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

I have to say....I love me some Harvey Gerst. That is a great post about taking a somewhat creative approach to using a different "tool" to get the job done. Those were truly applicable approaches to answering the poster's original question where just about every other post has been "it ain't a U87 and you can't get it to sound like one", which we already know. Harvey's post gets past that and actually provides a direction for a viable solution. My hat's off, as always.

Jonathan
 
To the less experienced readers, many of us have had to mimick a mic's sound (or other gear's sound) like that many times, when we try to get a particular sound and use a compressor and eq and mic placement to get it, we're altering the tone of the recording to fit how we want it to sound.

Harvey's explaining really well how to do that, but for those of us who had to start out with only one mic doing everything musically (which is probably most people) you don't have to think that only great engineers with great gear can get the sounds you want. I learned how to make recordings that sounded like my favorite tracks using only one cheap mic, one crappy compressor, and one crappy reverb box (then I relearned everything using only plugins, then I went back to external hardware more). Only thing is, for me, that I've gotten access to such great gear over the past few years that having to replicate the sound of mic isn't a common occurrence any more, and I think it would be fun to try to copy a U87 so closely that the listener can not tell which one is the real U87. I think that would be a blast, and plan on trying that when I get time.

That's what I got out of Harvey's concept, I think he may be trying to put some perspective into this thread though for many other people who haven't maybe had the need, desire or possibly don't even feel they have the skill to do this little experiment. He's perfectly correct, it doesn't take a super engineer to do it, however those of us that are experienced at it can probably do it without thinking so carefully about every step of the way. It's really an instinct to me to choose the right mic, chain and settings these days, but it's taken a long time for me to get here. I think people need to experiment more, try to analyze and understand what happens when recording more, and use that knowledge to do this type of thing more often.

I really like how Harvey outlined the analysis process.

Cheers,
Don
 
Mikey77 said:
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...

I am going to allude somewhat to Harvey's excellent post for some of this.

Basically, there are two companies that started out making two different capsules based on the U87. One is the 797 plant in Beijing and the second is the Feilo plant in Shanghai. Although there are more players than just two, it is still true that about 90% of the cheap LDCs on the market currently use one of the two capsules - they are by far the most popular. And this is just a very general statement, so take it for what it's worth ... but the ones that use the 797 capsule have a little more of the tensioning peak Harvey alluded to when compared to the Shanghai counterpart, while the Shanghais tend to have a slightly more pronounced "sheen" rise in the 10 khz region Harvey alluded to.

Again, a very general observation, but it seems to be somewhat consistant with the differences between a Marshall mxl-2003 (797 capsule) and a v67 (Shanghai) for example ... in the sense that the 2003 has a noticeably more evident peak in the 5-6k range (at least in my opinion and others), which would be consistant with the tensioning Harvey mentioned, and partly responsible for a slightly more forward and articulate sound compared to the more laid-back nature of the v67 and others of it's ilk.

Now this isn't to say that these differences are really drastic or obvious. When I say one tends to be more "laid back" sounding, I mean that in a very general way, and comparitively speaking (kind of like saying Flourescent Green is a more laid back color than Hunter's Orange). They both aim to replicate the U87, and each kind of hits and misses the mark in their own ways.

In answer to your question, the Studio Projects C1 is another one that uses the 797 capsule, as is the CAD M177, some of the ADKs, Nady, and the Behringers. The Shanghai capsule is used in the Marshall v67, the earlier CADs (m37, etc.) some of the ADKs (A51 I believe) Joemeek, early Groove Tubes and a whole bunch of other ones I can't think of off the top of my head. You can find this information by doing a more exhaustive search using the terms "797," "Beijing" or "Feilo."
 
dkelley said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you & Richard have found the missing link between your opinions of the TLM103. The UA 610 tube preamps are entirely different then the Avalon solid state pres Richard mentions. I use both, they each bring out clearly different characters in mics. The Avalon for example can make a C414 sound airy & crispy (too crispy for acou gtr I feel) and the 610's add gorgeous warmth (yes, warmth, for the Larry Crane groupies) and a bigger sound. The Avalon helps a SM7 sound great, the 610 not so much so depending on the project/source.

