|
Post by nick8801 on Aug 28, 2021 10:51:49 GMT -6
Original is my favorite here too. Maybe it’s because it is a familiar “thing”, but I dig it.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Aug 28, 2021 11:01:24 GMT -6
I can't speak for Stam's 87 because I haven't tried one, but the SA67 I have with Tim's capsule sounds like a vintage U67. It has the Neumann honk you'd expect. I sometimes think people have become accustomed to brighter mic sounds . I've noticed many people prefer the U87Ai to the vintage U87 when listening blind in shootouts. I usually prefer the AI for voice over believe it or not, but for singing those vintage U87s are where it’s at.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Aug 28, 2021 11:09:38 GMT -6
Fascinating. The U67 sounds kind of odd next to all these 87s, but it probably wouldn't if it was the only thing you heard. Yes, the Stam mic has an odd brightness to it.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 28, 2021 12:20:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 28, 2021 12:22:17 GMT -6
I think I prefer the Telefunken silver plate.
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Aug 28, 2021 12:27:03 GMT -6
Gonna have to agree with everyone else here — the original 87 sounds best to me.
But for totally different reasons, I also really like the MK67. It's a bit more pinched/midrangey, sure, but I've recently come to realize that's not always a bad thing. This one seems to do it in a way that I find really pleasing. I bet it would sound killer on sung vocals in a mix.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 28, 2021 12:48:18 GMT -6
The u87 should have a de-emphasis circuit in it, perhaps they have chosen some different values.
I'd also add that i think this 87 sounds good.
I have a question regarding the de-emphasis. I recently did a shootout with a vintage 87 versus some standard $2k and under mics (nothing boutique; guitar center mics). 2 things about the old 87 stood out and I wonder if it’s just that example or a design: - sounded effortless, rich, familiar, and invisible all at the same time. Extremely reactive to dynamics. - it’s a super dark mic on the top end. At the same time it’s not. It’s overall dark at 12k, but the dynamics punch up in that region enough to seem kind of flat. So I wonder if that’s a standard thing with old 87? Or is it just that mic? My feeling during tracking was: if this was a brand new mic somebody released today, it would be totally shunned for being way to dark. No way anyone would pay $3k for that. During tracking in headphones I wasn’t that impressed vs the other mics. But when I went to the studio monitors and brought it up, after compression and boosting the highs, it just sat ***perfectly*** into the track. Totally blew away the other mics in that regard. I had to boost 12k like 18dB before I hear any pain… is that weird? Or is that the standard de-emphasis?
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Aug 28, 2021 13:37:14 GMT -6
I think I prefer the Telefunken silver plate. Me too. I had a Grey plate myself first, but fell in love with the mojo of the Amperex myself.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 28, 2021 14:00:23 GMT -6
I think I prefer the Telefunken silver plate. Me too. I had a Grey plate myself first, but fell in love with the mojo of the Amperex myself. I’d love to try one of those. But man, those NOS EF86’s are getting pricey.
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on Aug 28, 2021 14:58:48 GMT -6
Me too. I had a Grey plate myself first, but fell in love with the mojo of the Amperex myself. I’d love to try one of those. But man, those NOS EF86’s are getting pricey. Hahaha try buying 5 star 6072, AC701 or VF14. I just saw 2 different VF14's where the asking price 4,500 bucks each.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 28, 2021 16:47:04 GMT -6
For 87, I like the original U87, then the SP modded U87, then the Stam. For 67, I like the Tele grey plate, which is good I guess because it's what I've got in mine. Thanks for the clips, indiehouse!
|
|
|
Post by stam on Aug 28, 2021 20:53:01 GMT -6
The u87 should have a de-emphasis circuit in it, perhaps they have chosen some different values.
I'd also add that i think this 87 sounds good.
