I got a little bit of money recently and blew it on a couple of mikes intended primarily for vocals and/or acoustic guitar
A Neuman U87 and an AKG 414
I already had a Beyer MC740
I am now, at last, beginning to understand the different characteristics with different large diaphragm condensers
I am finding the U87 to be less 'mellow' than I had anticipated, although I understand that perhaps the 'vintage' models had more of this trait? It is, however, marvellously sensitive, clear and clean sounding, especially on male vocal.
I have always lusted after an AKG 414 and I have not been disappointed. It is a super little mike. Re-produces vocals a little more 'bassey? than the U87 and is something I might learn to prefer. Still early days
The Beyer is surprising me now with the quality I am getting when comparisons are made. It is a very clean, clear and quite mellow sounding mike, although possibly less sensitive than the others
As I say ... it is still early days so my final opinion is reserved on all issues
Anybody got any comments on what I have found? Or in general?

--------------------
Sam

Yeah, you'll probably find that the Beyer and the 414 will be closer to each other sonically than to the 87. But the Beyer will be brighter, airier. You'll find that the 414 is a little more versatile than the Beyer and will work very well on sources that the Beyer tends to make a little too thin. The Beyer on the other hand can make things sound a little bit more expensive.

The 87 is all about the midrange. It's good for bringing things forward and making them sit at the front of the mix. You need to watch it on sources that are already a bit mid forward or too nasal, where you might want something that brings out the bass and air a bit more to balance that charachteristic in the source. The 740 would be a good alternative.

The 414 is probably best for things that are very loud, like distorted guitars and drums.

J

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

Quote whis4ey:

---

I am finding the U87 to be less 'mellow' than I had anticipated, although I understand that perhaps the 'vintage' models had more of this trait?

---

I regularly use both old and new. There's very little difference short of a bit more 'air' in the new Ai model I have.

The U87 doesn't flatter nasal voices IMO - for that I often head to an MD441. What it will do is get an honest representation of a good voice and respond extremely well to EQ. I wouldn't be without mine.

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

Is the nasal quality of the mic "predictable" from the frequency response graph?

http://www.learnhowtosingbetterfast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Neumann -u87-frequency-response.png

--------------------
Alexis -Cubase 6.5.0/SX3.1.1.944, XP SP2, 4GB RAM (1GB not accessible, but used just to balance the computer so it doesn't tip over); Delta 66 in Omni i/O Studio; Motif8; UAD-1

Firstly the mic isn't nasal. But it does have a lot of high mid focus which won't do anything to help you if you have a nasal singer...ie push bass and sometimes air frequencies.

Secondly, forget frequency plots. They're not a guide to what the mic sounds like really. It's a bit like trying to decide if a girl is beautiful by looking at her measurements.

J

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

Quote Jack Ruston:

---

Firstly the mic isn't nasal. But it does have a lot of high mid focus which won't do anything to help you if you have a nasal singer...ie push bass and sometimes air frequencies.

Secondly, forget frequency plots. They're not a guide to what the mic sounds like really. It's a bit like trying to decide if a girl is beautiful by looking at her measurements.

J

---

With all respect as a part-time hobbyist to master :

Are you saying that your statement "it has a lot of high mid focus" wouldn't be something reflected on a frequency plot?

Thanks -

--------------------
Alexis -Cubase 6.5.0/SX3.1.1.944, XP SP2, 4GB RAM (1GB not accessible, but used just to balance the computer so it doesn't tip over); Delta 66 in Omni i/O Studio; Motif8; UAD-1

It might. And it is at least partly in this case. But you've probably noticed that manufacturers plots in general tend to be flat through the midrange. Yet we know from practical use that they don't always sound that way. The way the electronics distort affects how we perceive the result. Whether the low end saturates etc affects how the high mids are perceived. You can listen to a mic and then relate charachteristics that you've observed to the specs to some extent. What you can't do is look at the plot and infer exactly how the mic will sound.

J

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

Quote alexis:

---

Are you saying that your statement "it has a lot of high mid focus" wouldn't be something reflected on a frequency plot?

---

It most definitely is something that the frequency plot hints at, but you have to be careful about making any qualitative judgements purely from the plot. It's a lot more complex than that, and the perceived sound will depend a lot on the harmonic content of the source and the acoustics of the room and how they all interact with the mic's on and off-axis responses, as well as the distance between source and mic and the volume of the source.

When reviewing mics I listen first, form an impression, and then check how that sits with the published frequency plot. In my experience the plots give a broad overview that generally matches real world perception, but don't tell the whole story by any means. And I'm especially distrustful of the heavily smoothed ones like that Neumann plot!

Hugh

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

Quote alexis:

---

With all respect as a part-time hobbyist to master :

---

Far too generous!



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

Very useful information on this thread chaps .. many thanks

--------------------
Sam