AKG Perception P220 to Neumann u87 5 min mod ( p200, p100, p400, p420? )

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I just did some vocal listening tests comparing a Perception 200 (that I paralleled a 470pF polystyrene cap onto the suggested location) with a U87i and a U87Ai . The 200 did sound a lot like the U87i but it had a higher output about half way between the U87i and the louder U87Ai. There was about a 1 dB or 2dB hump around 300 Hz from the Perception 200 though, and I didn't quite hear as much extended high end at the top. I did like the smoother low end of the U87i better. This was done with a nylon stocking type pop filter and sung only an inch or 2 away to get some proximity effect. No bench test here. Totally subjective.
 
I just did some vocal listening tests comparing a Perception 200 (that I paralleled a 470pF polystyrene cap onto the suggested location) with a U87i and a U87Ai . The 200 did sound a lot like the U87i but it had a higher output about half way between the U87i and the louder U87Ai. There was about a 1 dB or 2dB hump around 300 Hz from the Perception 200 though, and I didn't quite hear as much extended high end at the top. I did like the smoother low end of the U87i better. This was done with a nylon stocking type pop filter and sung only an inch or 2 away to get some proximity effect. No bench test here. Totally subjective.
That hump at about 300Hz + was noticed (on some sources it is beneficial, on others the sound becomes boomyy) as well as some lower frequencies more pronounced on the AKG. It's part of his DNA. In addition, the proximity effect manifests itself differently, headbaskets with different shapes and sizes react differently.
I would suggest a test closer to normal usage conditions, for example for voice a microphone distance of 6...10 inches.
 
Hi @zzzzz !
Could you take the test a little further?
If the stock mic and the @kingkorg ' mod mic were placed next to each other at a sufficient distance (>2m) from the drum kit and you recorded simultaneously, in the same take, into the same preamps set identically, then we could hear exactly the difference that the mod does it in sound.
I guess you didn't apply afterwards in DAW, Eq or dynamic processing, compressor, limiter, gate, etc.
So, in your DAW, please reverse the phase of one of the tracks by 180°, possibly match the levels of the two channels as best as possible and export.
The resulting sound is exactly the difference between the stock microphone and the modified one, that is, we will hear how the frequencies have been attenuated, affected.
Thank you!
sure. keep in mind each mic is a few samples ahead or behind one another at any given time because of natural phasing (measured maybe +/- 2 ish samples). this is in the same google drive folder I linked before if you want to download.

 
Last edited:
sure. keep in mind each mic is a few samples ahead or behind one another at any given time because of natural phasing (measured maybe +/- 2 ish samples). this is in the same google drive folder I linked before if you want to download.


Yes, obviously, phase shifts cannot be avoided no matter how close the microphones were, in addition, differences appear along the entire audio chain, including external preamps, preamps in the audio interface, etc.
After inverting the phase of a track, did you adjust the levels so that the minimum sound is heard?
When I will have another unmodified p420 I will try to do a test as rigorous as possible, with white noise.
Your tests were very useful, maybe you can also post tests on voice, acoustic guitar, etc.
Thank you very much!
 
Yes, obviously, phase shifts cannot be avoided no matter how close the microphones were, in addition, differences appear along the entire audio chain, including external preamps, preamps in the audio interface, etc.
After inverting the phase of a track, did you adjust the levels so that the minimum sound is heard?
When I will have another unmodified p420 I will try to do a test as rigorous as possible, with white noise.
Your tests were very useful, maybe you can also post tests on voice, acoustic guitar, etc.
Thank you very much!
yes, correct. clip gain is nearly identical between the two multitracks
 
yes, correct. clip gain is nearly identical between the two multitracks
I was not referring to equal levels visually on the VU-meters in the DAW.
I'm talking about adjusting the levels in tracks, auditorily, so that the minimum sound is heard. I expected more of the mid and low frequencies to disappear though, with all the phase deviations.
With samples downloaded from you I would have done this test, but I only have a smartphone here without a daw on it.
 
