87 mic blind shootout comparison

[rockabilly69]

I don't see how anybody can sing into 5 mics at once, and get a good signal hitting all five capsules on axis. There will be differences in amplitude, and proximity effect. Especially with all the mics in cardoid which they would have to be.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

I don't see how anybody can sing into 5 mics at once, and get a good signal hitting all five capsules on axis. There will be differences in amplitude, and proximity effect. Especially with all the mics in cardoid which they would have to be.

That could be a consideration and I supposed could possibly be more of an issue if the mics were positioned all in a straight horizontal line and the singer was pretty close .
OTOH if the singer is backed off a bit and the mic's are positioned in a either a tight curve, (which I have seen) or even better IMO I have seen several 4-5 mic shootouts ,,, (what I will call an H configuration) where there was a center upright mic, and the other 4 were positioned in pairs of head to head ,,one on top of the other one upright and one upside down config. Which I assumed helped reduced physical distance differences

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

I don't see how anybody can sing into 5 mics at once, and get a good signal hitting all five capsules on axis. There will be differences in amplitude, and proximity effect. Especially with all the mics in cardoid which they would have to be.

The trick is to arrange the mics so the heads meet in the middle and for the singer to be back far enough that he/she that the angle to each mic is about the same. If you take a look at the video below, this is how my buddy and I set up five mics for this shootout he filmed.

The alternative would be to record five separate performances and I think that is even more problematic because now you open the listener up to being swayed by the quality of each performance rather than the quality of the mic.

Over the years, I've found mic shootouts to be invaluable for narrowing down mic purchases. I understand that single performance shootouts may not be perfect but like I said, the alternative seems more problematic to me. So I look at these with a "don't let a lack of perfection get in the way of the very good" lens.

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by jim1960

The trick is to arrange the mics so the heads meet in the middle and for the singer to be back far enough that he/she that the angle to each mic is about the same. If you take a look at the video below, this is how my buddy and I set up five mics for this shootout he filmed.

The alternative would be to record five separate performances and I think that is even more problematic because now you open the listener up to being swayed by the quality of each performance rather than the quality of the mic.

Over the years, I've found mic shootouts to be invaluable for narrowing down mic purchases. I understand that single performance shootouts may not be perfect but like I said, the alternative seems more problematic to me. So I look at these with a "don't let a lack of perfection get in the way of the very good" lens.

Originally Posted by KevWind

That could be a consideration and I supposed could possibly be more of an issue if the mics were positioned all in a straight horizontal line and the singer was pretty close .
OTOH if the singer is backed off a bit and the mic's are positioned in a either a tight curve, (which I have seen) or even better IMO I have seen several 4-5 mic shootouts ,,, (what I will call an H configuration) where there was a center upright mic, and the other 4 were positioned in pairs of head to head ,,one on top of the other one upright and one upside down config. Which I assumed helped reduced physical distance differences

I'm sorry but I don't agree, they will all be off axis enough to make a difference. I have done these tests before, and that's why I doubt it's a good test. Sing on any good mic and you will hear difference with just inches in movement, and because the capsules are all different in these microphones, they will all have different sweetspots. To me if you really want to know if spending the money on a vintage, or a new U87 is worth it, rent one! In my case I borrowed a known good one, and determined that for my use, the Neumann U87Ai was the way to go, I preferred it the vintage one. As for the clones make sure they have a good return policy

When it comes to microphones, I think you can watch shootouts all day long and still not know what you're going to get. And one thing I know about modern Neumann mics, is that they are ridiculously consistent,because of their testing abilities. I wouldn't say the same for some clones.

[Chipotle]

Sweetwater did a big vocal mic shootout a while back, and at least for that one decided on the opposite approach: one mic at a time, with good vocalists who could get very close to identical takes multiple times in a row. Neither the multiple-mic nor multiple-take method is perfect, but with care both can at least get you *something* to compare beyond just someone else's subjective take.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

I'm sorry but I don't agree, they will all be off axis enough to make a difference. I have done these tests before, and that's why I doubt it's a good test. Sing on any good mic and you will hear difference with just inches in movement, and because the capsules are all different in these microphones, they will all have different sweetspots. To me if you really want to know if spending the money on a vintage, or a new U87 is worth it, rent one! In my case I borrowed a known good one, and determined that for my use, the Neumann U87Ai was the way to go, I preferred it the vintage one. As for the clones make sure they have a good return policy

When it comes to microphones, I think you can watch shootouts all day long and still not know what you're going to get. And one thing I know about modern Neumann mics, is that they are ridiculously consistent,because of their testing abilities. I wouldn't say the same for some clones.

