Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2023 19:35:49 GMT -6
I'm torn between these two and I'd appreciate it if someone settled my train of thought.
U89:
Pro's, I've had two of these already, infinitely flexible, incredible off axis linearity and rejection, works well close mic'd, it doesn't have any annoying innate distortion that's exascerbated through compression, no power supply, IME it's not a source dependant mic and it costs $1000.00 less than the UA167.
Con's, by itself the U89 is an incredibly boring mic highly reliant on additional work with very good HW and / or plugs to get some mojo going. Also I'm sure there's other options that are flat / neutral that costs far less (Shure KSM 32 for example), I'm not shure (sorry) how the KSM compares to the U89 as I've never compared the two. If you have let me know..
UA 167
Pro's, less work and I'm very much a fan of the U67 / M269c style. In the sweetwater comparison that's what the U199 sounded like to me, a mixture of both which made it a clear winner to my ears.
Con's, besides from where the U89 is obviously better the U67 isn't my favourite vocal mic. For me it shines on instruments, tames them a bit and adds weight or depth. When panned it sounds perfect to me, for vocals I prefer something clearer along the 251 vibe so it depends if the UA167 is different enough from a 67 to warrant it. Also the demo's that I've come across haven't been amazing but if nothing has really changed (besides a few materials for global dist) then that's a bit odd. Maybe it is just the demo's?
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 18, 2023 22:41:32 GMT -6
FWIW my choices just between those two types would be...
1) Last "incarnation" Used U99.
2) U89
3) UA 167 IF it really sounds the same as previous U99.
Maybe not realistic, but an OG Bock/Soundelux shootout...
Versus the present UA's, might better settle concerns.
Chris
P.S. It was hard for me to "part company" with the last U99, I sang/tried for a while at NAMM, with David Bock listening.(Like my BU67 now) They were/are both great 67 styles. Again not sure on the UA's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2023 3:29:27 GMT -6
FWIW my choices just between those two types would be... 1) Last "incarnation" Used U99. You can't get them over here Chris, due to material types they'd get binned at customs. |
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Aug 19, 2023 3:55:30 GMT -6
Very different sounding mics.
I also tend to like more colored mics in general and I agree 67ish mics sound amazing on instruments. The gentle compression and taming you get with a tube mic really helps in the digital world.
I really like U89s, I've used them quite a bit and I've never been disappointed, they are a little on the bland side of things which is nice when you have to setup quick and can't test a million mics, you know you'll get something useable.
Though I usually gravitate towards my Schoeps for these tasks over the U89.
I've never used the U99 or the 167, but have used a ton of 67s.
If you're into 67s, I own a Tlm67 also, if you can get it cheap ( I did ) it's actually a decent versatile instrument mic, It's a little harder than a 67 for sure but it still has a very nice capsule. I've used it on about every source imaginable and was never unhappy, and it's at least half the price of a U89 so...
The mic that's really caught my eye these days is the Beezneez 67. With the 269 mode it sounds like it'd be very very versatile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 19, 2023 9:59:47 GMT -6
1. Some say the U89 is boring.
It isn’t… it’s just unhyped.
Sometimes you need a neutral/natural capture because you want to capture the sound as you hear it.
2. Many think it’s an LDC
It isn’t. It’s an MDC, with a 3/4” diaphragm not a 32-34mm 1-inch capsule.
These are very important things to consider. The U89 is also like the other ‘Neumann Nines’ the 49 and 269:
Highly refined
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2023 10:34:05 GMT -6
It isn’t… it’s just unhyped. That's just another way of saying it's boring, I've had two of them and I know they're MDC's. With the right equipment behind them they have produced some of my best recordings yet, although there's reasons and I'm going to start a new thread on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 19, 2023 10:36:08 GMT -6
It isn’t… it’s just unhyped. That's just another way of saying it's boring, I've had two of them and I know they're MDC's. With the right equipment behind them they have produced some of my best recordings yet, although there's reasons and I'm going to start a new thread on that. I’m looking forward to that thread! Search first and see if we already have one to build on! |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,103 
|
Post by ericn on Aug 19, 2023 11:12:28 GMT -6
I don’t find the 89 boring, in my mind it’s a mic that lets the sound of the pre through, in the past I would have no problem saying just grab the Bock, but with UA as stewards of the Bock line I would be hesitant, they are just to prone to changes without notice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2023 11:45:17 GMT -6
I don’t find the 89 boring, in my mind it’s a mic that lets the sound of the pre through, in the past I would have no problem saying just grab the Bock, but with UA as stewards of the Bock line I would be hesitant, they are just to prone to changes without notice. Actually I'll keep these threads seperate.
I bought the U89 because it was boring, neutral and technically amazing, that's whole point of it. I don't want to raise the cost of one here before I potentially buy one but with a lot of mic's you can't whap 10dB's of HF EQ and expect a decent result, you can't sit on a chair with it in your hands like a dynamic, hit record and get a great sound. You can't move them to any instrument in a room and expect at least good results.
You can with a U89 and that's quite the achievement from Neumann. Although its biggest strength can also be its biggest weakness, it really depends on how these mic's are shaped in both tracking and post as to the end result. By themselves (I compared them against an ELAM & 67) they do sound small and lifeless, if you want an 89 to sound lush then you've got to make it happen. That's the only issue I really have with this mic, it's reliant on other stuff and because I'm forced to downsize I have to be cautious..
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 19, 2023 12:36:18 GMT -6
Very different sounding mics. I also tend to like more colored mics in general and I agree 67ish mics sound amazing on instruments. The gentle compression and taming you get with a tube mic really helps in the digital world. I really like U89s, I've used them quite a bit and I've never been disappointed, they are a little on the bland side of things which is nice when you have to setup quick and can't test a million mics, you know you'll get something useable. Though I usually gravitate towards my Schoeps for these tasks over the U89. I've never used the U99 or the 167, but have used a ton of 67s. If you're into 67s, I own a Tlm67 also, if you can get it cheap ( I did ) it's actually a decent versatile instrument mic, It's a little harder than a 67 for sure but it still has a very nice capsule. I've used it on about every source imaginable and was never unhappy, and it's at least half the price of a U89 so... The mic that's really caught my eye these days is the Beezneez 67. With the 269 mode it sounds like it'd be very very versatile. Yes. Mr Oblivious (me) here picked the "Open" 269 internal BU67 switching on... For Ben's Baritone singing. I'm a happy camper with the Default OG/67 setting on my BU67 MKI. But the MKII with additional Switch 67/269 OG/Modern choices is a no brainer choice IMHO.* Sorry about the Customs thing Shadow. Chris *And for a typical singer like me... The more no brainer the better. I leave the "thinking" up to you guys!  |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 19, 2023 13:27:59 GMT -6
BTW I noticed a (small?) trend in the used Bock/Soundelux asking prices... Near/AT Even above(!) original new prices. Dare I detect "collectibility? Better hang on to the U195 especially now. Chris |
|
