You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Just got some C4's from John Mayes (Review and clips coming)!
- Thread starter Yareek
- Start date
P
Phyl
Guest
Well, you've got to admit, innuendo was always his strong suit.
Sometimes you just gotta go with your strengths!
Sometimes you just gotta go with your strengths!
Brent Casey
Just add water and stir!
acorec said:There were changes, but acoustically they are transparent to the user. The U87 of the past and today have the same tonal characteristics. This is not to be confused with "aging". The older capsules went from sounding bad to some form of mellowness due to aging of the diaphrams. Stephen Paul makes it a point to explain that there are no "vintage original" mics that come even close to sounding like Neuman intended without an overhaul. That is why so many think that the older vintage mics are either better sounding, or worse sounding than the current model. "
"Both U87 mics, old and new, use in principle and construction the same identical capsule. The only difference is that in the old model the spacer between the two capsule halves is made of plastic (to accommodate the pattern selection process through varying amounts of voltages applied to the halves) and in the new model it's made of aluminum.
In either case there are no sonic differences between the two capsule models."
.."The U 87 and the U 87Ai use the same type of capsule, but in two slightly different forms. Acoustically the two are identical for any given era of production at Neumann; there have, of course, been some changes during the nearly 45 year history of this type of capsule! The only difference is that in the K 87 form used in the U 87, the backplates of the two halves of the capsule are electrically insulated from one another--thus the capsule as a whole has four distinct electrical terminals. In the K 67/K 870 form used in all the other models (e.g. U 67 and U 87Ai), the backplates are electrically bonded together such that the capsule as a whole has only three distinct terminals. The difference has to do with the set of voltages available in the amplifier for polarizing the capsule for the three directional patterns. The U 87 had only ca. +45 V and 0 V available to work with, so it charged the front membrane with the +45 V in all three patterns, and varied the relationship of the rear backplate with the rear membrane to produce the different patterns; that's more complicated than one might wish, but it's the only way to do it without a DC converter or a special power supply. The U 87Ai has a DC converter so it can leave the combined backplates at 0 V potential, charge the front membrane at +60 V at all times, and then simply set the charge on the rear membrane to +60 V, 0 V or -60 V to determine the overall directional pattern.
Oh boy, where to start...
These are major changes that are in no way "acoustically transparent to the user" Unless "the user" is fairly deaf. The old U87s and new U87s sound quite different from one another. When Stephen says here that the capsules are acoustically the same, he is stating that the there have been no changes to the diaphragm/backplate spacing from front to back and the hole patterns, through holes and dead bores all retain the original dimensions for any given vintage of K67/87 capsule. "Acoustically the same" means the Helmholtz frequency for the individual holes has not changed. Now just because the capsule remains acoustically the same does not mean that the older U87s and newer U87s sound the same. They don't. It just means that the capsules are the acoustically the same. Stephen goes on to explain WHY the two mics will sound different but does not bother to mention this, which is apparently the cause for your incomprehension. The fact that the capsules old and new are being polarized in different fashions is a MAJOR CHANGE and a clear indicator that the two iterations will sound and perform differently. They may share the same overall tonal characteristics, but I haven't claimed otherwise at any time.
Lastly, it is of no particular concern to me - other than academic interest, that many famous and well respected mic models have undergone sometimes multiple and MAJOR alterations. It is simply a fact.
Brent Casey