Author Topic: u87 v u89 (Read 12083 times)

Charlies · « **on:** January 10, 2006, 04:16:03 PM »

What's the diff?

jpschust · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2006, 04:36:56 PM »

Quote from: Charlies on January 10, 2006, 04:16:03 PM

What's the diff?

2.

sorry you asked

The u87 has 3 directional patterns, the u89 has 5

TNJazz · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2006, 04:44:59 PM »

They both suck equally.

RebelRebel · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2006, 04:50:08 PM »

thats not the only difference. the u87 uses the K67capsule.. The TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 all use the same capsule, the K 89.

the U87 is rumoured to be "brighter", supposed to have more detail and was designed to be more up front sounding(in its cardioid setting), where the U89 is almost neutral, very flat...

u87s are a legend in their own right..by the 1970s it was "the" mic for professional studio recording. A lot of people still use it as a go to mic for vocals. Stephen Paul Audio worked out a mod for the u87(focusing on diaphragm switching) that is pretty popular in high end studios. Klaus Heyne also has a mod for it(u87) that focuses more on the electronics of the mic...

I have u87s and like them a lot more than the u89s I had. YMMV

TNJazz · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2006, 04:53:54 PM »

Just to add to this (on a serious note), the K103 capsule sounds NOTHING like the K87 capsule in any way, shape or form. Naturally, the K87 and K89 capsules are different as well. It's personal preference as to which one is better, of course.

The 89 is thought of as being more "flat" in terms of frequency response than the 87.

There are some minor differences in the electronic circuit as well, and of course the overall size of the 89 is smaller than the 87.

Dirk

Charlies · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:01:18 PM »

Yes, thanks, should've excluded the polar pattern diffs (smart ass jonny

). I was thinking that the u87s had a different sound than the 89s.

Are there any phantom-powerable LD neumanns, other than the u87, u89, 170s, 103s and the usm stereo mic? Ts

RebelRebel · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:03:13 PM »

Quote from: Charlies on January 10, 2006, 05:01:18 PM

Yes, thanks, should've excluded the polar pattern diffs. I was thinking that the u87s had a different sound than the 89s.

Are there any phantom-powerable LD neumanns, other than the u87, u89, 170s, 103s and the usm stereo mic?

tlm193(similar to u89) and tlm127.

TNJazz · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:04:13 PM »

TLM 127 and TLM 193 also

~~If you want to really go retro, there's the U47, U47FET and U67, M49, M249, etc.~~

Lots of stuff out there. try http://www.neumann.com

EDIT: sorry, didn't see the phantom power statement

Teddy, great minds think alike eh?

RebelRebel · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:06:49 PM »

Quote from: TNJazz on January 10, 2006, 05:04:13 PM

Teddy, great minds think alike eh?

Were both mic nerds. ,And look up to Klaus Heyne, and its a German thing I guess..

Einheit für deutsche Leute!

Charlies · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:16:14 PM »

Quote from: TNJazz on January 10, 2006, 05:04:13 PM

TLM 127 and TLM 193 also

~~If you want to really go retro, there's the U47, U47FET and U67, M49, M249, etc.~~

Lots of stuff out there. try http://www.neumann.com

EDIT: sorry, didn't see the phantom power statement

Teddy, great minds think alike eh?

Damn, I was hoping that m49 was phantom...looks pretty nice and there's one on fleabay right now.

RebelRebel · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:18:50 PM »

they can be modded for phantom. Decca did it in the 70s for their recordings(before they changed to m50s, then schoeps)

Teddy

Quote from: Charlies on January 10, 2006, 05:16:14 PM

Quote from: TNJazz on January 10, 2006, 05:04:13 PM
TLM 127 and TLM 193 also

~~If you want to really go retro, there's the U47, U47FET and U67, M49, M249, etc.~~

Lots of stuff out there. try http://www.neumann.com

EDIT: sorry, didn't see the phantom power statement

Teddy, great minds think alike eh?

Damn, I was hoping that m49 was phantom...looks pretty nice and there's one on fleabay right now.

TNJazz · « **Reply #11 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:24:48 PM »

You realize any M49 in reasonably good condition will probably sell for between $6-8K right?

Just wanted to make sure you were aware.

