.
Click to expand...

You left out the lifetime of experience part. :)
 
pezking said:
Antares make a microphone modeler plug in. You tell it what microphone you recorded with, and then tell it what you want it to sound like. Can't remember how effective it was - as I haven't used it for a long time now.

You tell it how far from the mic you were (for proximity effect) and then how close you'd like it to sound. Dial in the cut/roll off settings for each mic and you're away.

Maybe worth trying or reading about?
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha
 
Yo Don! No argument here. I'm not one of the people on this board who is looking to fight, I'm generally looking to learn. And as I pointed out to Harvey, I'm *not* an engineer. I'm a small time recording artist who's been working on a project studio for about five years. Without the techniical expertise of years of professional application. or the formal training to really understand all the tech behind mic capsules, I can only use my ears and make a subjective determination.

What you say about the TLM103 being picky about pres, though, may be a big factor here, and I don't think spec sheets will explain that. The only pres available to me currently are Avalon AD2022, Joemeek twinQ, M-Audio DMP-3, Behringer ADA8000, and the on board pres in a Digi002.

Now Harvey is a big time mixing engineer, and I'm not. When he says he can make a Chinese budget mic sound like a U87 by judicious use of EQ and compression, I don't doubt it for a second. I can't. I'm going to track it dry and send it to the nice mixing engineer to do that. if that is what's being requested.

I assure you, I have used a U87ai here, and a TLM103, and I have not found that the similarity in capsules has produced similar frequency profiles. In fact, I have gotten closer sound using an AKG C414B-ULS. For the record, I do not believe that the TLM103 is a bad mic, just overpriced for what it does, and I would rather invest that much money in any of several other mics. It should be noted here that I am also not a generalized Neumann basher. I use a pair of KM184's quite a bit, and I think those mics get bashed a lot, but they work for me, and I think they are worth every penny I paid for them.

One thing does interest me though- your comment about the TLM 103 being picky about preamps. What pres have worked well for you? Based on what you say, I suspect the TLM103 doesn't like my Avalon at all. Oddly enough, the U87 likes it just fine, although we've had better luck with a borrowed 737.
I didn't get to use the TLM103 through the 737, so I have no clue about that.
As you can no doubt get from the above, my front line pres are solid state pres with big mucking transformers. A good tube pre is on the wish list, but not yet aquired.

It's not my intention to sound like a snob, or to make the ridiculous claim that I am a big time engineer. Using the pres I have, I haven't been able to get a (dry) track out of a TLM103 that's any better than what I can get out
of a KSM44, or a C414, an AT4050, or a Baby Bottle. It just costs more, and lacks multiple polar patterns. I have, however, gotton stuff out of a U87 that I couldn't duplicate with any of those mics, particularly using the Avalon. As to what could be done about that with post production processing, Harvey knows a lot better than I do, and I expect you do also. My mission is to track the best possible track of a real acoustic source in real acoustic space with *no* FX, *no* EQ, and *no* compression. All I'm saying is that in my room, with my sources (generally acoustic), using my pres, I have not found the TLM103 a particularly useful tool for doing that. I haven't found anything that it does in that situation which justifies it's price point. That doesn't mean it doesn't do something for you. Can it be made to sound like a U87? Quite possibly. Does it sound like one when tracked flat and dry in real acoustic space? Not even a little.-Richie
 
Mikey,
There is an unbiased mic comparison at gearslutz.com from awhile back you should listen to, just to get a range of differences your money, and different mics, are going to give you. Same everything except for the mics, same artist doing his 'microphone song' to test them, and short clips. Search "sputnik" and you should find it. The M-Audio Sputnik was the surprise to me and some others, but give a listen for yourself and listen to them BEFORE you read the results. Subtle differences, but different flavors nonetheless. As for me, I've got a few of the Chance Pataki mics on order I am going to try. I still stand by my Joemeek 2001 JM47 for vocals, but it'll be nice to have some more Chinese mics around to play with.