There are many variables involved when demonstrating any mic. Singers don't hold their heads in stationary positions so that effects the results. Different preamps will effect the results. Different rooms will effect the results. Different voices will effect the results. We can pick apart the imperfections all day long. It's no different than videos on any piece of gear or any plugin. There are always going to be variables that will make our personal experiences different to varying degrees. That doesn't make all the efforts in those areas useless.

Back in the pre-YouTube early internet days, I didn't have much choice but to blind-buy gear based on either salesman recommendations or product descriptions. I made a lot of buying mistakes in those days. I haven't made a buying mistake in a long time and I credit the wealth of information I can usually find online about any product, so on this issue we'll have to agree to disagree.

[AcousticDreams]

I have spent a little more time listening to all of the mics this morning.

First I would like to say, that it is a common mistake for one to initially like something with a boost in bass or trebles.

At first we find the boost in bass or trebles to be super exciting. Later we realize that boost is a peak. And that peak is like a knife blade...and it is cutting into our ears. This makes long term listening uncomfortable to say the least.

I use to sell high end speakers in the 80's and 90's. Some of the competition speaker companies speakers sounded very exciting....that is initially. Long term listening and those peaks cut into the ears and the consumer just turned off the music. There was many studies on this. As it turns out...boring is sometimes a good thing. ha ha...good thing longterm anyway. Stable is often confused as being boring. When Stability is something that we can always count on. (Wild women are so much fun at first! Long term...a nightmare!)

I have made this mistake many times with guitars. Trebles will jump out and sound glorious. Later I realize that the balance of bass, midrange and trebles is way off. Effectively it will change what kind of music I may write. Effectively the guitar becomes annoying quickly(for lack of a better term), as it does not represent the full spectrum.

After a little bit of listening(and I intend to do more) I am now hearing somethings that could become annoying.
I would like to see if some of you are hearing the same things I am hearing...and...tell me what this means?

At the Second Hallelujah is the 7 to 8 second mark. And the Sixth Hallelujah is the 23 to 24 second mark. In the Soundcloud graph, you will see a slight rise as he sings Hallelujah.

So here is what I hear:

+B & D seems a little harsh( by this I mean the voice almost turns into a …gravelish - hoarse character.
A & C seems smoother in comparison. Not hearing the hoarse peak. C possibly being the smoothest of the bunch?
E. is much better than B & D……but not quite as good as A & C…but close.

Using the same second markers...I also hear:

+More Reverb Tail on B & D as compared to the others.
So, what does this all mean?

If I am hearing correctly the harshness would become annoying to some degree with long term listening.
Yet, The reverb tail is yet another factor...What does this mean that I can hear more of the reverb with these same two points. Does it mean it is actually more open? More revealing? Or does it mean that the mic is targeting specific frequencies unevenly and that is why I am hearing more reverb?

[dnf777]

That was fun….and enlightening!
For my typical listening setup, studios could save a load of money, and Id not be the wiser!
I could barely discern any differences, and they all sounded pretty darn pleasing to the ears.

Guess thats why I tinker at home, and others earn a living in the studios…

[Glennwillow]

Here is the curve for the Warm Audio WA-87.

Here is the curve for the Neumann U87AI.

Here is the curve for the U87 vintage.

I cannot find a frequency response curve for the Serrano 87.

My point is, if there is a bass boost in the lower frequencies of any of these mics, it would show up in the curves. No bass boost shows up in any of these curves. All the curves are either flat in the bass region or are rolling off slightly. Furthermore, the frequency response curves are extremely similar. All the mic manufacturers are using high quality components. To me a $700-800 microphone is an expensive mic.

My response to a mic when I don't like the bass response showing up in the recording is to back off the mic because obviously the proximity effect is the biggest factor affecting the recording. In fact I don't sing all the close to any of the LDC mics I have because no matter what I do, no matter which pop filter or wind screen I use, I get plosive problems.

I realize there is more to the sound of a mic than just the frequency response curve, but none of the test mics exhibited audible distortion. Off-axis response was not evaluated.

I know that slight differences in bass response do show up when recording a particular voice with different microphones, as I own a fair number of good quality mics. As little as 1 to 1.5 db difference can be audible from my experience. And so yes, there are very subtle differences that are showing up in this test.

As Daniel points out, those subtle differences could very well be related to how off-axis the singer is to any particular mic capsule. Nobody knows.

