I'm looking to purchase a condenser mic for recording vocals, i currently have an SE2200A and want something better. I've been using a U87 recently and like the results, is there anything cheaper that would do a similar job? my budget is £4-500 and i may do second hand.

what d'you suggest

cheers

p

I think you've answered your own question there - second hand U87, or U89 if one comes up. The ubiquity of these mics is for a very good reason, which you have discovered for yourself - they work.

Edited by Ted Kendall (27/03/10 07:45 PM)

How often do you envisage using it? They're cheap enough to hire if it's not that frequent....

The brauner phantera is (despite its silly name) a better mic (IMO) than the 87ai. The basics version sells for 900 so in theory you might find one used within
your budget. The problem is that they're brilliant, so nobody ever sells them.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

I've never even seen a used U87 for much less than abut £750. Your budget is an "awkward" price point where I'm not sure you'll get anything radically better than say a £300 LDC mic (of which there are many), whereas if you save up a bit more you're getting into the quality end of the market.

You'd get a new AKG C414, but that's a very personal decision as to whether it suits your voice. They are multi-pattern and useful for lots of other things though.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Groove Tubes Gt67.

lovely.


but a bar-steward to get hold of.

multi pattern tube mic.... with a definitely classy sound, several leagues above it's price point.

*note, it aint cheap , but it's cheaper than the U87*

Yeah...GT67...good mic indeed. Different to an 87 but a good classy sounding vocal mic certainly.

I think Steve's right in that you are in a slightly funny area price-wise. I dont think a 414 is going to do what you want. Dont fall into the trap of buying a TLM103 as a 'poor man's 87'.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Is the AKG Solidtube not a solid performer?

any thoughts on the TLM 102, SOS gives it the thumbs up in the january edition.

p

Quote Original Jambo:

---

Is the AKG Solidtube not a solid performer?

---

I've used 'em a few times...
They're "OK", but twitchy as to what they work well on, IME.

I too like the Brauners, but on a budget my inclination is towards the AT LDC's, with the right pre.

I must say the TLM102 "looks" promising on paper... As far as it being worth putting on the audition-list goes.

Don't think the GT67 is still made... the Groove Tubes range seems to be all over the place at the moment. If you can get a used one, go for it.

I have an AKG SolidTube. It's a very "characterful" mic... you'll love it or hate it, probably. I would not want it as my main lead vocal mic. But I've used it as one of the mics three backing singers use (the other two being U87s!) to good effect to give that voice a different character and help it sit in the final mix.

It's improvable with a couple of well known mods (check the web), but it still oozes character thereafter.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote parkie:

---

if you can't afford a U87 what do you buy?

---

In my case, nothing. Until I could afford a U87. Some things are simply worth waiting for...

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Secondhand Beyerdynamic MC740.

Recently put a second hand U87 up against my armory of mics, 1969 model, fully reconditioned by a professional a few years back and I wasn't as impressed as my expectations had led me to believe! I can understand how they are used to 'cut through' a rock mix but this mic was particularly lacking in bottom end. I could achieve a very similar sound with my CAD M9 with the low cut filter in (U87 LC out) and a surprisingly similar sound from the SM7 LC in and HF lift in.

Maybe it was compromised by age?

Bob

Oh I wouldn't go near an AKG Solidtube, very coloured and low-fi

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

It could well have been a duffer, Bob. There's certainly no lack of bottom end in a normal U87.

It’s a fairly ordinary sounding mic in isolation. I also wondered what the fuss was about when I first used one. Initially I appreciated its ability to get an intimate, breathy, up-front vocal sound.

It was when I began working with the mix that I truly started to appreciate its worth.

You’re right about rock vocals - dance vocals quite often, too. Sometimes you have to deliberately bury a lead vocal into the mix to create the right sense of energy around it. In this context a U87 (assuming a good recording) still sounds balanced and classy. Heavy compression and bright EQ are no problem – as long as you can hear the sound you captured you can still hear every nuance of the performance.

It’s really hard to explain, but it makes sense when you hear it.