Dirk

SonicSound · « **Reply #12 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:29:02 PM »

What about the M149's? Has anyone used or heard these puppies?

Charlies · « **Reply #13 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:29:43 PM »

Quote from: TNJazz on January 10, 2006, 05:24:48 PM

You realize any M49 in reasonably good condition will probably sell for between $6-8K right?

Just wanted to make sure you were aware.

Dirk

Looks about right, given the fact that the fleabay m49 and 249 are in the $5k range and I noticed had been "refurbished" by B.L.U.E. Any thoughts on BLUE?

TNJazz · « **Reply #14 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:34:16 PM »

Blue has been doing refurbs on old Neumann and Telefunken gear for quite a while now. They do a very nice job. They do NOT however restore it to original factory condition. They build their own power supplies, and if parts are needed they are made by BLUE, not NOS (new old stock). So you could buy a BLUE U47, but it might very well have the BLUE "47 clone capsule" rather than the original. That being said however, their work is considered to be very good overall. Just not completely faithful to the original.

Dirk

RebelRebel · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:36:59 PM »

also..telefunken u47

http://telefunkenusa.com/products/show_product.php?item=7&cat=mics

RebelRebel · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:42:59 PM »

Quote from: sonicsoundiii on January 10, 2006, 05:29:02 PM

What about the M149's? Has anyone used or heard these puppies?

I have heard them on a symphony recording..they were designed to be the replacement for the u47(scores of customers approached them to rebuild the u47, and because the VF14 tube was not/is not available, the m149 was born out of this attempt.) It uses the K49 capsule (the same as was in the m49)..

Sounds great on classical material. My mentor/engineer buddy has 3 of them that he uses pretty regularly on classical gigs. Maybe when he dies he will leave them to me.

CQBert · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2006, 08:11:52 PM »

I have been running the u89 for a few months now and have had the chance to run in a variety of spaces including outdoors at ACL, inside at the 930 club(1K people), 8x10(400 people), Rams Head Tavern(small club 245 people).

What I can tell you is that the flexibility of the mic is very appealing to me. The ability to switch on the fly and run a bass roll off have been invaluable. Mostly though it is sound.... crisp, clear, and detailed. Some of the recordings I have made in the last few months are fantastic - the best work I have done and I credit the mics with holding up their end. When I looked for new mics I really wanted to stay away from things that colored the sound - either on the high or low end - and did a great deal of research before making my decision.

Some of my friends who are not tapers can pick the mics out of a blind test without fail and all remark on the quality of the soundstage and the clarity of the notes.

Does this make them better than the u87's - no, just better to me and what I wanted in a mic.

Before dropping mega bucks on either of these try to find sound samples of bands you like, in venues similar to what you record in and recorded with the same machine that you use... there is so much out there... then roll on - I am sure you would not be dissappointed with either decision.

CQBert

Bdifr78 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2006, 09:11:34 AM »

Quote from: Teddy on January 10, 2006, 04:50:08 PM

thats not the only difference. the u87 uses the K67capsule.. The TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 all use the same capsule, the K 89.

So whats the difference between the 170s and U89s? They are both 5 pattern right? I know the 170 is a lot larger.

?

eric.B · « **Reply #19 on:** January 11, 2006, 09:25:42 AM »

Quote from: Bdifr78 on January 11, 2006, 09:11:34 AM

Quote from: Teddy on January 10, 2006, 04:50:08 PM
thats not the only difference. the u87 uses the K67capsule.. The TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 all use the same capsule, the K 89.

So whats the difference between the 170s and U89s? They are both 5 pattern right? I know the 170 is a lot larger. ?

the u89 is larger (taller) than the 170

Bdifr78 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 11, 2006, 09:42:16 AM »

Quote from: Big Chief Crazy Talk on January 11, 2006, 09:25:42 AM

Quote from: Bdifr78 on January 11, 2006, 09:11:34 AM
Quote from: Teddy on January 10, 2006, 04:50:08 PM
thats not the only difference. the u87 uses the K67capsule.. The TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 all use the same capsule, the K 89.

So whats the difference between the 170s and U89s? They are both 5 pattern right? I know the 170 is a lot larger. ?

the u89 is larger (taller) than the 170

Isn't the 170 alot fatter though, rotund?

