Is there any new mic you can buy or a kit to build that sounds as good as a vintage U87i?

[living sounds]

Not higher than 10K. I haven't seen a U87 with a higher source resistor than 10 K.
(Most of the time I end up with a value between 3K and 5K.)
But since the 2N3819 (and other FETs) have a very big tolerance, it is possible that a FET can't be biased correctly in a U87 circuit.

No, this is about the drain trimpot, not the source resistor, please see above.

 

[RuudNL]

Why would you change the drain resistor?

 

[living sounds]

Why would you change the drain resistor?

Please see the posts, including links, above regarding biasing via both the source and the drain resistor.

 

[LevinGuitar]

I have found some that of mine needed about 12K to reach 10v at drain and about 3v in source and for a brief test it sounded like other 2N3819 with 6.5K (10v and ~1.6v at source) I did not used it but if it sound as good why not to use it?

 

[Gus]

I worked on a 70's? 87 that had a 11k source resistor that looked to be stock.

 

[living sounds]

But did any of you ever find it necessary to adjust the drain resistor in this type of circuit? The one I am currently working on is a chinese mic where they combined the U87 signal path with a TLM103 type DC-DC converter. So instead of a 47k resistor that pulls down from nominally 29V there is a 100k resistor that has 38V on the other end.

 

[13engrsapper]

our old U87 crushed the new U87ai's... and it was not even a really good example. STILL sounded GREAT for a FET mic.

 

[13engrsapper]

our old U87 crushed the new U87ai's... and it was not even a really good example. STILL sounded GREAT for a FET mic.

I honestly do not think there is ANTYTHING you can do to get the new ones, or a clone/DIY to sound like a good example of an old U87 or any good vintage mic of real quality... if there were, we would all be using it already. I think you either accept the new stuff sounds different and often great beyond words for the right situations, or pay up for the vintage stuff. AGAINST our engineers advice I spent about 17K on a few new tube clones... expecting him to complain about things I could not hear (maybe, I have trained ears, but I'm not a recording/mixing engineer... and he has REALLY good ears).

So when we finally started looking for a REAL Vintage U67 for a client, he said "now you get to hear the difference."

The first one arrived, our U87 crushed it. it was a bad example. He ordered a high end clone... sucked. Same thing, our OLD AVERAGE SOUNDING U87 crushed the new U67 clone, and not so great vintage 67's. He actually had to buy 5 to get a really good example. Then I got my chance to put up our manufacturer customized for us (and a very well known local industry star) U67 clones and have a listen myself.

Expecting no difference, Id already prepared my humble "I win" comments... BUT I WAS WRONG.

The next day I put up all of our new/clone mics we had purchased up on eBay for a serious hit in investment cost. NOT so with a good vintage mic - you can use it, love it (do no sleep with it), then sell it for what you paid or more... sometimes lots more.

DO NOT GET ME WRONG - some new stuff sounds bleeping amazing, it is just really different - I know not the thing you want to hear in groupDIY right?!

 

[LevinGuitar]

I would experiment a lot before concluding new stuff can't beat the old one.

And I would definately buy a nearly new AI and try some adjustments instead of looking for a vintage 87 that are selling at super high prices without even being serviced by house. Same with the new 67, try a good TFK tube inside, that helps!

I have seen a lot of dirt on capsules in 10-20 years old microphones, can't imagine how much "mojo" are on a capsule from 70-80s.

The only thing I have been told is that currently Neumann tune their capsules a bit higher, any confirmation of this?

 

[Ricardus]

I hate to beat this dead horse but unless you did your listtening tests double blind then the results are worthless. Our brains lie to us.

 

[Khron]

I hate to beat this dead horse but unless you did your listtening tests double blind then the results are worthless. Our brains lie to us.

Double-blind AND recording all the compared mics at once (otherwise you're listening to different takes, too)...

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

Double-blind AND recording all the compared mics at once (otherwise you're listening to different takes, too)...

Not the same thing (because SDC capsules are obviously made differently by different manufacturers) but I can't tell you how many times in blind shootouts I've picked a cheaper mic like an MK-012 or an AT4053b over something like an MKH50 (the latter having obvious practical advantages which is why I have an MKH 8050, but I also liked the MK-012 enough over the Audix SCX1-HC and AT4053b that I have 8 MK-012s), and I've picked older C414s over U87s and U87ais before, and I've picked a Behringer B5 over a KM184 (there's a thread on Gearspace where the two were compared and most people thought the Behringer sounded better on the voices and guitar), and an MK-220 over an AT4047 and U87ai. We can pretend there's some magic mojo that makes a U87 inherently better, but in the end it's a combination of the how the mic performs (by which I mean sensitivity, self noise, max SPL, etc.) and sounds on the source (bad word choices I know).