I think the test results are interesting, so I am not criticizing. I've spent quite a bit of time listening to these results. But I think the conclusion to walk away with is that all these mics are quality reproductions of the U87. If you hear a difference that influences you, go for it. But none of these mics are going to change what a voice sounds like in a recording to any significant degree. Obviously, the job of the mic is to be true to reality.

I am impressed that the Serrano 87 mic is so reasonably priced. I do not own any kind of U87 mic, and if I were interested in an 87 LDC mic, I would seriously consider the Serrano. At the same time, if I had previously purchased a Warm Audio WA-87 or either of the Neumann U87 mics, I would not be at all disappointed in the results in this test.

- Glenn

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

I realize there is more to the sound of a mic than just the frequency response curve, but none of the test mics exhibited audible distortion. Off-axis response was not evaluated.

I know that slight differences in bass response do show up when recording a particular voice with different microphones, as I own a fair number of good quality mics. As little as 1 to 1.5 db difference can be audible from my experience. And so yes, there are very subtle differences that are showing up in this test.

Very true, Glenn. Frequency charts can fool us. Take a look at this one...

Judging by the chart alone, you'd thing a U47 was a bright mic with a weak bottom end. In reality, the mic has a full and rich bottom end and isn't overly bright at all.

Of the five mics in the 87 shootout at the top of this thread, the only one I've ever sang through was the U87ai. A good friend of mine owns one and it's a mic I'm pretty familiar with. The friend I'm referencing is the guy in the shootout video I posted. His 87ai is in that video as is my own Flea 47. I've sung through his 87ai a few times and I never really cared for it because it made my voice sound too thin. My buddy, on the other hand, has a HUGE voice and I don't think he could sound thin on any mic. He's operatically trained and that comes through no matter what style of music he sings. For him, the 87ai works. The singer in the 87 shootout has a voice closer to mine than to my friend's. I don't think the 87ai is flattering on his voice and, like with myself, I thought is sounded a bit thin. I don't think it's an off-axis response at all. That's just how the 87ai sounds on some people.

[FrankHudson]

I should be happy I picked a version of a mic I've blundered into by slightly preferring example B.

I was going to say something similar to what GlennWillow said just above about the slightness of the differences. Let me echo him now. In my less than expert opinion: no compelling performance would be perceptively harmed by any of those mics as used in the test from any evidence in this test.

It's plausible that the better ears, better experience, and better monitoring equipment on the listener side can hear more differences in them. Listening closely, though only a few times through, even I could hear some small differences. But to my mind, even listening to this sparce track where the vocals stand proud, I would conclude that those differences were not demonstratively important.

So, I was happy to see two sub $1000 mics come out well in our small group with this single demonstration.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Very true, Glenn. Frequency charts can fool us. Take a look at this one...

Judging by the chart alone, you'd thing a U47 was a bright mic with a weak bottom end. In reality, the mic has a full and rich bottom end and isn't overly bright at all.

Of the five mics in the 87 shootout at the top of this thread, the only one I've ever sang through was the U87ai. A good friend of mine owns one and it's a mic I'm pretty familiar with. The friend I'm referencing is the guy in the shootout video I posted. His 87ai is in that video as is my own Flea 47. I've sung through his 87ai a few times and I never really cared for it because it made my voice sound too thin. My buddy, on the other hand, has a HUGE voice and I don't think he could sound thin on any mic. He's operatically trained and that comes through no matter what style of music he sings. For him, the 87ai works. The singer in the 87 shootout has a voice closer to mine than to my friend's. I don't think the 87ai is flattering on his voice and, like with myself, I thought is sounded a bit thin. I don't think it's an off-axis response at all. That's just how the 87ai sounds on some people.

Hi Jim,

I am guessing that the differences between the frequency response graph and what a person hears in a recording is related to how a mic varies in frequency response with respect to distance. In other words, proximity effect. The proximity effect doesn't affect all mics in the same way.

Many singers singing into a mic are closer than the 200 mm (7.87") distance that IEC 60268-4 calls for measuring frequency response in an anechoic chamber, and it's generally considered that the proximity effect impacts frequency response at distances less than about 18-24" (457-610mm). I rarely sing into an LDC mic within 8" of the mic because I don't want the added bass and I don't want the plosive effects. I am often 12-24" away from the mic simply to avoid the plosives.

So at the distance I am singing from a mic a little added bass is actually a good thing because the vocal sound thins out as the singer gets farther away.