TNJazz · « **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2006, 09:44:45 AM »

The 170 is transformerless, with a different capsule and electronics.

The U89s have output transformers (which arguably gives them and all the vintage mics that "Neumann sound").

Given a choice with all things being equal I'd definitely pick U89s, but the TLM170 is probably the nicest sounding of the TLM series (and definitely the most versatile). If I had to "settle" for those I wouldn't be upset at all...!

Dirk

TNJazz · « **Reply #22 on:** January 11, 2006, 09:45:57 AM »

Quote from: Bdifr78 on January 11, 2006, 09:42:16 AM

Quote from: Big Chief Crazy Talk on January 11, 2006, 09:25:42 AM
Quote from: Bdifr78 on January 11, 2006, 09:11:34 AM
Quote from: Teddy on January 10, 2006, 04:50:08 PM
thats not the only difference. the u87 uses the K67capsule.. The TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 all use the same capsule, the K 89.

So whats the difference between the 170s and U89s? They are both 5 pattern right? I know the 170 is a lot larger. ?

the u89 is larger (taller) than the 170

Isn't the 170 alot fatter though, rotund?

Yes.

U89 = Stan Laurel
TLM170 = Oliver Hardy

RebelRebel · « **Reply #23 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:43:01 AM »

Quote from: Bdifr78 on January 11, 2006, 09:11:34 AM

Quote from: Teddy on January 10, 2006, 04:50:08 PM
thats not the only difference. the u87 uses the K67capsule.. The TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 all use the same capsule, the K 89.

So whats the difference between the 170s and U89s? They are both 5 pattern right? I know the 170 is a lot larger. ?

The polar and frequency response diagrams are nearly identical. The main difference between the mics like TN Jazz said is the transformer in the 89; eliminating it in the 170 yields lower self noise and more dynamic range.

If having a transformer is not crucial , then the TLM170R is the superior one of the two. A further advantage of the TLM170 is its elastic mounted body, incorporated in the bracket...........
"

Bdifr78 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:26:34 PM »

Quote from: TNJazz on January 11, 2006, 09:45:57 AM

Quote from: Bdifr78 on January 11, 2006, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: Big Chief Crazy Talk on January 11, 2006, 09:25:42 AM
Quote from: Bdifr78 on January 11, 2006, 09:11:34 AM
Quote from: Teddy on January 10, 2006, 04:50:08 PM
thats not the only difference. the u87 uses the K67capsule.. The TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 all use the same capsule, the K 89.

So whats the difference between the 170s and U89s? They are both 5 pattern right? I know the 170 is a lot larger. ?

the u89 is larger (taller) than the 170

Isn't the 170 alot fatter though, rotund?

Yes.

U89 = Stan Laurel
TLM170 = Oliver Hardy

I am sure that's funny, but I believe Laurel and Hardy are a little before my time. I get the picture though. Thanks gentlemen.

Wouldn't lower self noise and a greater dynamic range make them better mics? What does eliminating the transformer do to the sound? I am tard when it comes to the technical side of things.

TNJazz · « **Reply #25 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:41:47 PM »

How about Abbott and Costello? Bert and Ernie?

Anyway, from a purely technical spec standpoint the TLM would *perhaps* qualify as a better mic. But mics can't be judged solely on paper. The sonic characteristics are derived from the quality of the capsule and the circuitry (and the output transformer, if applicable).

For example, the M49's frequency range is 40-16000 and it's total self-noise spec is <= 14. On paper, not so good. That would mean most mass produced Chinese condensers made today would be "better" because their self noise is often lower than 10 and the freq range is 20 to 20000.

Would you rather have an AT2020 or a Neumann M49? Technically the specs of the AT ($99) are better...

Dirk

RebelRebel · « **Reply #26 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:09:07 PM »

I was only quoting specs, and have no experience with the tlm170. Superior in the "technical" sense, but in a listening enviroment, who knows?

Would lower self noise make a better mic??

Totally depends on your ears. I take specs as a guideline for auditioning mics to begin with , but dont care if one mics specs are better than anothers...i choose what works for me.