I'm actually surprised at some of the bias I'm seeing on here, because I assumed with the DIY focus people would be willing to admit clones can get you really close. Put a U87i or a U67 in a body with a different dimension and grille and a clone using quality components in the original body and I'm almost certain you'll prefer the clone if you do a blind shootout, if you can even hear the difference between the two.

 

[Mellow Audio]

I listened to A LOT of comparisons, have build (other) mics myself before and I recently got a U87ai.

Long story short - none of the clones I've heard so far sounds as natural, effortless, balanced. And the reissue doesn't either.

The clones don't have the perfect stiff Neumann response (they sound various degrees of fizzy, like ringing, even the good ones like the BeezNeez are not free of that). Is there any manufacturer who actually nailed that Neumann quality? The U87ai has it, of course (thanks to the Neumann capsule) but it sounds more pinched, aggressive (something you cannot fully compensate with EQ).

It's hard to describe the quality, it's just the sound I know from countless records. Smooth and silky, yet open and clear. A U67 without the tube color.

I know this is an old post but will give it my best ;-)
No u87ai or clone microphone of today can match the original u87i for many factors.
Capsule has been coloured.
components are aged and were never military spec ie. 1% tolerance.
The closest transformer to the original is the Tab funken t-13

After time, all microphones develop their own character even between same model ones.

Our ME-87i has been built to the exact specs as the 1979 rev16 but uses newer components and so of course it will not be exact but the sound is ohhhh so good.

 

[soliloqueen]

I do wonder how much of the difference, if it is there, is literally due to age. Not due to design differences but just age. I always figured that these vintage models sounded way more like current ones on the day they came out. I've been working on capsule replicas recently and I've been thinking about what could cause the perceived difference in sound between a new and old capsule. Thermal degradation of the diaphragm? Who knows. If it's even there.

 

[Khron]

I do wonder how much of the difference, if it is there, is literally due to age. Not due to design differences but just age. I always figured that these vintage models sounded way more like current ones on the day they came out. I've been working on capsule replicas recently and I've been thinking about what could cause the perceived difference in sound between a new and old capsule. Thermal degradation of the diaphragm? Who knows. If it's even there.

... And/or confirmation bias...

 

[RuudNL]

You hear what you want to hear...

 

[rjuly]

The new UA (Bock) 187 should be excellent. Not cheap at $5999.

https://www.uaudio.com/press/releases/2022/introducing-ua-microphones
- Richard

 

[GeorgeToledo]

I do wonder how much of the difference, if it is there, is literally due to age. Not due to design differences but just age. I always figured that these vintage models sounded way more like current ones on the day they came out. I've been working on capsule replicas recently and I've been thinking about what could cause the perceived difference in sound between a new and old capsule. Thermal degradation of the diaphragm? Who knows. If it's even there.

As far as degradation goes, look into the hygroscopic qualities of PE based films. Unused PE family membrane will have a tendency to tighten over time, while membrane that has had a lot of use will tend to loosen from the humidity cycles.

There are a fair amount of small design differences between old Neumann k47 and k67 vs new that shouldn’t be discounted. Changing the spacing to be machined probably did have some effect on the damping mass vs membrane mass.

Some people who have tested the differences on many units indicate it shifted the uppermost high end peak downward when it comes to k67.

 

[rock soderstrom]

I do wonder how much of the difference, if it is there, is literally due to age. Not due to design differences but just age. I always figured that these vintage models sounded way more like current ones on the day they came out. I've been working on capsule replicas recently and I've been thinking about what could cause the perceived difference in sound between a new and old capsule. Thermal degradation of the diaphragm? Who knows. If it's even there.

As far as degradation goes, look into the hygroscopic qualities of PE based films. Unused PE family membrane will have a tendency to tighten over time, while membrane that has had a lot of use will tend to loosen from the humidity cycles.

There are a fair amount of small design differences between old Neumann k47 and k67 vs new that shouldn’t be discounted. Changing the spacing to be machined probably did have some effect on the damping mass vs membrane mass.

Some people who have tested the differences on many units indicate it shifted the uppermost high end peak downward when it comes to k67.

I think there are aging processes that can make a difference in sound. Whether this always leads to a better result I doubt. To find out, you would have to test two new K47/K67 against each other, then age one of them with a procedure yet to be defined, and then see what changed.

Who sacrifices their original capsules for science?

 

[GeorgeToledo]

This article is related to the subject:

https://www.thiersch-mic.de/en/estm_faq1.html