Neumann U87

Ive been producing for roughly 8 years, and am mostly involved in recording hip hop, R&B and pop. I run my u87 through a 737 into ff 400. I listen through A7's.

I honestly can't believe how overrated this mic has become over the years. Maybe thats the problem. The u87 has been around for decades and has continuously been the industry standard. But why? Its pretty obvious that its used most often because of its versatility, and thats fine. It doesnt make many singers sound bad, but it certainly doesnt make them sound very good either. Because it has been around so long people just assume it must sound great...wrong! The u87 is incredibly dull and incredibly boring imo. I rarely use it at all anymore to be quite honest...
If you're thinking of buying this mic I highly suggest looking at the Mojave MA-200, Rode K2, or Rode Classic II. (We had a shootout between the C800G and Classic II - the Classic II won, but it was a close call, the C800G had a slightly smoother top end while the Classic II was much clearer and in your face)

The u87 is expensive because of the hype and its history, not because of its performance. Its comparable to classic cars. If you want to win a race you dont buy a 1934 Ford 2-Door Roadster Hi-Boy just because its expensive...

Gerry, please re-read my review and try to pay attention to the small details that you obviously miss so often. I never said double track. I said "overdubbed umpteen times". Double tracking is not overdubbing umpteen times, as I stated. They are different tracking processes.

As for your references of all the famous people using the U87, I am somewhat confused. Are you saying that you think they were making a mistake using a U87 or are you saying that they should have used a different mic thru a Mackie 1604 VLZ with it's 12 awesome preamps that you can buy for under $400 on the used market?


Gerry, it's too bad you weren't there when they were capturing Bonzo's huge, classic drums for Zeppelin II or when Gilmour was laying down the acoustic tracks for Dark Side Of The Moon You could have saved everyone so much time and expense by telling them how you found a bunch of better mics than the U87's used on those sessions - and all of us listeners would have even better sounding absolutely classic, timeless recordings - if they had only used a $100 dynamic mic thru an enthusiast grade preamp purchased from the back of Musician's Friend catalog and favored by a low-income home recording hobbyist. Heck, forget remastering - they should just re-record the whole thing from scratch with a MXL Mogami and a 1604 VLZ board that I used in 11th grade.

Gerry, I listened to your recordings. You are absolutely right. You do not need a U87. Don't bother wasting your money buying one or even spending the time trying another one out. Your Mackie board and your SM-57 are all you're ever going to need to be happy playing back your stuff in your car, parties at your house, your iPod, etc., The U87 is, as you stated, not worth the cash - and it certainly won't help. You are right. DO NOT BUY ONE!!! Total and complete overkill. No disagreement here. You win hands down. NO NEED TO REPLY - YOU WIN!!

For everyone else, there simply is no substitute. If you have professional grade preamps from companies like Universal Audio, Manley, TubeTech, Vintech, Avalon, Grace, A Designs, etc., - or if you're running in to something like a Neve, SSL or API console and you want to capture the essence, spirit and magic of your performer, you know it and I know it - and the person below stated it perfectly - you need at least one U87! It's like a hammer to a carpenter. Don't waste your time guessing if your mic beats a U87 or reading disputed reviews from a bunch of amateur recording entusiasts. Just buy a U87 and get it over with. There will be no more guessing - and you will be confident that you're using the same mic you hear on countless recordings from virtually every studio, recording artist, album and hit song under the sun.

It's a classic with an unparalleled resume. If your talent is strong enough to demand absolutely no compromises between performance and recording media, you will IMMEDIATELY and INSTANTLY know the value of a U87. On the other hand, if you don't have much to show, the U87 won't do much for you.

Honestly, if you own one, whether you record yourself or others, you're kind of rating yourself here. I have the torturous satisfactoin of knowing that every shortcoming I have ever heard on every recording I have ever made, is due to my shortcomings as an engineer and not due to my equipment.

I'm a recording studio owner/engineer/producer and have been in the business for 25 years. I record digital only and typically do so in the common industry specs (24-bit, 48/96kHz) using digital boards such as the D8B and hard disk recorders. I edit with ProTools and avoid D/A/D conversions as much as possible to alleviate side-band noise generation, etc. I listen to mixes through everything from KRK to Adam to Polk, etc., to ensure good mixes and masters.