Having both a good tube & solid state preamp will open up new characters in all of your mics. It's almost like doubling your mic closet. Sort of. :o
 
nuemes said:
I think you & Richard have found the missing link between your opinions of the TLM103. The UA 610 tube preamps are entirely different then the Avalon solid state pres Richard mentions.
Click to expand...

kewl! thanks for the comments. Kind of what I figured, good to have another person reinfornce what I hoped was happening. :D

Cheers,
Don
 
Hi there, shoeless Joe here. Sometimes a newbie doesn't know the right question to ask, so my thanks to those who are constructing this erudite and informative thread. Like I said, a cup of tea might have helped.

jabulani jonny said:
I have to say....I love me some Harvey Gerst. Those were truly applicable approaches to answering the poster's original question where just about every other post has been "it ain't a U87 and you can't get it to sound like one", which we already know. Harvey's post gets past that and actually provides a direction for a viable solution. Jonathan
Click to expand...

Also thanks to Chess and Don and Ritchie who were generous and solid enough to throw around a few mic names and talk about their respective merits. So far I get the idea that with a CAD M179, ADK Vienna/Hamburg, Shure KSM series, Audio Technica 40 series, or for a little more money, the TLM103 and AKG C414 series, one is getting a fair bit of bang for the buck. And with the judicious methodologies outlined by Harvey, one is able to achieve considerable quality and replicate some of the results and characteristics of benchmark mics such as the U87.

I found it very illuminating to stumble across Dan Richardsons mic graph which seeks to map out the various mics according to their colour and shade. I'm sure many of you have seen this but for those that haven't ...
http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/micgraph.htm

Also some of the mics mentioned on this thread are represented in this mic shootout that I found also very helpful.
http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200508.mic_shootout.html#

There was a competition some time ago, I think it was in an English or French newspaper that asked their readers " If the Louvre Art Gallery caught fire while you were in the building, which painting would you save as you were fleeing to safety?" Now of course the Louvre has many priceless works including the Mona Lisa but as I recall the guy who won the competition responded that he would save the painting nearest the exit. Good Call!

So here's the story, starring Toby Maguire and Denis Quaid suitably dressed in check shirts and denim.

Toby- "Pa, Pa, the barns on fire and every cheap mic in the known universe is inside... I know they're all worth less than $800, but gee Pa, can't we save just one."

Denis- " Holy Shit ...we've got that session tonight with the multi instrumentalist Hindustani Rap Country Transgender Blues singer, I'm going in son..."

After calling Harvey and all the boys at Home recording dot com for advice, Denis has just got enough time to rush into the barn and grab one mic. And it wasn't the one nearest the exit. It was ......???
 
Thanks for the explanation, Harvey. If I had parametric sweep EQ with adjustable Q, it would be more useful to me, but perhaps my day will come.
Mikey- obviously you are getting something out of this, because you have gone from a question that's almost impossible to answer to one that makes sense.
I'm running out of that museum with a C414 (whichever one I find first) in one hand, and an SM7 in the other. If I have to drop one, I'll hang on to the C414.- Richie

P.S.-Nuemes- I tracked an entire album of acoustic guitar using a C414B-ULS into that AD2022, and it yielded some really good tracks. Admittedly, I need the acoustic a little bright for my applications. I use a Taylor 710, and everybody says Taylors are bright. It was one case where I had to use the bass cut on the Avalon to control the boom, and it rocked. Each to their own.
 
Big Kenny said:
Yes it does......
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It's been a while since I really tried the sm-57 on anything. I guess what I meant was that I didn't remember it sounding as good as it did in those samples. It would be nice to know what type of preamps they were using on the test though.

edit: i mean it's been a while since i really tried the sm-57 on vocals.
 
