U87 circuit, and HF roll-off curve

[Paul W]

No, I’m saying your entire premise may be too simplistic to begin with and others may not be looking at the problem with such simplicity.

Try a U67, U87, and your proposed good k67-type capsule with a flat circuit and any choice of correction outside of the mic. Are they different? Enough for you to care? Maybe it’s enough for others to care? Heck, just try a U87i and U87Ai. Are they the same or different?

What exactly do you think is my "entire premise"?

Where have I said or even vaguely suggested that there are no differences worth caring about between a U67 and a U87, or between a U87i and a U87ai?

What I have actually said is very different from that, as far as I understand it.

I have said or strongly suggested that a U87 with a little RC treble deemphasis circuit is more or less indistinguishable from THE VERY SAME MIC with that particuilar subcircuit missing or disabled and an equivalent first-order HF deemphasis done in software in your DAW. I'm assuming we hold constant the headbasket, the body, and everything else about the analogue circuit, because all of those things may matter to the sound to some extent you might care about. (And of course the capsule, where the really tricky engineering and demanding manufacturing matter.)

I am certainly NOT saying that all analog circuitry can easily be replaced with software that sounds exactly the same, but we're talking about a trivial first-order RC filter here, with no significant nonlinearities, etc. As far as I know---and I'll stand happily corrected if I'm wrong---that's the very simple kind of thing you CAN actually do in software in a way that's indistinguishable from doing it in hardware, except a little bit more consistently, due to minor variations in the actual resistor and capacitor values in real hardware. I'm NOT talking about tubes or anything operating in weird nonlinear regimes.

 

[Recording Engineer]

What exactly do you think is my "entire premise"?

There are many mics that have a good K67 type capsule, and good but flat or nearly flat circuitry, which many snooty people will not use, simply because they're NOT willing to emulate Neumann by cutting the treble by a few dB, if they have to do it themselves.

I'm happy to use those uncool mics and save thousands of dollars by nudging the HF down myself.

Have you actually tested this premise or does this only remain your theory? Have you done simple comparisons, such as what I’ve suggested? If so, what were your opinions? What were other’s opinions?

If I follow that same type of premise, I can use the Warm WA-8000 in place of the Sony C800G and save thousands too. When we can’t afford it, we can convince ourselves of anything. It’s alright, we’ve all been there… And I’m not even knocking the Warm! It’s a cool-enough mic on acoustic guitar.

 

[Paul W]

Have you actually tested this premise or does this only remain your theory? Have you done simple comparisons, such as what I’ve suggested? If so, what were your opinions? What were other’s opinions?

If I follow that same type of premise, I can use the Warm WA-8000 in place of the Sony C800G and save thousands too. When we can’t afford it, we can convince ourselves of anything. It’s alright, we’ve all been there… And I’m not even knocking the Warm! It’s a cool-enough mic on acoustic guitar.

You have missed what I thought was my point.

The point was not that an affordable K67 mic that's too bright is necessarily just as good in every way as a $3K Neumann if you just roll off the extra treble. (Although if it's well-made, it is definitely worth trying!) There are various differences (e.g. in headbaskets, other aspects of the circuitry, minor differences in the capsule, etc.) that may matter to you for your purposes, but the simple, correctable difference in overall FR curve should not be the deciding factor, because that is the one thing you can fix.

The point is that if you rule out a microphone SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE TOO BRIGHT, you will NEVER KNOW if it would have been plenty good if you HAD simply rolled off the unwanted treble a few dB.

The brightness of a microphone is simply not part of its immutable and inviolable character.

That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to cast that particular microphone aside. Maybe there are, and maybe there aren't. Maybe it should be thrown aside with great force, but NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S A FEW dB TOO BRIGHT ABOVE 9KHz.

As far as what I personally find satisfactory, yeah, I'm pretty happy so far with my AKG Perception 200s, which I have collected since seeing this thread and kingkorg's analysis:

https://groupdiy.com/threads/akg-perception-p220-to-neumann-u87-5-min-mod-p200-p100-p400-p420.67473/

Does he claim that a modded Perception sounds EXACTLY like a U87ai? Nope. Would it be good enough for YOU? I have no idea.