The effect is also cumulative. If I know there are going to be many layered vocal parts in a song then I’ll put up the U87 to record all of them, since I know I’m going to have less of a fight on my hands later – again, especially with heavy compression and/or EQ.

It’s still my ‘safe’ option mic. I’ve had great results with other mic’s, but nothing that sounds so consistently ‘right’. If it has a failing, for me it is with some female vocals, where it can sound a bit shrill if they are really belting it out.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote The Elf:

---

It was when I began working with the mix that I truly started to appreciate its worth.

---

I'd strongly agree with that. It isn't always impressive at first hearing but it gets the job done better than most.

Cheers

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

I suspect the old U87 I had in recently may have had issues. I had another in the studio sometime ago and remember it being different, but didn't have the opportunity to compare it to other mics at the time.

I'm a bit of a skeptic regarding 'industry standards' and like to try things for myself, so perhaps I should keep an open mind on the 87, given my recent experience may have been tainted!

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Quote parkie:

---

I'm looking to purchase a condenser mic for recording vocals, i currently have an SE2200A and want something better. I've been using a U87 recently and like the results, is there anything cheaper that would do a similar job? my budget is £4-500 and i may do second hand.

what d'you suggest

---

That price is what the new Neumann TLM 102 sells for.




Paul White's review is HERE.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

In that price range for a large diaphragm condenser I'd look at:

Bock 195 (about £600 in the UK, but you'll have a job finding one. The best condesner bar none under £1000)
Shure KSM44
Shure KSM32


I like the none TLM Neumann stuff - but I'm not keen on the TLM stuff at all. I THINK Microtech G do a decent condenser at not much more than this price point.

....charter oak make some nice low priced stuff too

Jack - why do you advise against the TLM103 as a poor man's U87?

The SOS review compares it pretty well in terms of performance so on face value it would seem to be the obvious choice (if the 2nd hand market isn't throwing any bones)?

Thanks.

https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun98/articles/neumann.html

I'll throw an answer:

All of the current Neumann stock is pretty good BUT ALL of it overpriced compared to rival products. There seems to be a certain amount of "trading on the name". Good example - the U87ai for me is basically a £1200 mic sold at £1800 or thereabouts.....

The TLM stuff is NOT up to par with the upper range gear within Neumann and is still overpriced at their market place. I've got quite a lot of Neumann mics - and many others (although Steves got better !! ) - and when comparing within price points the Neumanns lose IMO. Since that review was written (many years now) a number of manufacturers have come along and made much better mic's at similar or cheaper price points. Bock being one of them!

Quote narcoman:

---

All of the current Neumann stock is pretty good BUT ALL of it overpriced compared to rival products.

---

I can see why that argument is often made, but with the greatest respect I think it is an overly simplistic and shortsighted claim to make.

I'm certainly not going to argue that Neumann products aren't expensive -- they generally are and in some cases even I think some accessories (in particular) are ludicrously over-priced beyond all reason.

However, companies like Neumann, Schoeps, AKG, Audio Technica, SoundField, Microtech Gefell and others are all re-investing significant proportions of their profits back into R&D in a way which few if any of their lower cost rivlas are doing.

Essentially what is happening is that those newer, low cost companies are using existing and therefore relatively low cost technologies and components to produce perfectly decent and affordable mics. And that initially looks very attractive to the consumer and end user.

But they haven't eveloped those technologies over five decades. They just buy up existing bits anbd plug them together to make something that sounds okay and can sell at a low(ish) price. And with some clever marketing they can actually still make very healthy shareholder profits too... But they don't generally reinvest those profits in the technology.

What this approach actually does is starve the more R&D-focussed and engineering-led companies from generating the funds through well established products to reinvest in R&D. SO the new, cheap companies aren't doing it, and increasingly the old engineering-led companies can't afford to.

The outcome doesn't look great for improving the technical standing of the industry, and the end result is an inevitable spiral downwards into adequate but ever cheaper products rather than technologically advanced products.

We all end up eating at McDonalds because no one can afford to pay for decent chefs in decent restaurants anymore! Okay -- extreme example, but hopefully you get my drift.