I've used this microphone for some time in my studio and other studios as a producer. It is an extremely clear microphone TO A FAULT. Meaning, it is so clear and flat that unless you have a singer who is in more than complete control of his or her voice, it can make them appear to sound worse than they are. I have learned that putting this mic in a vocal booth is one of the worst placements you can do because any type of variation of the singers voice will be heard, period. It needs to be used in a more open air environment so that the normally occurring sound waves (that a persons' ear hears around them) are picked up. I prefer the original Oktava MK-319 (if you can find an original Russian one-mine aren't for sale) for the majority of vocals, hands down. The U87 mic is excellent, however, for items like acoustic guitars and other acoustic instruments that really need a crystal clear flat response on a large diaphragm. I think the price is too high (kudo's to the Neumann marketing team) and the mic is generally a bit over rated. As a studio owner, the holding cost (purchase and maintenance divided by usable applications)is nowhere as good as the Oktava, Shure SM57, etc. As a vocal mic, it can make the best singer sound even better and the worst singer even worse. As an acoustic instrument mic, it is top of the line.

That last reviewer says it all. So, Andy, it's not about the ohms, it's about the ears. I've fooled 3 of my audiofile friends in SoCal, telling them I had a U47. They said they could hear it. One said "Sounds like you got a vintage tube mic. I told you you'd come around." Sucker. Now he's going to buy an NTK as well. So much for your ohms theory. You can hear samples of my "vintage" mic at myspace.com/goneildamnitgoneil. Oh, double tracking is not done due to the inferiority of a mic, Andy. It's about personal preference. You're suggesting that no-one ever double tracks a U87? What about David Gilmour, Roger Waters and Richard Wright on just about every Pink Floyd release. Speaking of Floyd, Alan Parsons stated in the book "Behind The Glass" that the U87 was boring and he preferred my other favorite mic for vocals and acoustic guitars, the AT 4033. When I did the mic shootout, not one of them sounded so good it made me change my mind about double tracking. So again, buyer beware. It's not worth >$3500.

I re-submit that this is an extremely overrated mic.

I have recording studio, many mics (2-U87ai, c12vr with korby capsule, studio projects C1, sm7b, sm57, earthworks, josephson; and I have neve 1073, api 312, tubetech, calrec micpres, and manley massive passive eq.; mytek a/d, 4-UAD-1 cards, samplitude 10.1...etc etc.

1st, discussing boston's first album; the music was recorded on a 12 track scully in his basement, it was transferred to a 24 track studer at 30 ips in a truck using long cables thru his window.

vocals were recorded at the corporate studio using U87 mic on lead singer and I forget the micpre used but was an outboard micpre...perhaps a tube unit. there is an article in mix magazine where producer was interviewed who helped tom scoltz....he gave all the details.
fact!!

the U87ai is a quiet mic; it is true that when using good micpres, you will be hardpressed to tell a huge difference between condenser mics. dynamics are more obviously different from a condenser. I have done many tests on my voice singing and recorded various combinations for comparison(I still have these files). micpres can make a big difference.

neve vs api is big difference.
ok just trying a U87ai vs C1 thru api 312; the U87 is a bit beefier/thicker but the top end is more rolled off vs the C1.

the C1 is more extended on top end but not as beefy sounding.
this is what I hear over the headphones.

I can hear the difference more clearly over headphones than I can played back over monitors. I used dynaudio acoustic bm15 monitors with powerful amp.

The C1 is really a great mic for the price....I'd recommend it to anyone as a first mic...and it sounds killer on acoustic guitars...I do not like U87ai on acoustic guitars unless I use the manley eq to shape and give it some sparkle....the C1 thru 1073 sounds very good on acoustic guitar with no eq. I think because of extended top end.

you'd be hard pressed to know/ pick the U87 vs C1 on recorded vocals.
the U87 is probably quieter than C1. particular once you run it thru a la-2a or 1176...it will be hard to hear the difference..it will be subtle.

so I use the C1 for more pretty vocal parts; and the U87 for more beefy rock vocal parts...and I prefer the api312 for vocals because it's more forward/in your face/clear...not so bottom heavy/warm like a neve.

it all really depends on the song/application...

get a C1 and a neve clone micpre, good A/D, Uad cards and you will be happy...you will get killer sound.

I??m recording and producing for app. ten years. I??ve started to make music with eleven. I??m playing drums, guitar, piano and I??d an education in classical singing. However I got into hip hop and now I??m mainly working with samplers and synths. Had some hits in my country...so I think I??m good or just lucky.
I??ve always worked with cubase. cubase 3.0 was my first software.
My primary listening equipment: dynaudio bm15p, through rme hammerfall, soundcraft compact, yamaha p1800.
Now I??m working with Cubase4...and the powered plugs from UA.

