Neumann U87

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!!!

I'm a lifelong musician trying to hone my recording chops for the past 10 years. Started out on ADAT graduated to Roland VS880 to Korg D1600 to Pro Tools/ Digi 002 and finally to Apogee Ensemble / Apple Logic Studio . I am using pres from UA (LA-610), Avalon and A-Designs. I think I have a nice rig - I'm getting some great recordings out of here. If my confidence gets a couple notches higher, I may start charging people money!!! Having a blast with Apple Logic - 100x easier than Pro Tools.

So, my curiosity finally got the better of me regarding the Neumann U87 vs Studio Projects C1 comparisons. I have a C1 and I use it occasionally. I consider it to be just okay. It's definitely a good value but so are dozens of other mics. Anyway, when the right price came up on a new U87, I figured it was money in the bank if it failed the test and I wanted to sell it. Besides, I could finally hear for myself, on my gear, if these two mics were as close as everyone says. So hear's what I found out....

Are you ready?

Sorry Studio Projects - it's not even close. Well, maybe it's close. I mean they both sounded like my voice but on every single setting on every single preamp with a number of different songs, the U87 was obviously richer, deeper, more pleasing, sat better in the mix, stood out in the mix, etc., The U87 has a very noticeable something that I could never dial in to the C1.

So, is the U87 worth 10 X the price of the SP C1?

First, I don't think it's a valid question as you're comparing too very different components. But, if you can afford it and you don't want any compromises between your equipment and your music, the U87 is DEFINITELY worth every dime. And, when the time comes to sell your U87, if that time ever comes, there are not many pieces of musical equipment that will hold their value as well as the U87. It truly is money in the bank... I'm keeping my U87.

I've been making music, professionally recording and performing, for 25 years. Toured with Iggy Pop, Police, English Beat, UB 40, etc... Worked in an LA recording studio for a few years, managed and worked a "world-class" studio for 2 years. Currently teaching communications at a major university and developing a music production class there. I've tracked to Ampex and Studer 2", Otari, Fostex, ProTools, mastered to just about every medium. Currently preparing new CD on Motu w/ DP on a Mac, mastering with TRax. I've been monitoring EV Century 100's for 17 years. Love em! Hate those NS-10's, but more power to ya. Never anything but Crown power.

I got my U87 many years ago from a local music king who retired. I use it on vocals, for mono drum overs (but I like my vintage AKG 451 pairs for that better), acoustic guit. I chose it because it came available at a reasonable cost, and I've been using, but not owning them for years. Favorite aspects are female vocal capture. Of course, depends on the female. Better on some, not so good on others. It's a great all around, clear sounding mic. Really captures great detail, and I find that it (mine anyway) reacts to the source well, changing character in differing situations. They are all a little different, depending on age and care history. I wouldn't shell out 3 grand for my own use, but if I had a commercial studio now, you really got no choice. People want to see at least one as a badge of arrival.

I've been in the music biz for 25 years now, as musician, producer and composer. Been working with anyone from youngsters and ambitious newcomers to some real pop&rock celebrities.

I've tried (and am still using) various U 87 copies. I'd still say that some of them are excellent! But the U 87 does have some tiny "extra details" one could definitely argue about. Does this "extra detail" on recordings made with Neumann mics mark a difference? - I think so! Does the average audience hear the difference as well as you do?: I'm not sure, some copies really come very close...Does this matter in "major" recordings: absolutely! How many of you have to deal with major recordings and major artists?..well,...hmmm,...

I am happy I've got a U 87, but whether you want to spend the money on it? Tough question - that's your decision!

I've been a musician for over 30 years. I wear ear protection.
I've been engineering recordings for over 20 years.
Currently I do most of my recording straight to my computer using A Demeter VTMP-2b Mic Pre and a Presonus Firebox. My monitors are KRK V8s and I have used yamaha ns10m's, Tannoy PBM 6.5s, PBM8s and those dual concentric 10s that they had. I've used Genelecs and JBLs.
I've got extensive experience with 2" MCI/Sony 24track machines, 1"Tascam 16track Machines, Adats, DA88s, Protools, etc.

Up until about 5 years ago, I was a complete mic nerd. I love mics and have a ton of experience with a lot of the great ones. I would set them up and have blind listening tests, etc.

Ok, so I have some experience. Here is the point:

The Neumann U87 is the benchmark for vocal recording. It gives a present and intimate sound, pulling up a lot of the breathy quality in someones vocal. It can bring out the richness in someone's voice without having to tweak an eq. A lot of people are making a big fuss about the preamps that are necessary for this to happen. Nope. As long as you don't have a really poor preamp, you should hear some really present vocals. A good preamp might add a little fine color to the sound or mothing at all. A bad one might detract, but even the cheap ones are fair sounding nowadays.