That perspective obviously won't bother the bedroom studio producer who only wants a nice sounding cheap mic to record their amateur strumming and crooning for their metoob tweeter web pages. But it concerns me and all those who still believe in improving quality through technological advancement.

As an example of how the microphone industry is still developing (and to deny those frequently heard claims that microphones became a mature technology in the 1970s!), consider this fantastic new shotgun mic from Schoeps.

It combines the latest interference tube advancements (of which there have been several in the last five years or so) with multiple capsules and sophisticated digital signal processing.

Audio Technica worked on something broadly similar a decade ago before the technology really worked sufficiently well, but they did the early trail-blazing. The Trinnov SRP takes the smae basic ideas much further and I'm sure this will be the basis of many future stereo and surround microphone systems.

The outcome of Schoeps' R&D is a mic which is leagues better than anything previously on offer in this genre of microphone in terms of its directionality and precise broadband off-axis frequency response.

http://digital.schoeps.de/en/products/supercmit


Neumann, Sennheiser, Schoeps (and others) are all investing heavily in developing digital microphones. All investing in reducing microphone capsule distortion mechanisms and improving bandwidth, signal to noise and other technically challenging aspects of microphone performance.

If no one had invested in R&D when the music industry started at the turn of the last century we'd still be using windup gramophones and thorn needles....

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

What is it about the Bock mic that sets it apart from the Neumanns? What about Elf's "it sits in the mix" argument?

Edit: Hugh, that Schoeps CMIT mic sounds a lot like some of the esoteric audiophile gear we scoff at. Luckily the audio demos speak for themselves!

--------------------
Composer;
www.ogonline.org

Edited by oggyb (05/04/10 03:55 PM)

narcoman - I think the UK perspective of Neumann's "overpricing" is more than slightly coloured by the pound's pathetic crash in value against the euro in the last couple of years!

I was not unhappy, about five years ago, to pick up a new pair of KM184s for about £600. They're about a grand now...

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote oggyb:

---

What is it about the Bock mic that sets it apart from the Neumanns? What about Elf's "it sits in the mix" argument?

---

The Bock's selling point is its flexibility.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

All of the current Neumann stock is pretty good BUT ALL of it overpriced compared to rival products.

---

I can see why that argument is often made, but with the greatest respect I think it is an overly simplistic and shortsighted claim to make.

Hugh

---

I actually exclusively point this at Neumann alone. Not the other mic manufacturers {even the ones under the same company wing}. The U87ai just isn't a £1800 mic' even though it fiscally is!!! Even with falling pound prices - there are other mics of much lower price but similar capabilities. The Microtech Gefell stuff being a great example. There have been so many corners cut in Neumanns R&D.... witness the KM184. A supposed replacement for the KM84...... but it's just not in the league. It's a cheap sounding mic' trading on the name of it's forefather. Schoeps? Every mic' they make is worth every penny they sell for.

The D series stuff - interesting and good. Well priced as well.... but not for me.

The M150 and M14 - excellent mics. Price rather not relevant since all of the rival stuff is of a similar price point too.

But the U87, TLM range and KM stuff are overpriced for what they are. There are better options...... KM184? I'd rather go for Mercenarys KM 6nine {nine key is dead here!!} or the Josephson 42 mic. Cheaper AND better.

TLM? Honestly - go for a Rode over them. Or one of the Se range......

Quote Steve Hill:

---

narcoman - I think the UK perspective of Neumann's "overpricing" is more than slightly coloured by the pound's pathetic crash in value against the euro in the last couple of years!

I was not unhappy, about five years ago, to pick up a new pair of KM184s for about £600. They're about a grand now...

---

True - but put your 84s up against the 184s..... Which do you love ?

Neumann still make good mics' but they've hiked the price because they can. I say again - the U87ai is not an £1800 mic'!!

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

All of the current Neumann stock is pretty good BUT ALL of it overpriced compared to rival products.

---

I can see why that argument is often made, but with the greatest respect I think it is an overly simplistic and shortsighted claim to make.