I have a question regarding the de-emphasis. I recently did a shootout with a vintage 87 versus some standard $2k and under mics (nothing boutique; guitar center mics). 2 things about the old 87 stood out and I wonder if it’s just that example or a design: - sounded effortless, rich, familiar, and invisible all at the same time. Extremely reactive to dynamics. - it’s a super dark mic on the top end. At the same time it’s not. It’s overall dark at 12k, but the dynamics punch up in that region enough to seem kind of flat. So I wonder if that’s a standard thing with old 87? Or is it just that mic? My feeling during tracking was: if this was a brand new mic somebody released today, it would be totally shunned for being way to dark. No way anyone would pay $3k for that. During tracking in headphones I wasn’t that impressed vs the other mics. But when I went to the studio monitors and brought it up, after compression and boosting the highs, it just sat ***perfectly*** into the track. Totally blew away the other mics in that regard. I had to boost 12k like 18dB before I hear any pain… is that weird? Or is that the standard de-emphasis? Nothing weird about that!, A good old 87 will get the job done 90% of the time. The de-emphasis circuit will boost or cut information on the top end of the U87 circuit depending on what value you place on it. It will not affect the mids or upper mids of the mic. My 67 was deemed too dark at times, same with our take on the U47 and Sony 800. I've always liked to make darker microphones that react nicely to EQ over bright ones that will give instant satisfaction. As a rule of thumb I try to avoid anything that "hurts". On this particular SA87 I placed a 160pf Polystyrene capacitor on the de-emphasis circuit instead of the standard 220pf which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste, I have suggested to the owner for this capacitor to be changed to 220pf to get it closer to his 87's. I did not detect anything out of the usual when sweeping the mic, perhaps I need to go back to my old method of singing into every single one as sometimes a sweep will not show these minor or sometimes moderate differences but you can certainly hear them. In any case it can be easily corrected both ways and I will always offer to adjust this free of charge for any client.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 28, 2021 22:46:26 GMT -6
I have a question regarding the de-emphasis. I recently did a shootout with a vintage 87 versus some standard $2k and under mics (nothing boutique; guitar center mics). 2 things about the old 87 stood out and I wonder if it’s just that example or a design: - sounded effortless, rich, familiar, and invisible all at the same time. Extremely reactive to dynamics. - it’s a super dark mic on the top end. At the same time it’s not. It’s overall dark at 12k, but the dynamics punch up in that region enough to seem kind of flat. So I wonder if that’s a standard thing with old 87? Or is it just that mic? My feeling during tracking was: if this was a brand new mic somebody released today, it would be totally shunned for being way to dark. No way anyone would pay $3k for that. During tracking in headphones I wasn’t that impressed vs the other mics. But when I went to the studio monitors and brought it up, after compression and boosting the highs, it just sat ***perfectly*** into the track. Totally blew away the other mics in that regard. I had to boost 12k like 18dB before I hear any pain… is that weird? Or is that the standard de-emphasis? Nothing weird about that!, A good old 87 will get the job done 90% of the time. The de-emphasis circuit will boost or cut information on the top end of the U87 circuit depending on what value you place on it. It will not affect the mids or upper mids of the mic. My 67 was deemed too dark at times, same with our take on the U47 and Sony 800. I've always liked to make darker microphones that react nicely to EQ over bright ones that will give instant satisfaction. As a rule of thumb I try to avoid anything that "hurts". On this particular SA87 I placed a 160pf Polystyrene capacitor on the de-emphasis circuit instead of the standard 220pf which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste, I have suggested to the owner for this capacitor to be changed to 220pf to get it closer to his 87's. I did not detect anything out of the usual when sweeping the mic, perhaps I need to go back to my old method of singing into every single one as sometimes a sweep will not show these minor or sometimes moderate differences but you can certainly hear them. In any case it can be easily corrected both ways and I will always offer to adjust this free of charge for any client. I assume the 220 will reduce the highs then? Compared to the 160?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 29, 2021 7:09:01 GMT -6
I think Stam meant the opposite indiehouse. If a client feels it's too dark, changing to the 220 will make it brighter.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Aug 29, 2021 7:41:46 GMT -6
I can't speak for Stam's 87 because I haven't tried one, but the SA67 I have with Tim's capsule sounds like a vintage U67. It has the Neumann honk you'd expect. I sometimes think people have become accustomed to brighter mic sounds . I've noticed many people prefer the U87Ai to the vintage U87 when listening blind in shootouts.(emphasis added) I'll be the odd man out here and state that I prefer the AI version to vintage 87s. Has nothing to do with becoming accustomed to brighter mics. It's a personal preference; I just like the added detail (that's just how I hear it) of the AI version. (flame suit on) -09
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 29, 2021 10:37:03 GMT -6
No judgement here Omicron, the added detail you like is what I think most people call brightness.