Do I find it plausible that it's a closer approximation than you might otherwise think? Yes, I do. Have I proven that? Nope. It is my understanding that the K67 capsule and U87 circuitry are among the better-understood and better-copied devices as microphones go.

Do I think it suggests that people shouldn't be too hung up on a mic being simply "too bright"? Yes, I absolutely do. It is pretty clear that some people have weird ideas based in zero understanding of how mics are actually engineered, making them think that there's something sacred about the particular FR curve of a mic as shipped from the factory, which determines what it's good or bad for. THERE IS NOT.

 

[Paul W]

If I follow that same type of premise, I can use the Warm WA-8000 in place of the Sony C800G and save thousands too. When we can’t afford it, we can convince ourselves of anything. It’s alright, we’ve all been there… And I’m not even knocking the Warm! It’s a cool-enough mic on acoustic guitar.

As I understand it, the K67 type of capsule is pretty straighforwardly imitable and there are pretty good copies of it that are common in relatively affordable mics... as opposed to, say, the AKG CK12, which has more complicated chambering and a much finickier assembly process, and therefore no cheap good copies. (Just expensive copies and not-copies like edge-terminated K67s pretending to be CK12's.)

Thinking you can make a pretty good affordable K67-based mic therefore does NOT imply thinking that you can do the same with a CK12 or a Sony C800.

Don't assume that if I think one kind of mic is reasonably easy to copy reasonably well, I must think ALL mics are similarly easy to reasonably copy.

I DON'T.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Thinking you can make a pretty good affordable K67-based mic therefore does NOT imply thinking that you can do the same with a CK12 or a Sony C800.

The WA-8000 are both C800G is k67-type based; so why can’t I apply the exact same premise?

 

[Recording Engineer]

The WA-8000 are both C800G is k67-type based; so why can’t I apply the exact same premise?

Really though, that’s neither here nor there.

I’m following your true point now though. Fine. However, that’s all assuming it’s just too bright. Most of the time that’s not where the story ends.

In reality, from what I see, most people that complain about mics that are so bright that they’ll cut your head off, are not complaining that it’s too bright. It’s the cut your head off part. There’s something in there, no matter how much you cut, it’s always there; you can’t get rid of it. There’s are harshness that’s there where you’ll have to make it dull for it to finally settle-down. At that point, it’s actually unusable to them.

It happens to non-super-bright mics too. Some mics (regardless of brightness-factor) you can boost the top like crazy and it never-ever becomes harsh. Others, right away! And every space between.

 

[kingkorg]

@Paul W I've had these kinds of discussions many times before, some here, some in real life. To me it was enough when one of the leading mastering engineers in Norway couldn't tell the diference between his vintage u87 and Perception modded by me. He kept guessing wrong. To this day he doesn't care if he uses modded Perception or u87. I have many related stories like this, and they end the same or similar way. Not just mic related.

The only things making Frankenstrat and Greeny relevant are EVH and Gary Moore.

That being said, there are many people who simply have different approach, and are perfectly entitled to different opinion. The only issue i really have is when someone sells some crap claiming it to be somehow superior without any evidence, or substance to back it up. That, i simply can't stand. There's Gibson KH "Greeny" now for sale. That kind of stuff sucks.

Also i can't claim i can hear everything. That's why i insist on measuring stuff, but of course listen as well. The reason i have doubts regarding my hearing and perception is because i've met people in my life similar to Rick Beato's kid who are simply freaks of nature + years of hard work. Even though i know how it works i'll never be able to hear/perceive things Rick's kid does. That will not tho guarantee his success in music industry in future.

I don't agree with everyone here, and that's ok. I'll never be able, nor do i want to change anyones mind. I can promise one thing, i've never in my life heard a song where i thought "they should have used a different mic there". Microphones are not bottleneck in recording if you know how to use them. Modern classics are recorded on "cheap" mics all the time, and if Adele had music videos like Sinatra singing into u47, Røde would be selling their tube mics like crazy.

Instead you had Lady Gaga singing into u47 back of the capsule in cardioid mode, and no one cared.