Hugh

---

I actually exclusively point this at Neumann alone. Not the other mic manufacturers {even the ones under the same company wing}. The U87ai just isn't a £1800 mic' even though it fiscally is!!! Even with falling pound prices - there are other mics of much lower price but similar capabilities. The Microtech Gefell stuff being a great example. There have been so many corners cut in Neumanns R&D.... witness the KM184. A supposed replacement for the KM84...... but it's just not in the league. It's a cheap sounding mic' trading on the name of it's forefather. Schoeps? Every mic' they make is worth every penny they sell for.

The D series stuff - interesting and good. Well priced as well.... but not for me.

The M150 and M14 - excellent mics. Price rather not relevant since all of the rival stuff is of a similar price point too.

But the U87, TLM range and KM stuff are overpriced for what they are. There are better options...... KM184? I'd rather go for Mercenarys KM 6nine {nine key is dead here!!} or the Josephson 42 mic. Cheaper AND better.

TLM? Honestly - go for a Rode over them. Or one of the Se range......

---

and

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

narcoman - I think the UK perspective of Neumann's "overpricing" is more than slightly coloured by the pound's pathetic crash in value against the euro in the last couple of years!

I was not unhappy, about five years ago, to pick up a new pair of KM184s for about £600. They're about a grand now...

---

---

Sorry Hugh before you (quite rightly) come back on this, a few points not just to stir the pot but a little experience (including from my second-hand dealing operations of a few years back):

1) I'd not wholly agree with this: the TLM 170 and 193 are both useful mikes, in my view; and
2) I've owned 2 KM184s at various times and have not liked the experience either time. I've had several pass through my hand whilst... (sniff)... "dealing" and people want them because of the name, but they are just too toppy. The Beyerdynamic MC930 in that type of sound is both much cheaper and much classier: a mike we both like is the Gefell M300 which retains the class and subtle top end of the KM84 and in my view knocks the KM184 into the long grass; and
3) I know I'm a Gefell fan so I'll give it a rest on that subject ; and
4) I've never lusted after the U87Ai, the TLM103 or the TLM127 and I tested them all before buying my matched pair of Gefell M930s. The off axis rejection is great but they still have a hype I find unpleasant!

Just me - just my taste: but I don't really like 'em and there are other manufacturers out there doing a better job. Furthermore, I don't think anybody can accuse people like Gefell of not putting the long term investment in. Their valve mikes are sublime and they even make some of 'em P48 and hence more immediate for the enthusiast with deep pockets. I just wish I had the budget right now to be able to buy (and hold on to) them.

As for the "copiers": they all have to start somewhere. I don't want Neumann to go away, but I do want them to do better when they want my hard-earned cash.

Reg

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr06/articles/mgm300.htm

Reg, I concur that the M300 sounds very snazzy in comparison to the KMs. I will remember this.

--------------------
Composer;
www.ogonline.org

Quote narcoman:

---

True - but put your 84s up against the 184s..... Which do you love ?

Neumann still make good mics' but they've hiked the price because they can. I say again - the U87ai is not an £1800 mic'!!

---

Ah well, I only have old U87s, none of this new fangled "ai" nonsense!

In truth, I think you are right, there is some premium loaded into most of the product range to reflect the brand's reputation. But they do hold second hand values pretty well, and they will service/restore old things that other manufacturers would give you a strange look about (I've had AKG tell me they can't supply a part for an old D25 - lovely mic - which I wanted to install myself).

The acid test is, do you think Sennheiser (same company as Neumann, different label) are also overpriced? I'd say mostly not, though the MKH range seem expensive for what they are...

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

True - but put your 84s up against the 184s..... Which do you love ?

Neumann still make good mics' but they've hiked the price because they can. I say again - the U87ai is not an £1800 mic'!!

---

Ah well, I only have old U87s, none of this new fangled "ai" nonsense!

In truth, I think you are right, there is some premium loaded into most of the product range to reflect the brand's reputation. But they do hold second hand values pretty well, and they will service/restore old things that other manufacturers would give you a strange look about (I've had AKG tell me they can't supply a part for an old D25 - lovely mic - which I wanted to install myself).