About the U87. I??ve got one and I love it. I had a AT4050 before and I already heard a 4033. My AT4050 was too aggressive between 200 and 500hz. It was hardly impossible to get rid of these peaks, because the voice lost its foundation. It??s possible that a U87 and a AT4033 sound similar on small speakers, but when you??re using an eq (a good one for certain), you??ll hear that the U87 is much more linear than a 4033...
Sometimes I??ve to record some dubplates for soundsystems in my area. Once Mr. Brown and Mr Capone from the Studio1 sessions recorded something with my 4050...it sounded ok...but it was hard to put them in the instrumental...lower frequences disturbed...the vocals sounded a bit to close in comparison to the instrumental.
However, after I got my U87, Dawn Penn recorded some dubplates in my studio. It was awesome - I just used a good slight compression and that was all, except the lowcut, for sure.
No lower frequencies were coming out, nor did it sound seperate to the instrumental...and that??s what its all about. When you want the vocals to be in front of everything - use whatever you want, but when you want to get a linear sound - use U87...thats all I can say.

Gerry needs a class on voltage, anger management and perhaps, tolerance. True Studio Condenser mics are all about volts and ohms. By using your onboard Mackie pre's you were starving the Neumann and actually putting it a disadvantage. Your Mackie is adequate for your semi-pro (AT) and non-phantom powered audio stuff (SM-57) but that's about it. If you want to go pro, you need the full rig. You can't go halfway and call it a fair shootout.

Keep in mind that your buddy and I didn't say 5 figure signal chain, we said PROPER signal chain. Trust me, a Mackie board is not a proper signal chain for a pro-grade studio condenser. You may as well plug a Taylor acoustic in to a Plexi half stack and write a review about how they both sounded like crap.... signal chain matters. With a proper signal chain the U-87 will reveal entire spectrums of sound the 57 is simply not designed to capture. As a friend of mine once said when recording with the U-87, "I think I just heard my cat yawn." The cat was downstairs...

As for your Boston reference, it's a well known fact that Tom Scholz overdubbed every track umpteen times to arrive at that sound. That's why it took him six years to put out a second album and why he couldn't keep a band together. Yes, you can probably ultimately make a 57 sound as good as a U-87 if you're willing to insanely limit your productivity.

In fairness, you should re-do your shooutout using a decent outboard preamp and actually make a RECORDING of all the mic's in question. I have a strong feeling your opinion will change greatly when comparing the U-87 to your AT and your SM-57. The U-87 is a Studio Condenser Mic and is probably not suitable for live sound - at least I have never seen one used for live sound as I have both your AT and 57... The best ears in the business can't be wrong - but maybe you can, no??

I already posted a review of this micophone. I need to further solidify my opinion.

In response to Andy's review that critiqued my review, I have a few points to make. I knew someone would call the signal path into question. In fact, a couple of peers of mine made startlingly similar statements about how the U87 needs a "proper signal chain" to be fully appreciated. I felt vindicated later on when one of them acually did some recordings with a U87 and said quote "It's o.k. I like my MXL tube mic better." Anyway, back to signal paths; Andy, I couldn't agree more. We should have put the U87 through a 5 figure signal path with a Manley preamp and and Avalon compressor. Then the U87 can really be the Lance Armstrong of microphones. Right?
The whole point of our microphone shootout was to keep the signal path simple and make it an even playing field. Many well selling albums have been made using Mackie boards and preamps, and you can hear the differences between the mics just fine. What was not acknowledged in Andy's review is that this is like Algebra; what is done to 1 side of the equation must be done to both sides, or in this case, all sides of the equation. In order to have a fair mic shootout, ALL MICS WERE PUT THROUGHT THE SAME SIGNAL CHAIN! THEY ALL WOULD HAVE SOUNDED BETTER WITH A "PROPER" SIGNAL PATH. Sorry for yelling. In my opinion, the AT4033 (a favorite mic of many producers/engineers including Alan Parsons) was the Lance Armstrong of the shootout.I wonder if Sheryl Crow would agree? Joe, if I remember correctly liked the AKG414tl2. I liked that mic as well, but purchased the 4033 because it cost 1/3 as much as the AKG, and less than 1/5th as much as the U87! Music merchants and manufacturers see us as a gullible lot already. How foolish of us to make costly purchases based on brand names and reputations made long ago when there wasn't much competition in this market. I get wonderful recordings with my 4033s and my new SP TB1. In addition, I have a pair of sm57s and a pair of MXL 603s. The cost of all of those mics combined is less than half the cost of 1 Neumann U87. If you're gonna spend >$2500 on ONE microphone, it'd better deliver. The U87 doesn't. Buyer beware! I stand firmly behind my first review!

It has been a few months since I posted my review of the U87 comparing it to the Studio Projects C1. Since that time my studio "biz" has picked up greatly. I won a pretty large contract doing voice overs and announcements for....something most of us will attend on a regular basis ( I don't need any more competition!). It's a solid one day per week gig to get the work done and it pays more than enough in a month to cover the cost of this mic. I have also had a song of mine picked up by a national cable TV show that, provided it doesn't get killed in the next 7-8 months, is supposed to air in the fall of 2008. I didn't get any compensation for the song but, if it plays, I may earn a few bucks.