I certainly recognize that we don't necessarily follow the same procedures in a recording situation. But am stating that there are so many variables in a recording situation that we cannot necessarily count on what we hear in a mic shootout to make predictions.

I also agree that information to help us make purchasing decisions is a good thing. But we do have to be cautious in jumping to conclusions.

My point about comparing the frequency response graphs of 3, 87 style microphones is that those graphs were (presumably) all obtained using the same IEC procedure, so these graphs are a way to make meaningful comparisons beyond what somebody comes up with in a mic shootout.

- Glenn

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

My point about comparing the frequency response graphs of 3, 87 style microphones is that those graphs were (presumably) all obtained using the same IEC procedure, so these graphs are a way to make meaningful comparisons beyond what somebody comes up with in a mic shootout.

There was a time when I paid attention to the graphs and there were too many times those graphs led to mistakes. Now, I never even bother looking at them because I've figured out they don't convey information to me that I actually need. Hearing the results of a mic, even in a video, have been must more reliable for me and the purchases I've made that have been biased by shootouts or video reviews & demonstrations have been spot on despite the fact that there are always going to be variables in those efforts. But that's my audio journey. For others, a different method may work better. I just know that, for myself, things like that 87 shootout are extremely valuable when I'm making a purchase ...which is why one of those Serrano 87 mics will find its way to me one day soon.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by jim1960

...which is why one of those Serrano 87 mics will find its way to me one day soon.

Based on what I heard, I would not at all be surprised that you'll be very happy with that mic.

- Glenn

[alohachris]

Aloha,

I've never based a single mic or piece of live or recording gear purchase on ANY online shootout or comparison, no matter what kind of file or who the source was.

These kinds of online comparisons are a lot of fun & kudos for doing it on these nice "87" LDC's. But they can never tell us what we need to know before we shell out our hard-earned cash. I mean, our recent discussion here on how compressed & sonically insufficient Soundcloud, youtube & mp3. recordings are provides the rationale to treat these shoot-outs with a grain of salt - and nothing to base a purchase on.

I've been saying it for years. The best way to audition gear is to narrow it down to a handful of say, mics, then source them at local studio's, stores, other musicians or national rental houses & grab a few for a weekend shootout. Or rent an hour at a studio on their 87. Or rent to own & return the lesser mic's with Sweetwater, Soundpure or VintageKing.

Get the ones that interest you othe most (read a lot including SOS reviews & specs) into your home studio & have an organized plan for auditioning them in a condensed period of time. With an educated ear, you'll be able to quickly discern amongst them pretty quickly. They never "sound all the same" especially as you move up the trough. Often, you will like or appreciate different mic's for different reasons. HINT: You usually can negotiate for better postal rates if renting long-distance & weekends are cheaper.

Have a list of qualities you can check off: Rate the virtues of each mic. There are SO MANY qualities of each mic that online anything can never reveal to you, starting with build quality & moving all the way through to off-axis, balance, detailing, clarity, performance, or where it likes to sit in a vocal mix, handles reverbs, etc., etc..

The main thing is how it sounds on YOUR voice or instruments - solo or in a mix through your signal chain.

I've shared my old list of 20-30 things to check out many times here at AGF. Create your own list to save time.

Make a quick solo & also a multi-tracked recording of each mic on your signal chain, same song, same positioning, same guitar, same settings, even same time of day you sing, etc. Re-Box 'em up fast & return.

I used that approach for decades because I lived out here in the the Islands & the kind of mic's & signal chains I moved up to were nowhere to be found here. I also took trips to LA 1-2 times a year to audition gear.

I do realize that postal rates today are prohibitive compared to say 12 years ago. And of course, COVID-19 puts the damper on everything, mostly trust. Still, you can get creative & put energy into home shootouts a couple times a year to keep it fresh & fun. But if you are as into great mic's & gear as I became (hey, I'm still attracted to these types of AGF threads, right?), then isn't it worth it to know for sure, before you buy?!?

The only way is the audition mic's & gear at home.

BTW, those original '70's U-87's are unbeatable for voice & guitar. I had a pair of mint 1972's that uplifted my spirits everytime I fired them up for over 20 years. Very Hard to find in good condition now & crazy-expensive.

Also, the Neumann U87ai is by far the most popular studio LDC mic in the world (sales records). There are good reasons for that. Especially it's versatility on many types of voices & instruments. To me, $3250 for a new U-87ai would be one I would check out among those listed in this shoot-out. It's a great value at that price.

Trust YOUR ears. Audition - before you buy!

alohachris