I was not referring to equal levels visually on the VU-meters in the DAW.
I'm talking about adjusting the levels in tracks, auditorily, so that the minimum sound is heard. I expected more of the mid and low frequencies to disappear though, with all the phase deviations.
With samples downloaded from you I would have done this test, but I only have a smartphone here without a daw on it.
Correct and yes
 
@zzzzz
You could try something crazy: 😁
Before reversing a track 180°:
At the beginning of the tracks, increase the size of the waveform, to (+) horizontally (the time axis) to the maximum, to see the milliseconds, frames. Then with Drag and Drop drag the delayed track so that the waveforms are aligned.
And then to reverse the phase, to try like that. I know, it's not something rigorous, but it's interesting to listen to the result.😀
 
@zzzzz
You could try something crazy: 😁
Before reversing a track 180°:
At the beginning of the tracks, increase the size of the waveform, to (+) horizontally (the time axis) to the maximum, to see the milliseconds, frames. Then with Drag and Drop drag the delayed track so that the waveforms are aligned.
And then to reverse the phase, to try like that. I know, it's not something rigorous, but it's interesting to listen to the result.😀
Yes, already did this for the initially uploaded files, which is where I came up with the +/-2 ish samples offset measurement of natural phasing. Feel free to experiment yourself with a DAW.

Just to clarify, because tone of type often gets lost online: I am not trying to say “I KNOW STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO,” but I do this for a living and wouldn’t have posted the evaluation clips if they were not properly aligned first.
 
Yes, already did this for the initially uploaded files, which is where I came up with the +/-2 ish samples offset measurement of natural phasing. Feel free to experiment yourself with a DAW.

Just to clarify, because tone of type often gets lost online: I am not trying to say “I KNOW STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO,” but I do this for a living and wouldn’t have posted the evaluation clips if they were not properly aligned first.
Excellent! In DIY we always have to improvise, try all kinds of things, we have limited resources.
👍
From a linguistic point of view, many of us here have a problem. I am not an English speaker. I use an online translator. If I reverse his translation into my language, I most often notice that it distorts my intention of expression. It sometimes ends up diverting the context, the idea, the tenses of the verbs, etc.
So if you thought I was giving directions, I'm sorry, I just have a lot of ideas and I'm very curious.
Thank you once again for your effort, it is difficult to make some tests as objective as possible and it is admirable when you generously offer the results of your work to others.
 
Since the subject shifted slightly from purely technical aspects...

The question is: does the microphone need to sound like a U87 or does it need to sound good? Objectively good*.

I spent years as a photographer and a graphic designer so my take is: if you have a good starting point - a photo with all the information in it (all the halftones, full tonal range, no blown out highlights, no evenly blacked out shadows), flat image really, then you can do everything** with it. Manipulate, tweak to your heart's content.
If you have a photo with a baked in character then your options are limited.

Same, I think, goes for sound. If the mic enables you to record every tone properly, flat, then you can EQ it however you like.
If the recorded material already has its character imposed by the mic then you can EQ to certain degree only. You cannot lift "shadows", you cannot rescue "blown highlights" i.e. distortion.

Sure, it's nice to record material "ready to go". But then you need to have umpteen mics, each with its own characteristic.
With a camera I can manipulate the image before I trip the shutter - depth of field, shutter speed, lighting, expose for light or shadows etc. And get an almost finished pic SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera). Not so much with microphones. They're fixed tools. Fixed frequency response, fixed self noise, distorsion or lack of it. Take it or leave it.

So, one needs to ask themselves: do I want my recordings sound all the same? Like recorded with U87 each and every one of them? Or is it better to have a good first microphone that gives me clear and full spectrum and then, if - and only if - I want a certain sound, I will use my DAW to obtain it? Because you will put the material into DAW anyway.

With time the collection will grow. With time...

------
Some simplifications*** were made here obviously.

*) Not saying U87 sound bad. It has a certain colour, I gather.

**) almost

***) I know saying "simplifications" in such along text is a bit of a strech...
 
Since the subject shifted slightly from purely technical aspects...

The question is: does the microphone need to sound like a U87 or does it need to sound good? Objectively good*.

I spent years as a photographer and a graphic designer so my take is: if you have a good starting point - a photo with all the information in it (all the halftones, full tonal range, no blown out highlights, no evenly blacked out shadows), flat image really, then you can do everything** with it. Manipulate, tweak to your heart's content.
If you have a photo with a baked in character then your options are limited.

Same, I think, goes for sound. If the mic enables you to record every tone properly, flat, then you can EQ it however you like.
If the recorded material already has its character imposed by the mic then you can EQ to certain degree only. You cannot lift "shadows", you cannot rescue "blown highlights" i.e. distortion.