I'm still using the U87 daily. It is, easily, the absolute workhorse of my studio - which includes a Neumann M149, Mojave MA-200, AKG C414 XLII, M-Audio Sputnik (great value!), Shure KMS44, EV RE500, SE Electronics Gemini - and the other standards - SM57, C1000, Rode Nt2-A, KMS-184 pair, etc., , not surprisingly, after the U87 arrived on the scene my confidence (and studio income) in my work improved immensely. There's a reason why this is the mic with the most hit records under it's belt. It's just a very easy mic to work with. It does everything and it sounds great virtually all of the time. It does modern, vintage, rock, jazz, acoustic, voice, room, drums,.. everything. A couple of the tube mics are admittedly richer sounding but, sometimes I just don't have the time to go through the warm up period. As you know, when inspiration hits - hit record! The U87 is always ready to go.

I'm not sure why the previous reviewer would even conduct a mc shootout without a proper signal chain - going direct to a mixer pre is like asking Lance Armstrong to fuel up for a race with chips and salsa. If you're at all familiar with the SM-57 & the U87, you would probably agree that comparing the two in a truly professional format is kind of pointless. They are two very different tools. I like the Boston reference though - that entire album was an anomaly and is still great discussion for recording enthusiasts. IMHO, Tom Scholz was born to engineer sound like Michael Jordan was born to play basketball.

I wanted to post a follow up as my review mainly focused on the U87 vs the C1 - it ended up being an unfair competition. I have since tried to use the C1 for some of the voice over work and found the noise floor unacceptable - compared to the U87, the C1 has a noticeable hum. I still like the C1 and am holding on to it as my son & his buddies are starting to show an interest in recording, mixing beats, etc., The C1 will only increase their interest - for $300 bucks it SLAYS!!!

I am spending upwards of 20 hours a week in the studio these days and am becoming so familiar with my gear I can listen to other recordings and have a good idea what mics, pre's, compressors, etc., other people are using. It's simillar to when I was 12 or 13 yrs old and discovered the difference between the sounds of a strat and a les paul - or a marshall or a fender - everything has a sonic signature. I finally know what the NEVE sound is or what the NY to LA difference is. (My wife says it has ruined my ability to just enjoy music... yuk-yuk).

The bottom line is that there is simply no substitute for the U87. Either it truly does sound as good as I think OR it is such a pervasive element in our sonic existence that we're just used to THAT particular sound and we're always striving for it. Either way, I am more sold than I was 5 months ago on the value and enduring quality of the U87. It's truly one of those "quality remembered long after price is forgotten" type purchases. If you can afford it, get one. Treat it right and It's money in the bank.

I've been recording music for 14 years on both analog and digital systems. I have perfect pitch and well protected, undamaged ears. One night a few years ago a buddy of mine (let's call him Joe,...actually that's his real name) and myself were bored and decided to do what all recording engineer geeks without a life do....have a microphone shootout! We put up the following mics: a cheap radio shack mic, sm57, sm58, akg c1000, akg451, akg414tl2, sennheiser md441, audiotechnica 4033, and, of course, a neumann u87. All mics were plugged directly into a Mackie 24/8 and recorded onto an analog 16 track tascam. No fancy outboard preamps, no compression. We spent several hours testing the mics performances on acoustic guitar, his vocal, and my vocal.

I could not beleive the results!! Joe and I fully expected the Neumann to win the shootout hands down. WRONG!!!!! It sounded very similar, but not necessarily better, than the sennheiser md441, which only sounded slightly better than the sm57! My personal favorites were the akg 414tl2 and the audiotechnica 4033 on vocal and acoustic guitar! Joe's favorite's were the 414tl2 on vocal and the 4033 on acoustic guitar! Joe kept apologizing for the u87's performance. Luckily for him, it was a loaner. He hadn't shelled out >$2000 for this mic. I learned a great lesson that night: Mics are like diamonds; anyone spending outrageous amounts of money on something has to beleive they've purchased something magical! Well folks, a diamond ring costing 2 months salary isn't going to make for a good marriage, the couple will still have to work hard at it. Just like a >$2000 microphone will not make much of a difference in the quality of the recording. You have to work at it, and you'll get frighteningly similar results out of an sm57! Hell, the entire 1st Boston album, with the exception of the last song, was done in a basement on a 12 track Scully using only sm57 mics. The last song was recorded in an expensive L.A. studio, and it's the worst song on the record! People, start listening with your ears, not your eyes and certainly not with your wallet!!!