I haven't used a AI 87 yet, but for the 12 years I used my 1980 U87 every day, I never once felt it lacked detail. I wish I still had it.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 29, 2021 10:54:07 GMT -6
I think Stam meant the opposite indiehouse. If a client feels it's too dark, changing to the 220 will make it brighter. That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think we’re trying to make the Stam 87 brighter. It’s already brighter than the vintage 87’s.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 29, 2021 11:04:11 GMT -6
The capacitance would be in the denominator for the filter cut-offf so the bigger value (220pf) would make the cut-off frequency lower (rolling off high frequencies earlier), so yeah, 220pf would be less bright.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 29, 2021 14:00:55 GMT -6
No surprises, really.
The stock Neumann U87 sounds correct. The Stephen Paul mod is fabulous for some people. But I find the extensions a little off-putting, especially when I'm thinking of using a U87 and that capture is in my head. There's a focused 200-220 range resonance in the stock vintage U87 that just makes a voice beautiful, and reminds me of the vocal sound of the Carpenters - as just one example.
however, the Stephen Paul does make it much more overall useful utility microphone - less of a 'sound stamp'.
With the MK67, the Telefunken grey plate. I'd love to hear a 1967-1969 Amperex EF86 in it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Aug 29, 2021 18:46:09 GMT -6
No surprises, really. The stock Neumann U87 sounds correct. The Stephen Paul mod is fabulous for some people. But I find the extensions a little off-putting, especially when I'm thinking of using a U87 and that capture is in my head. There's a focused 200-220 range resonance in the stock vintage U87 that just makes a voice beautiful, and reminds me of the vocal sound of the Carpenters - as just one example. however, the Stephen Paul does make it much more overall useful utility microphone - less of a 'sound stamp'. With the MK67, the Telefunken grey plate. I'd love to hear a 1967-1969 Amperex EF86 in it. In the world of Live we always called 200-250Hz the chest thump range because that’s what it does. A bump in that area can give a voice body and heft. I agree the SP isn’t going to work on everybody, but it is a nice compliment to the vintage stock mic.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 29, 2021 20:57:42 GMT -6
I think Stam meant the opposite indiehouse. If a client feels it's too dark, changing to the 220 will make it brighter. That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think we’re trying to make the Stam 87 brighter. It’s already brighter than the vintage 87’s. Hi Indiehouise, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something or not. Stam said this: "On this particular SA87 I placed a 160pf Polystyrene capacitor on the de-emphasis circuit instead of the standard 220pf which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste".
To me that means Stam purposely made this 87 darker because he felt the standard capacitor (220pf) was too bright for his taste. All I can personally say is my SA67 is absolutely not "bright", and Stam doesn't seem to prefer the brighter new Neumann mic sound over the original vintage models, and adjusts his mic's accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 29, 2021 21:02:08 GMT -6
That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think we’re trying to make the Stam 87 brighter. It’s already brighter than the vintage 87’s. Hi Indiehouise, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something or not. Stam said this: "On this particular SA87 I placed a 160pf Polystyrene capacitor on the de-emphasis circuit instead of the standard 220pf which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste".
To me that means Stam purposely made this 87 darker because he felt the standard capacitor (220pf) was too bright for his taste. All I can personally say is my SA67 is absolutely not "bright", and Stam doesn't seem to prefer the brighter new Neumann mic sound over the original vintage models, and adjusts his mic's accordingly. Hey Martin, the Stam 87 was the brightest mic between these different mic samples. Stam suggested a 220pf cap in place of the 160. I doubt he’s trying to brighten the mic with this change.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 29, 2021 21:52:18 GMT -6
I think the confusion is coming from which cap the "which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste" phrase is referring to.
I think Josh meant it like this (I'm adding commas): "On this particular SA87 I placed a 160pf Polystyrene capacitor on the de-emphasis circuit, instead of the standard 220pf, which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste".
Either way, if it's an RC filter, the bigger C will lower the cut-off frequency and darken the mic, which is what I think Josh was saying.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Aug 30, 2021 5:13:38 GMT -6
I agree with ragan, haha.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Aug 30, 2021 16:09:17 GMT -6
I think the confusion is coming from which cap the "which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste" phrase is referring to. I think Josh meant it like this (I'm adding commas): "On this particular SA87 I placed a 160pf Polystyrene capacitor on the de-emphasis circuit, instead of the standard 220pf, which makes the mic a little too bright for my taste". Either way, if it's an RC filter, the bigger C will lower the cut-off frequency and darken the mic, which is what I think Josh was saying. Thank you for saving me on this one Ragan, that is exactly what I meant. A larger value cap will darken the mic on the 87 de-emphasis board. I am sorry for my poor use of commas guys, it's one of the things I struggle the most when typing in English.
|
|