Brian · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2006, 05:41:01 PM »

it's all about what sounds better obviously. The newer microphones use a lot of negative feedback and resistors to get the lower noise and better specifications. that doesn't mean it sounds better.

give me the older, noiser tubes and output transformers over chinese caps with negative feeback anyday,

do you guys read the threads in Klaus's forum on prosoundweb. that's where all the uber microphone dorks hagn out and talk about this stuff.

edit: of course is still use my ADK TL's though. it's all i've got right now with my budget!

RebelRebel · « **Reply #28 on:** January 11, 2006, 07:48:37 PM »

I read Klaus forums religiously. Klaus hates the u89, and calls it a "dog" of a mic. Oh well

I think there are many who would disagree.

Quote from: Brian Sax on January 11, 2006, 05:41:01 PM

it's all about what sounds better obviously. The newer microphones use a lot of negative feedback and resistors to get the lower noise and better specifications. that doesn't mean it sounds better.

give me the older, noiser tubes and output transformers over chinese caps with negative feeback anyday,

do you guys read the threads in Klaus's forum on prosoundweb. that's where all the uber microphone dorks hagn out and talk about this stuff.

edit: of course is still use my ADK TL's though. it's all i've got right now with my budget!

TNJazz · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:00:43 PM »

I disagree. But then again, I'm biased.

Bill Bradley thinks they're very nice mics (considering they're not old tube mics!) At least that's what he told me on the phone last week. Maybe he was just being nice?

Quote from: Teddy on January 11, 2006, 07:48:37 PM

I read Klaus forums religiously. Klaus hates the u89, and calls it a "dog" of a mic. Oh well

I've not seen this anywhere on his forum. Can you provide a link? I'm wondering in what context he would say this.

RebelRebel · « **Reply #30 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:20:52 PM »

It was in an email to me personally, when I was asking him if he could modify it, like he does to the u87s. Its not on his forum , as far as I know. I just thought it was funny for him to say that when many others love the mic. Maybe its because he cant mod it?I might still have it in my email. (Yahoo expunges yearly, so I dont know)

Quote from: TNJazz on January 12, 2006, 12:00:43 PM

I disagree. But then again, I'm biased.

Bill Bradley thinks they're very nice mics (considering they're not old tube mics!) At least that's what he told me on the phone last week. Maybe he was just being nice?

Quote from: Teddy on January 11, 2006, 07:48:37 PM
I read Klaus forums religiously. Klaus hates the u89, and calls it a "dog" of a mic. Oh well

I've not seen this anywhere on his forum. Can you provide a link? I'm wondering in what context he would say this.

Brian · « **Reply #31 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:24:12 PM »

Quote from: TNJazz on January 12, 2006, 12:00:43 PM

I've not seen this anywhere on his forum. Can you provide a link? I'm wondering in what context he would say this.

probably in the same thread where he fluffs his custom Brauner VMF-1 KH microphone

RebelRebel · « **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:25:25 PM »

Quote from: Brian Sax on January 12, 2006, 12:24:12 PM

Quote from: TNJazz on January 12, 2006, 12:00:43 PM
I've not seen this anywhere on his forum. Can you provide a link? I'm wondering in what context he would say this.

probably in the same thread where he fluffs his custom Brauner VMF-1 KH microphone

its only what 10-20,000.

TNJazz · « **Reply #33 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:26:53 PM »

Quote from: Teddy on January 12, 2006, 12:20:52 PM

It was in an email to me personally, when I was asking him if he could modify it, like he does to the u87s. Its not on his forum , as far as I know. I just thought it was funny for him to say that when many others love the mic. Maybe its because he cant mod it?I might still have it in my email. (Yahoo expunges yearly, so I dont know)
Quote from: TNJazz on January 12, 2006, 12:00:43 PM
I disagree. But then again, I'm biased.

Bill Bradley thinks they're very nice mics (considering they're not old tube mics!) At least that's what he told me on the phone last week. Maybe he was just being nice?

Quote from: Teddy on January 11, 2006, 07:48:37 PM
I read Klaus forums religiously. Klaus hates the u89, and calls it a "dog" of a mic. Oh well

I've not seen this anywhere on his forum. Can you provide a link? I'm wondering in what context he would say this.

Interesting. I've noticed several respected opinions on the Neumann pinboard referring to a lack of modification capability for the U89 circuit. One person even wrote "it's not possible to upgrade perfection" or something similar, but I'm pretty sure that was a Neumann employee! It would not surprise me at all if his comment is based on the fact that there's not really much he can do to upgrade the mic. It would be hard for me to believe that to be the case though. I've never heard of a mic that was so well designed it couldn't be upgraded in some way.

