Recording Engineer

Re: KH and SPA u87 etc adjustments
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2021, 05:05:02 PM »
I'm assuming that "reason" was never specified or detailed? ::)

I'm just speculating, but could it be because, at the time, they were better than the available electrolytics, and/or provided more capacity per volume? And it just "stuck", for legacy reasons? Because no one dared alter the "classic design"...

Call me cynical, but there sure is a looooot of "voodoo" floating around...  ???

I don’t know... I believe Neve has been so over-examined by so many people, for so long, that I don’t think there’s much room for voodoo anymore. Plus, such a test is easy-enough to see which you prefer.

Re: KH and SPA u87 etc adjustments
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2021, 07:25:53 PM »
Replacing tants. in a Neve with electrolytic (or film if you have room) doesn't reveal anything that's subtle.  The difference is obvious.
Anyone who's done it can say that with almost absolute certainty, even if they're a fairly "cloth eared" individual.

D. J. H.

The standard way to reduce much of the noise and distortion in audio gear in 1955 was to have a couple of beers.
 Anything else was too fiddlesome and too expensive.

Recording Engineer

Re: KH and SPA u87 etc adjustments
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2021, 08:54:22 PM »
Assuming what you posted is correct

If it is the same process and brand JFET I would like to see the measurement for more gain not just say it has more gain.

EQ changes are easy to do but you need to be aware of what does what

At lower voltage differences cap changes do not matter as much. At the input where there is a greater voltage difference it does.

FWIW in some current test builds I am using tants on purpose at certain places.

Big caps with long leads give you a large loop area and the body of the microphone is not mu metal.

Sometimes you want the high pass switch to work.

How is the AMI transformer "better" than the stock one?

I think people can sometimes forget a bit that people still are trying to make a living... Can’t exactly give away the entire farm... They also still need and have plenty of business for their one-man operation (or close to it), so they have no need to “sell” anyone; with fairy-dust voodoo magic, technical evidence, or before/after sound samples. Another thing people sometimes forget a bit is that there’s tons of art and opinion among all the technical aspects.

Honestly, when it comes to a U87-type, I myself am calling it a day with a Linear Systems LSK170, and extremely-quickly comparing a Samar Audio 9.5:1 to an AMI T13; and maybe a custom Crimson 9.5:1, found slightly better than the AMI in different type of mic.

Certain types and brands of small components in the right application is pretty-well established; not that things can’t always be slightly improved-upon, and there’s still opinion sprinkled in there. Changes in component values and in feedback have long been explored and simply comes down to opinion; and can quickly change depending on the major components chosen.

Will it sound like a genuine vintage or modern U87; or better or worse?  I don’t know or care, but it’s still a U87-type mic to me, even if it doesn’t sound anything like a genuine one. If I cared at all, I’d only buy genuine.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
Last post June 25, 2006, 04:16:13 PM
by matta
6 Replies
Last post February 09, 2007, 06:23:08 PM
by lanxe
0 Replies
Last post July 17, 2010, 06:11:51 PM
by wkrbee
14 Replies
Last post October 06, 2020, 11:15:49 AM
by Gus