Oh yeah, if you look at CAD, I've seen positive comments here on the M9 tube mic.
 
no worries Richard, sorry to sound like I was coming down on you. Didn't mean that at all, but I just feel like the tlm103 gets a much worse rap than it deserves sometimes when, for me, it blows away a ksm44, rode k2, and various other lead vocal mics. It is equal to but different from the 414 uls I use sometimes, the c12 copy I used often (although very different), and equal to the U87s I have used often in other studios (I don't own one myself but have a long term borrowing system going on, so it's sort of mine). I only have a small home studio as well, but work in some larger studios often which has helped my ability to keep an open mind and neutral opinions on gear. I used to be more opinionated, if that's possible LoL.

But when I don't have a U87, I use my tlm103 and love it. I also must say that my own tlm103 is quite old and very used (dirty capsule) and that may affect it's tone in some way positively for me, but I do use other tlm103s sometimes and find them as useful as my own.

For pres I'll have to get into that another time (my wife's rushing me out the door for dinner!) but the avalon 737 is one good choice I've heard but my preferences I'll get into in a followup post. In case that helps, but by no means do I mean that the tlm103 is the right mic for you. Also, a subtle difference in sound to me may be a huge difference in sound to you, everyone's different after all!

Cheers man,
Don
 
Hi remember me... I've been drinking tea and lying down.

chessrock said:
... one thing that you should know is that the majority of the cheap large diaphragm condensers on the market aim to replicate the U87, in either looks, sound or both. To make things worse, most of these mics are made in the same factories in China by a lot of the same people, so there isn't actually much difference between the various makes / models.

Even the ones that don't manufacture in China ... mostly use one of two standard capsules, out of the same two factories.....

... they don't both sound the same. One of them happens to have a more laid-back sound in the midrange while the other tends to have a more hyped high end..
Click to expand...

A very helpful post and good info for the masses of folks trying to find their way through the branding jungle.

The mics that use the hyped high end capsule ...SP, ADK and CAD are mentioned a lot in these pages. Can you recall which mics use the more laid back capsule that you refer to???
 
Mikey77 said:
Hi remember me... I've been drinking tea and lying down.



A very helpful post and good info for the masses of folks trying to find their way through the branding jungle.

The mics that use the hyped high end capsule ...SP, ADK and CAD are mentioned a lot in these pages. Can you recall which mics use the more laid back capsule that you refer to???
Click to expand...

actually the cad is quite laid back, along with the sp b1 and adk hamburg, which share caps if I recall correctly. the c1, vienna and others I think share a brighter sound.

could be remembering wrong but certainly the m179 and m177 aren't hyped much.

Don
 
oh yea, forgot about the tlm103 preamp question, sorry Richard.

I often use a UA tube pre with the 103, works amazingly well with it. the solo 610 does the job just great for vocals if you use another compressor with it just a tad. I've used both a focusrite red with it and a focusrite platinum (which again I find gets an undeservedly bad rep here considering it's competition in it's price range) and both, to me, sound like crap with the tlm103. also talking about cheap preamps here, the art mpa gold sounds pretty good with it, but that's one situation where the high end stuff really blows away the less expensive (even though I'm a huge fan of the mpa gold), the UA tube pres blow it away with a tlm103, where with other mics I often prefer the art actually. Also my api sounds pretty dang good with the tlm103 but isn't my choice for vocals as it exhibits a tiny speck too much sibilance with the tlm103 for my tastes, but it's great for certain sources. Oh, and used a great river with it and it sounded ok for vocals but not my first choice, used a brick with it and I liked that better than the great river or api actually (similar to the UA but not quite ideal for what I was looking for the day that I got to try the brick, I'm sure it depends on the voice though).

Upon looking at this list I'm seeing tubes = good and SS = less predictable with the tlm103, but that may very well be a coincidence.

Cheers,
Don
 
oh yea, got to hear a chandler germanium with someone else's tlm103 recently and was very impressed at the vocal sound, but I wasn't actually engineering that session (was playing session bass guitar) so don't know the complete signal chain or eq used which of course can play a huge part in the variables.

I have a lot of love for the chandlers but never seem to get to use one with a tlm103 (partly because I don't own a chandler so only get to use them in big studios where they have access to $10,000 sony mics and u87s out the ying yang, so the tlm doesn't get the call nearly as often for vocals since most people get to choose from a range of classics).

