I like the second mic waaaay better. I'm guessing this one is the CM87? With about 4 dB of EQ at the 10,000-20,000 Hz I'm getting a similar but fuller sound to the first mic. Getting the brightness without sounding too sparkly or thin. Adding +4 dB from 5k up gets a really close sound to the first mic (including the sparkly/breathy sound I found harsh), at least to my ears through the default Audacity equalizer. I get you weren't really asking for opinions but I really like mic 2 waaaay better, so much that I wouldn't even consider mic 1, so if mic 2 is the CM87 it's definitely a keeper. Applying the same EQ settings but inverted makes mic 1 sound like mic 2, so I'd pick mic 2 and just EQ it to get the desired results.EDIT: Actually relistening to the sample I heard (linked below), the CM87 is cleaner than I remember, though I still prefer the AT4047 or U87 on the source. Of course my voice is different from that voice, so who knows what I'd prefer in person?
Maybe the samples I've heard of the AA CM87 were either a bad mic, or I don't like the U87 sound, but I like the U87s I've heard. I prefer a U87 over an AT4050 based on recordings I've heard, so I find it weird on the AA CM87 samples where an AT4047 was also I used I prefered the later. I know the one sample where I prefer the 4047 the CM87 was an older one that had a round grille, so I'm sure that had some effect on the sound as well. Maybe I'm an idiot and I just prefered the 4047 on that voice, it's this test from Microphone-Parts http://recordinghacks.com/2011/02/26/vo-shootout-u87-l36b-cm87-at4047mp/
I think the U87 and AT4047 here are best, they're certainly the most articulate, but I have a hunch these aren't all the same recording because the upward inflection on the word "line up" (rather at the beginning of the word up) recorded by those two mics isn't recorded by the Aseyer or CM87 mics.