Topic: u87 v u89

[RebelRebel]

also..telefunken u47

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

[RebelRebel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?   

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.