The U87 works well for many applications. It's great for acoustic guitars, orchestral instruments, and on and on. It just shines as a vocal mic.

As for it being a reference mic, ok, it colors the sound so I wouldn't call it that. That is not the point. The point is that the color that it adds to vocal is usually wonderful. It is the standard that others aspire to. If you still want a great large diaphram condenser that doesn't have that breathy color, get an AKG c414. It's not a sub for a U87 though.

Saying that it is over rated is being blind to the countless studios and engineers that use them as their main vocal mic. It's like saying an SM58 is a bad hammer. Pure hogwash.

I hate saying that it is a fantastic value. The truth is that it's an expensive mic, but it might just be worth every penny.

Many years of engineering.

I borrowed a U87 and put it up against 6 other mics, including a Neumann 103.
It had a unique sound and a lot of depth.

Some of the other mics sounded better for some things.

The 87 sounded pretty darned good on everything.

I have had clients request this mic, so even with the high price, I got one.

I've been recording and doing sound since the late 50's. My current studio has two ProTools systems, one for tracking and one for mastering at 96K. A customized analog console feeds a pair of Mackie HR824 monitors on sand filled stands.

The U-87 is a multi pattern condenser mic. It is not TUBE. Normally I use the cardiode pickup pattern but occasionally switch to figure 8 because it has a slightly different tone quality. I usually run the mic into a Groove Tubes Brick mic preamp then into a Universal Audio 1176LN, then straight into ProTools. This yields up a nice smooth sound quality that smokes every other combination in my studio which includes lots of AKG, Sennheiser, Shure and MXL mics. I use this Neuman mic and GT preamp for recording any of my 7 Boogie amp and Marshall 4x12 cabinets. I also record vocals with it. I never need eq on any of the tracks recorded with this mic. It's the hallmark of this classic, it stands out in a mix beautifully. It's not cheap but unlike inexpensive look-alikes, this one will definitely have resale value and it's got a sound quality that is totally unique, special and good. I'm worth it!

Making music for 20 years, not bad, no commercial ambitions.
From Hybrid Arts Sequencer on Atari ST to Cubase SX3 on PC with MOTU 828 (2 Units cascaded plus AI3 ADAT Converter by Alesis), multitracking beginning with tascam porta 05)
harddisk recording for about 10 years
Yamaha HS80m active monitors/PA equipment

Condensor mic, used for vocals and everything, yes everything else
been thinking about a tlm103, saving 500 $, didn't test, but it's not the real thin

1/15 years
2/Engineered 50 Albums, plus some radio, TV and film score work.
3/PT TDM HD3
4/Large Dynaudios

This (alongside the SM57) the most overrated mic, ever!

It's great for a few vocalists. Close to unusable on others.
Also Works on french horn, acoustic guitar, double bass.

There are a lot of good alternatives.

It's got a lot of peaky resoncases in the midrange, wich gives it it's aggressive vocalsound.
These peaks work for some sources- other bland, sqeeuky or dreadful.

It's by no means any longer a reference mic.

BEEN RECORDING WITH NEUMANN U87 ON AND OFF FOR 5 YEARS.
USED WITH DA-38'S, AND ALSO MOTU 2408MK 2.
NEVER USED IT WITH 2 INCH - I'M SURE THAT WOULD BE SWEET!
I MONITOR THROUGH JBL 4430 MIDFIELD MONITORS.

U87 IS THE REFERENCE CONDENSER OF ALL TIME - THAT'S WHY I BOUGHT IT.
OVERHEADS, GUITAR CABS, VOCALS.
I WAS CONDSIDERING A C12 BUT DIDN'T HAVE SURPLUS CASH PILES.
I READ UP ON A TON OF MICS AND EVERTHING OVER A GRAND WAS BEING COMPARED TO THE 87 - SO I JUST BOUGHT THE 87.
WE HAVE HAD SONGS ON THE RADIO DONE FROM 2 DA-38'S, INTO MACKIE 1604VLZ, TO DISC WITH NO EQ.-NO EFFECTS,-TOTALLY RAW AND THEY SOUNDED PRO.
WITH OTHER MICS YOU ALWAYS EQ. AND ADD REVERB.- ALWAYS.
SERIOUSLY IF YOU BUY ONE MIC FOR YOUR STUDIO - FOR VOCALS- BUY THE 87.
I HAVE USED THE 87 FOR BOOGIE CABS BUT PEOPLE SAY I'M SICK SO NOW I'M GONNA USE THE KMS 105, BECAUSE IT'S A FIFTH OF THE PRICE AND NOW I'M PARANOID.
I GOT THE SWIVEL MOUNT- IT'S 250 BUCKS CHEAPER THAN THE SHOCK AND IT'S TOTALLY FINE.