Sure, it's nice to record material "ready to go". But then you need to have umpteen mics, each with its own characteristic.
With a camera I can manipulate the image before I trip the shutter - depth of field, shutter speed, lighting, expose for light or shadows etc. And get an almost finished pic SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera). Not so much with microphones. They're fixed tools. Fixed frequency response, fixed self noise, distorsion or lack of it. Take it or leave it.

So, one needs to ask themselves: do I want my recordings sound all the same? Like recorded with U87 each and every one of them? Or is it better to have a good first microphone that gives me clear and full spectrum and then, if - and only if - I want a certain sound, I will use my DAW to obtain it? Because you will put the material into DAW anyway.

With time the collection will grow. With time...

------
Some simplifications*** were made here obviously.

*) Not saying U87 sound bad. It has a certain colour, I gather.

**) almost

***) I know saying "simplifications" in such along text is a bit of a strech...
@pmfalcman you are perfectly right
Indeed, sometimes we also analyze side aspects related to the topic, we let ourselves be captivated by many ideas.
*
We read the title of the thread, but I say that the akg modded microphone cannot sound identical to the U87, (we have discussed many times why), but it can sound close, in the same park.
*
The microphone doesn't have to sound identical to the U87 (whatever the revision), but it has to sound good in a certain scenario, on a certain source.
*
Not even the Neumann U87 sounds perfect, "radio ready", in all situations, on the contrary, it often requires substantial processing.
 
@pmfalcman you are perfectly right
Indeed, sometimes we also analyze side aspects related to the topic, we let ourselves be captivated by many ideas.
*
We read the title of the thread, but I say that the akg modded microphone cannot sound identical to the U87, (we have discussed many times why), but it can sound close, in the same park.
*
The microphone doesn't have to sound identical to the U87 (whatever the revision), but it has to sound good in a certain scenario, on a certain source.
*
Not even the Neumann U87 sounds perfect, "radio ready", in all situations, on the contrary, it often requires substantial processing.

yeah I was gonna chime in and say -- typically, a U87 is never the first LDC I reach for in any context ha ha. These P420's are the first U87-ish mics I've owned in many years.
 
yeah I was gonna chime in and say -- typically, a U87 is never the first LDC I reach for in any context ha ha. These P420's are the first U87-ish mics I've owned in many years.
Ha, Ha! Vocal artists always ask me for a brighter microphone, they want more treble in control headphones and they always end up preferring for example my old TLM103 bought over 25 years ago (by the way, the current model sounds a little different) over the U87 which they say does not inspire them.
(but enough with the off-topic discussions, our colleagues will argue with us again 😁)
 
Ha, Ha! Vocal artists always ask me for a brighter microphone, they want more treble in control headphones and they always end up preferring for example my old TLM103 bought over 25 years ago (by the way, the current model sounds a little different) over the U87 which they say does not inspire them.
(but enough with the off-topic discussions, our colleagues will argue with us again 😁)
It's a good argument for having EQ in their HP mix. :cool:
 
if you have a good starting point - a photo with all the information in it (all the halftones, full tonal range, no blown out highlights, no evenly blacked out shadows), flat image really, then you can do everything** with it. Manipulate, tweak to your heart's content. If you have a photo with a baked in character then your options are limited.

Same, I think, goes for sound. If the mic enables you to record every tone properly, flat, then you can EQ it however you like. If the recorded material already has its character imposed by the mic then you can EQ to certain degree only. You cannot lift "shadows", you cannot rescue "blown highlights" i.e. distortion.


Good Analogy. While one can alter an image with software, it is better to capture the intended tonality and emotional impact in-camera from the start. Similarly, while one can alter a recording with software effects, it is usually best to manifest the intended tonal and emotional character during the performance and capture that with the microphone. Well said, old man. James
 
Actually I meant that for the first microphone I'd aim for a tonally neutral one. Which can be adjusted in post if need be. Because it's the only mic I have and it has to serve various applications.
I wouldn't want to restrict myself to one sound, no matter how trendy or famous.
No matter how good U87 sounds it doesn't suit well everybody and everything.
With time and when the budget permits one builds a collection of various mics, with various characters. But it comes with time and experience.

I mean: Make this P220 sound good (if it lacks anything) and go on recording. Do not aim for U87 sound right from the start. You can obtain it in post. If need be.
Leave it for second, third ... tenth mic in your collection.
 
Back
Top