The acid test is, do you think Sennheiser (same company as Neumann, different label) are also overpriced? I'd say mostly not, though the MKH range seem expensive for what they are...

---

Absolutely. I think Sennheiser put out mic's at exactly the right price. Even the MKH - despite being on the higher side.

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

I don't want Neumann to go away, but I do want them to do better when they want my hard-earned cash.

Reg

---

even just throwing the cradles in would do it !!

I have A/B-ed the U87 (one I used to borrow) and (my) U87Ai. They sound to all intents identical (at least in cardioid - the same full lows, solid mids and sweet highs, even at some distance). After some ‘I’ve got to find something’ agonising I did detect there was a tiny more 'air' in the Ai, as if the lid had been taken off the top of the frequency range. But this is very subtle stuff – IMO the Ai is certainly not 'harsh', 'hyped', or deserving of any similarly over-stated adjectives I've seen used. I wouldn't swap my U87Ai for a U87, because I do find that extra crispness re-assuring, even if it likely makes no difference in the mix.. New or old, there's certainly nothing to worry about.

The world of mic’s is a strange place, where people can say what they want and their truth is difficult to challenge – it’s like an argument over works of art. I’ve heard shoot-outs of mic’s where the mic I like least is lauded as sounding best and vice-versa. I have mic’s in my collection that cost me less than 50 quid that most engineers would pass over without a second thought, yet I know I can make (and have made) great results with them.

I have mic’s in my collection that I am sure would sell twice as many if they were triple the price! None of us are immune from the rose-tinting effect of ‘reassuringly expensive’.

The U87 may be expensive, but the work I've done with it has brought in more work, which has brought in more work... Who knows whether it has truly paid for itself?

I really would like to pair my 87Ai with another for overhead and mid-side duties, but I don't know when I could justify that kind of expense again. I would want another U87Ai, not a U87!

There may be equal-for-less/better mic’s out there, but unfortunately I’m not going to have the opportunity to try them. Sad, but true.

A U87Ai may not be worth 1800 quid, but I would pay 1800 quid to own one again. I would pay it because what it does is worth that much to me and, for me, that’s a very real distinction.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote narcoman:

---

I actually exclusively point this at Neumann alone. Not the other mic manufacturers {even the ones under the same company wing}. The U87ai just isn't a £1800 mic' even though it fiscally is!!!

---

I take your point with the U87. It does appear to be a mic sold more on its name cache rather than its real value. As Reg says, including a decent shock mount would help redress the balance!

And I'm on record as saying I think the company went the wrong way with the 184 -- although I don't think its anything to do with cutting R&D corners and I don't think the mic lacks resolution. It is just too bright for some applications (especially close and spot micing). Clearly this is a design policy whcih has been applied to most of the modern generation of Neumann mics, the majority of which are also TLM designs, and I think that's probably the basis of your dislike of TLMs in general.

As others have said, the Microtech Gefell M300 and the Beyer M930 are both lovely sounding mics, much more similar in balance to the old KM84 -- and I've said as much in my reviews.

And taking up one of Reg's points, Microtech Gefell is a very engineering-led company and has come up with some remarkable technology advances over the years. I know that many established Western microphone companies -- not least Neumann -- were astonished when they discovered some of the things Gefell had come up with in terms of capsule designs and materials and powering circuitry designs!

However the point remains, in my view, that purchasing decisions should be made with a wider perspective than just instantaneous 'good value' for the sake of the industry and profession. Companies offering reworked old technologies -- or worse, those who are reverse engineering the technologies of other companies (including at least one of those companies you mentioned) -- will inherently be able to offer 'good value' products, much like Behringer. But the danger is that the industry will stagnate and R&D progress will slow or even halt altogether.

This may not be of interest or concern to amateurs with a casual interest, but should be a serious consideration to those earning a living from the profession. The view of others may vary, naturally...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Sorry if this is a bit pie in the sky, but if professional research and development in mics stopped tomorrow...so what? Just a thought! I understand the professions need to keep one step ahead, but of who and why? Dave

--------------------
My head hurts!