Cheers,
Don
 
i had the opportunity to compare a u87 to a Rode NT-1 and I thought the rode came very very close. The singer I worked with actually preferred the rode. its a very good alternative in my oppinion and WAY cheaper
 
for whatever it's worth, i plan on throwing up my NT-2A and AT4033a alongside a vintage 414 and U87 over a steinway, and running them all through a grace 801 pre to do a nice little mic comparison

only problem is that i have to wait until august :(
 
There is nothing magical about the sound of a U87 except if it is the only mic that works on a perticular voice. How many times have you read about an SM57 being used because no other high end mic sounds like it?

If this is the case, you really can't fool the track with any other mic (more or less expensive).
 
Okay, apparently my "challenge" didn't stir up anybody's creative juices, since all I got back were comments making me out to be some kind of "uber-engineer". This ain't "rocket surgery". Let's walk through the whole process of matching one sound source to another (in this case to a prerecorded U87 vocal):

What We Already Know

1. We know that most large diaphragm cardioid condenser mics have proximity effect as you move closer to the diaphragm.

2. We know that most large diaphragm cardioid condenser mics have a diaphragm tensioning resonance peak somewhere between 5 Khz and 8 Khz.

3. We know that most large diaphragm cardioid condenser mics have resonant peaks somewhere between 2 Khz and 5 Khz, caused by the headbasket design.

4. 3. We know that most large diaphragm cardioid condenser mics will start to roll off between 12 Khz and 18 Khz.

What We Don't Know

1. We don't know how much the U87's proximity effect contributed to the original track, and whether eq, compression, or other stuff was added.

2. We don't know what the diaphragm tensioning resonance peak is on the mic we want to use.

3. We don't know what the headbasket resonance peaks are on the mic we want to use.

4. We don't know where the high frequency rolloff point starts on the mic we want to use.

So, Where Do We Begin To Make It Match?

1. Let's start with "proximity effect", since that's the easiest to approximate.

(For those of you who haven't read the "big thread" at the top, "proximity effect" (a fancy name for "bass boost") occurs when the 'velocity' part of the signal swamps the 'pressure' part of the signal as you move closer to the mic, usually starting from about 3 to 4 feet out and increasing as you move closer.)

It starts at around 400 Hz, so you'd have the singer move into the mic, starting from around 4 feet away, until you have the low end of his/her voice sounding similar to the U87 track. You might hafta add or take away some low end, using your eq to get really close.

2. The resonant peak caused by diaphragm tensioning is usually more pronounced in Chinese mics, so you'll hafta use a narrow parametric sweep to find the peak and knock it down (it's usually a 5 to 6 dB narrow peak, somewhere between 5 and 8 Khz).

3. and 4. Headbasket resonances and HF rolloff are usually all over the place, and that's just gonna take some trial and error dinking with the eq till you get the last part of the sound tamed. Look for the headbasket stuff below 5Khz, and the HF rolloff above 12Khz. Headbasket fixes shouldn't need more than 2 or 3 dB of eq. The HF rolloff is probably the least critical fix. Roll off everything above 18 Khz and you'll be fine.

Finally, some mics have a broad 3 to 5 dB rise from about 3Khz to around 10Khz for "sheen". You might hafta pull that down, using a low Q parametric, centered around 5 Khz, and drop it a few dB.

Finally, get the singer to sing the same part from the distance you found that matched the "proximity effect", and you can dink around with all the other stuff on this new track.
 
nice description Harvey. Like I said, just don't have the time right now to try it out with something like my m179, but I'm pretty sure that I could do it with the sort of research you're talking about. If I get time in the next few days I'll try it out!

That's a lesson in mic analysis right there, well put together sir!

Cheers,
Don
 
Big Kenny said:
Soooooooooooooo, if you can't afford a U87, can you afford a Harvey?
Click to expand...
But that's my point; you don't need "a Harvey".

You wanna drive a nail into a board, but you don't have a hammer. Got a big crescent wrench? How about a big channel lock? Is there a brick laying around?

Yes, a hammer is the perfect tool, but if you don't have a hammer, than the task is still there - to get the nail into the board, using whatever you do have to get the job done.

What tool (already in your possession) will get the job done? Use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top