sorry folks ! another mic comparison: U67 vs. U89

[guitarman68]

In a recent thread our AGF fellow Knives & Guitars asked me to describe where I would prefer the U67 vs. U89. Me not being able to bring it into proper English (I'm a German native) decided to make a vid, so you can evaluate: Vocals, acoustic guitars and some mandolin. I have to apologize for my vocals, but there were no real singers around this morning.

[AcousticDreams]

Another super comparison! Again, very thankful for this review! I have always wanted to hear a U89, as I have heard so much about it.

I really thought the U67 gave the sound of what dreadnoughts sounds like. The U67 just captures the entire body of the Dread. In fact, I would go so far as to say it gives the natural sound of that big body. While the U89 was pleasant, It just seemed lacking in representation of that big, full Dreadnought tone.

Maybe it is just bias on my part, since I use to own a U87....and I believe the 67 share the same capsule as the 87. I heard quite a difference between the the 67 and the 89 in your recordings.

I also felt the same way for vocals...the U67 was bigger, fuller, more natural.

Oddly, when it came to your OM...I thought the U89 might have suited this instrument better. Go figure...but the frequency range of the U89 brought forth some of great characteristics of an OM.

I will be most interested to know which mic you thought sounded the most natural on your Dread? and which mic sounded the most natural on your OM?

Because I thought the U89 was a bit thinner sounding...I just now looked up and they claim that the K89 capsule is smaller than the K67 capsule. I could not find the exact dimensions though.

[Bob Womack]

Thanks for the comparison! I favored the U67 on everything - I thought it had a more refined upper end and the U89 had a harder sounding upper-mid region. I wonder how much of that is the paring between the preamp and mic - ie. how much was impedance?

Bob

[guitarman68]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Thanks for the comparison! I favored the U67 on everything - I thought it had a more refined upper end and the U89 had a harder sounding upper-mid region. I wonder how much of that is the paring between the preamp and mic - ie. how much was impedance?

Bob

Interesting point !
When recording the vocals I used the normal gain setting (each mic) on the John Hardy M-1 preamp which is 10kΩ impedance. For recording of the guitars I pressed the "high gain" which activates 500Ω (again each mic).


Here is what the manual says:

"The gain pot of the M-1 is actually a two section pot having a 10kΩ section and a 500Ω section. In high gain applications where CRV would be a problem with a 10kΩ pot, the 500Ω section of the pot is used."

[guitarman68]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I really thought the U67 gave the sound of what dreadnoughts sounds like. The U67 just captures the entire body of the Dread. In fact, I would go so far as to say it gives the natural sound of that big body. While the U89 was pleasant, It just seemed lacking in representation of that big, full Dreadnought tone.

Oddly, when it came to your OM...I thought the U89 might have suited this instrument better. Go figure...but the frequency range of the U89 brought forth some of great characteristics of an OM.

I will be most interested to know which mic you thought sounded the most natural on your Dread? and which mic sounded the most natural on your OM?

Because I thought the U89 was a bit thinner sounding...I just now looked up and they claim that the K89 capsule is smaller than the K67 capsule. I could not find the exact dimensions though.

Thank you !
Yes, I really prefer the U67 on dreadnought guitars over the U89 for exactly the same reasons you mentioned.
And yes, on the OM the U89 is very nice. Honestly I never tried that before, always using SDCs on OM guitars and finger style.


Here are some measurements of the capsules:

U67 (from the www)
Diaphragm diameter: 24 mm / 0,945"
Capsule thickness (with screws): 13,3 mm / 0,524"

U89 (I opened the mic and used a digital caliper)
Diaphragm diameter: 21 mm / 0,827"
Capsule thickness (with screws): 13,02 mm / 0,513"

[KevWind]

Thanks again and good job

[b1j]

These comparisons are of interest for giving us the opportunity to listen for nuances of distinction between ultra-high quality mics. It’s the only way I’ll get to hear them. I was not able to determine whether I heard a difference, so that helps you see where I’m coming from.

I know you also provided one with the just-very-high-priced Schoeps and the only-high-priced Austrian Audio. I was able to discern a difference there: for me the Schoeps was brighter. For a solo guitar song, that one would ring out with greater presence. But with one or more additional instruments I think the distinctions would be lost. Again, I’m sure this is saying a lot about my ear.

Still, I think these fine videos serve a valuable service here, for those who produce at the high end.

I wonder if you may be interested in doing more comparisons between mics the rest of us might consider for our home studios. For example, on Sweetwater I heard an A/B of the Schoeps you used with the humble sE8 with solo J-45 and another with solo D-28. Although I could hear a bit more shrill tone in some transients with the sE8s, it seemed to me I could live with that for one seventh the cost. So far I like what the sE8s are capturing in my room.

Those kinds of comparisons might help the regular folks here make decisions appropriate for their needs. Not sure if you’d be willing?

[guitarman68]

Yes, sure I'm willing to do more mic comparisons. Thing is: I don't have them around. In my studio I have Schoeps, Neumann KM84, Neumann KM85, Neumann KM184. Sometimes I'm offered to do some comparison and get the mics for approval, like the CC18, sometimes I borrow them from friends.

The great Shawn Brock has a nice comparison of Samson C02 vs. KM184 on his youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UlY0GebNak&t=174s

[b1j]

Oh, that makes sense. I didn’t stop to think you might not have access to the budget brands. In any case, you made some useful videos with a straightforward methodology. Thanks.

[KevWind]

One possible thought
What about not listing which mic is which, and making the order of play random ,,, in the different video sections (more of a blind A/B type comparison)
I am guessing the preferential replies could be different ? (or not).. But would be interesting to possibly help eliminate (conformation bias)

[guitarman68]

Great idea ! I will try next time.

[rockabilly69]

On the smaller body instruments, especially the OM, I liked the U89, on the dread, I liked the U67 although I would like to hear it further from the soundhole, which I think exagerated the low end a bit. If I was mixing the dread with other instruments, I may prefer the U89, but for solo flatpicking where I would want a bit more low end, the U67 would be the clear winner. I would like to hear the U67 aiming across the soundhole instead of directly in front of it.