Then things don't get better. Humanity doesn't develop.

You could ask the question of anything, and the asnwer would be that we would still be sitting in caves eating bits of wooly mammoth. It is human nature to want to improve things, and I think it is important that we do exactly that.

We don't know where the R&D will lead -- that's the whole point -- but in general it makes things better, more effective, more reliable, more efficient, more accurate...

For example, with one line of current research being followed by several companies, I can forsee a time where we could end up placing a single 'microphone' in front of a band, and some DSP will be able to extract the sound wavefront's produced by each instrument and allow us to modify and mix then as required. Who knows what other improvements there will be.

The point is that none of our current recording or reproduction systems are yet 'perfect'. You can walk into a pub or hotel, hear the piano music playing in the background, and know instantly whether you are listening to a real piano being played somewhere out of sight, or a recording (or sample) of a piano. We still have so far to go....

Yes, what we have now is nice enough... but then people were bowled over by the 'lifelike' sound of the first wind-up gramophones. And they thought the perfect sound of 1960s analogue tape couldn't be improved upon. And the same applies to the microgroove record, and FM radio, and the CD and ...

Perhaps what's worse and more scary is that some current boutique mic manufacturers don't (yet) understand the products they are making. Bolting some bits sourced from around the world together isn't quite the same as 'designing' a microphone. I recently came across a ribbon mic from a manufacturer that had appalling LF resonances caused by the way it was assembled. The 'manufacturer' had no understanding of the relevant physics, no means of testing and improving the design, and initially at least, not much interest in doing so...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

There is a lot of excellent reviews on the OktavaMod MK-319, Rode NT-1a and MXL v67g :-

http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=145&osCsid=l gpb5tuvpf0tsh212pudhbn7a2

http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_22&products_id=3 4

http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_46&products_id=1 27

JJ Audio also do similar mods :-

http://jjaudiomic.com/Mods-for-Oktava-Microphones.php

http://jjaudiomic.com/Mods-for-Fet-Microphones.php

A mic that is sometimes cited as being similar to the U87 is the Sony C48, which seems to cost a fair bit less. Has anyone here ever compared the two?

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Then things don't get better. Humanity doesn't develop.

You could ask the question of anything, and the asnwer would be that we would still be sitting in caves eating bits of wooly mammoth. It is human nature to want to improve things, and I think it is important that we do exactly that.

We don't know where the R&D will lead -- that's the whole point -- but in general it makes things better, more effective, more reliable, more efficient, more accurate...

For example, with one line of current research being followed by several companies, I can forsee a time where we could end up placing a single 'microphone' in front of a band, and some DSP will be able to extract the sound wavefront's produced by each instrument and allow us to modify and mix then as required. Who knows what other improvements there will be.

The point is that none of our current recording or reproduction systems are yet 'perfect'. You can walk into a pub or hotel, hear the piano music playing in the background, and know instantly whether you are listening to a real piano being played somewhere out of sight, or a recording (or sample) of a piano. We still have so far to go....

Yes, what we have now is nice enough... but then people were bowled over by the 'lifelike' sound of the first wind-up gramophones. And they thought the perfect sound of 1960s analogue tape couldn't be improved upon. And the same applies to the microgroove record, and FM radio, and the CD and ...

Perhaps what's worse and more scary is that some current boutique mic manufacturers don't (yet) understand the products they are making. Bolting some bits sourced from around the world together isn't quite the same as 'designing' a microphone. I recently came across a ribbon mic from a manufacturer that had appalling LF resonances caused by the way it was assembled. The 'manufacturer' had no understanding of the relevant physics, no means of testing and improving the design, and initially at least, not much interest in doing so...

Hugh

---

Yeah! point taken Hugh , and it is a "pie in the sky" comment I made , but I do sometimes feel with music technology in particular that the only real reason for "developments" is so that pros feel there is a difference between them and the increasingly better equipped amateurs.I think that the loudness war was brought about partially due to this mentality. Are the price differences justified for R and D, or is it a bit of a smokescreen to get extra profit?

--------------------
My head hurts!