Maybe I'll drop him a line and get his opinion on the U89 as well. There is definitely a scarcity of information on line with regard to this mic, something I find very surprising considering it has been around for 26+ years...

Dirk

Brian · « **Reply #34 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:28:49 PM »

Quote from: Teddy on January 12, 2006, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: Brian Sax on January 12, 2006, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: TNJazz on January 12, 2006, 12:00:43 PM
I've not seen this anywhere on his forum. Can you provide a link? I'm wondering in what context he would say this.

probably in the same thread where he fluffs his custom Brauner VMF-1 KH microphone

its only what 10-20,000.

10 large last I heard. One of my old audio teachers owns one. He got it when it was only 7 grand. He brought it in one time for a recording session. Beautiful microphone. Amazingly smooth sound.

Brian · « **Reply #35 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:30:28 PM »

Klaus's forum has some funny rules. Rule number one is you can only post about first hand esperience. no hearsay, "my eng friend said". He deletes any post he deems that is off topic or not first hand experience. it's a pretty brutal forum over there

RebelRebel · « **Reply #36 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:30:52 PM »

Yeah, email him at klaus@germanmasterworks.com
and id love to see his comments !l... I dont think he thought it was because of good design, but how design was implemented, made it impossible or REALLY difficult to upgrade. Tony Merril at SPAudio has the same difficulties, and thought that it would take A LOT of effort and nonstandard practices to get it modified, and that the modifications wouldnt make it that much better.

Teddy

Quote from: TNJazz on January 12, 2006, 12:26:53 PM

Quote from: Teddy on January 12, 2006, 12:20:52 PM
It was in an email to me personally, when I was asking him if he could modify it, like he does to the u87s. Its not on his forum , as far as I know. I just thought it was funny for him to say that when many others love the mic. Maybe its because he cant mod it?I might still have it in my email. (Yahoo expunges yearly, so I dont know)
Quote from: TNJazz on January 12, 2006, 12:00:43 PM
I disagree. But then again, I'm biased.

Bill Bradley thinks they're very nice mics (considering they're not old tube mics!) At least that's what he told me on the phone last week. Maybe he was just being nice?

Quote from: Teddy on January 11, 2006, 07:48:37 PM
I read Klaus forums religiously. Klaus hates the u89, and calls it a "dog" of a mic. Oh well

I've not seen this anywhere on his forum. Can you provide a link? I'm wondering in what context he would say this.

Interesting. I've noticed several respected opinions on the Neumann pinboard referring to a lack of modification capability for the U89 circuit. One person even wrote "it's not possible to upgrade perfection" or something similar, but I'm pretty sure that was a Neumann employee! It would not surprise me at all if his comment is based on the fact that there's not really much he can do to upgrade the mic. It would be hard for me to believe that to be the case though. I've never heard of a mic that was so well designed it couldn't be upgraded in some way.

Maybe I'll drop him a line and get his opinion on the U89 as well. There is definitely a scarcity of information on line with regard to this mic, something I find very surprising considering it has been around for 26+ years...

Dirk

RebelRebel · « **Reply #37 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:32:52 PM »

Quote from: Brian Sax on January 12, 2006, 12:30:28 PM

Klaus's forum has some funny rules. Rule number one is you can only post about first hand esperience. no hearsay, "my eng friend said". He deletes any post he deems that is off topic or not first hand experience. it's a pretty brutal forum over there

Yeah I know...pretty much the same folks always post. David Satz, Klaus, Bernhard Vollmer, Oliver Archut, and a couple others. Very interesting stuff , but really brutal.

TNJazz · « **Reply #38 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:33:33 PM »

Quote from: Brian Sax on January 12, 2006, 12:30:28 PM

Klaus's forum has some funny rules. Rule number one is you can only post about first hand esperience. no hearsay, "my eng friend said". He deletes any post he deems that is off topic or not first hand experience. it's a pretty brutal forum over there

That's what makes it useful. Just the facts man. No fluffing without documentation.

Author Topic: u87 v u89 (Read 12083 times)

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel

RebelRebel