57s are such funny things.... a classic on snare, cabs, and I personally have found it great as a room mic also in my younger days. I've recorded jazz combos with one mono 57 room mic and the results were really good. But personally I don't use them on cabs or snares any more either most of the time, too overused of a mic for my tastes, but still good to have around. I prefer audix and sennheiser dynamics though. and I'd never use a 57 on any close acoustic source (acoustic guitar, strings, vocals), but I've heard it used with some success that way by others.

My 57s sound exactly like the one in that listening test. 57s are very VERY different sounding with different preamps and with different impedances. So make sure you play with your input impedance setting (if available, variable is best for a 57). Can make night and day difference.

Don
 
dkelley said:
My 57s sound exactly like the one in that listening test. 57s are very VERY different sounding with different preamps and with different impedances. So make sure you play with your input impedance setting (if available, variable is best for a 57). Can make night and day difference.

Don
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion. I don't currently have a preamp with variable impedance, but I'm hoping to get one soon.
 
dkelley said:
57s are such funny things.... a classic on snare, cabs, and I personally have found it great as a room mic also in my younger days. I've recorded jazz combos with one mono 57 room mic and the results were really good. But personally I don't use them on cabs or snares any more either most of the time, too overused of a mic for my tastes, but still good to have around. I prefer audix and sennheiser dynamics though. and I'd never use a 57 on any close acoustic source (acoustic guitar, strings, vocals), but I've heard it used with some success that way by others.

My 57s sound exactly like the one in that listening test. 57s are very VERY different sounding with different preamps and with different impedances. So make sure you play with your input impedance setting (if available, variable is best for a 57). Can make night and day difference.

Don
Click to expand...

Well said......and don't forget the beyer 201
 
Richard Monroe said:
I tracked an entire album of acoustic guitar using a C414B-ULS into that AD2022, and it yielded some really good tracks. Admittedly, I need the acoustic a little bright for my applications. I use a Taylor 710, and everybody says Taylors are bright. It was one case where I had to use the bass cut on the Avalon to control the boom, and it rocked. Each to their own.
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't get me wrong; depending on the aplication the C414 & M5 sound excellent on acou gtr. Clean, modern sound. The bass roll-off saves so many sessions! I've dialed out motorcylces mid-take with that :D

I'm sold on the 610 preamps for dialing warm, intimate tones. Instant 70's folk sound in conjunction with a 4033 with the right singer. I love that sound.
 
A great thread and everyone played so nice together.

I simply wanted to second (or third) the theories about the preamps and particular microphones. Its true that some mics simply do not change much with the differences in mic pres....Others, however, are day and night. The 57 is great example and of course it would follow that the SM7 is much the same way. The TLM103 is the MOST affected mic by this that I have ever used. And I would include any of the transformerless Neumanns in this as a general rule.

As for the U87, I have owned three and still have an early 80's model None were the Ai. I have used the Ai and never found it to sound anything like the older ones EXCEPT that it had that 'Neumann' sheen to it. Those of you that have used a good number of Neumanns and different models know what I'm suggesting here. Most likely its exactly what Harvey has spoken of with the tensioning and the combination of electronics.

For the record, It would be a fairly easy fix to get the vocals to sound very similar as long as you are using mics with similar electronics in place. An fet mic does not resemble a tube mic in very many ways and so a mic with a transformer doesnt sound much like one without. Subtle, but still different. So replacing a vocal done on a U87 with another vocal where a U87 isnt available would require at the least, a mic with a transformer and one with a capsule tensioned in much the same way. Which we have learned is very possible 90 to 93% of the time if its a Chinese capsuled mic. The rest of the formula would be to use your ears and spend the time necessary to compare and adjust accordingly.

I dont have near the facility Harvey has, but I have enough to accomplish this.

Or simply rent a U87 if possible.

As for having something that approaches the Neumann in sound quality, there are many mics out there in the $500 to $1500 range that , while maybe not sounding exactly, certain sound as quality. These choices can only be made subjectively within the confines of a persons own environment where the recording would be taking place. Speculation by anyone not ensconced within the confines of these environments is just that....speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top