The best vocal take of my own voice was taken on Røde mic back in 2005 when i knew little about mics. For years i've been chasing that sound not even knowing what mic was used. Just a couple years ago i found out it was Røde Classic into DBX160a. One thing i "forgot" to mention is that producer/mixer was the most experienced and sought-after one in the country i was living in. It was about him, not the mic. And it was about how he made me sing, and feel at the moment.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

There's Gibson KH "Greeny" now for sale.

Is it simply not god, or not good for the price?

 

[kingkorg]

Is it simply not god, or not good for the price?

No idea. Just the fact what's behind the marketing. EVH made a name for him self, sold sh*t load of guitars. James Hetfield as well. Kirk made name for him self for all the wrong reasons, sold 3 of his own models and then decided to plug into Gary Moore's heritage to make a buck...

Sounds familiar? All the 47, 251, c12 models sold nowdays? Yup, capitalism is great, but what happened to inovation part of it?

Edit: I'm sure they throw the guitars out of a car and re-glue the neck, as this is what makes this guitar sound great according to KH.

 

[tomas.borgstrom]

As always these discussions get very polarized since we are stubborn about our beliefs and our opinions are expressed as facts. Sometimes we even agree without noticing. I hope that I don't apeear as provoked or angry in my comments because I'm not.

It is pretty clear that some people have weird ideas based in zero understanding of how mics are actually engineered, making them think that there's something sacred about the particular FR curve of a mic as shipped from the factory, which determines what it's good or bad for.

I don't know if you think that I have weird ideas but I've never said that there's something sacred about a particular EQ circuit in a microphone. You can achieve similar results with a lowpass filter in your DAW. My point is that I want to get the best possible sound when I record and choosing the right microphone and putting it in the right place is the way to go. If the microphone preamp has a high pass filter and I need it I will use it. But that's to get rid of rumble, not improve the frequency response of the microphone. I believe that the idea of just correcting the flaws of a microphone with EQ afterwards is quite rare among professional sound engineers. I personally don't have the talent to predict the result of such a recording session. I'm more open to have an EQ in the recording chain for artistic reasons, but it's tricky. I did a session with an experienced producer a couple of years ago where the aim was to mix the whole session "to tape" with EQ compression etc. It didn't turn out very well. The console being a Neve 8068 didn't help....I guess we were not good enough.

If you have a bright microphone that you know sound awesome with some high pass filtering thats great. Knowing how your microphones and other gear behave and react is very important, as I stated in an earlier post.
If you don't have many microphones to choose between EQ is of course what you typically use if it's to boomy, honky, bright etc. Experimenting with microphone placement is still my first advise.

Some people seem to think that a great microphone is a Platonically ideal *perfect* system that you should not mess with.

I mess a lot with my microphones. Even the classic microphones all have their strengths and weaknesses, ex U47 is not an ideal microphone in any way. But they were designed by very skilled engineers and their build quility is second to none. No system is perfect but some stuff tend to work in most situations and others are one trick ponys. I'm sceptical to standardized "vocal chains" with this microphone into that preamp, compressor etc. Then you assume that all voices have the same attack, timbre etc.

I know that I constantly refer to the "great microphones" but they have become a benchmark and a reference, especially on a forum where everybody is discussing and building clones of them all the time. I have very little experience with røde but I use a lot of other "uncool" microphones in different price ranges. An amazing microphone that's fairly cheap is Pearl CC22 / CO22. Clear and flat but not sterile with weight in the low end. Works just as well in a classical recording as a pop session.

I've watched or listened to a bunch of mic shootouts and they've mostly struck me as completely useless, because the only differences I could clearly tell were mostly obvious (even glaring) basic FR differences, and that's the only easily-changed thing about a mic.

I'm convinced that you can hear a lot more! Transient response, distorsion, resonances, body, depth etc. It's always a lot harder to listen to shootouts made by others since you don't have the context of the room sound, how the voice/instrument sounds, where the microphone is placed, the impact of the preamp etc. A lot of shootouts on youtube etc are completely useless, although some are really good.

In reality, from what I see, most people that complain about mics that are so bright that they’ll cut your head off, are not complaining that it’s too bright. It’s the cut your head off part. There’s something in there, no matter how much you cut, it’s always there; you can’t get rid of it. There’s are harshness that’s there where you’ll have to make it dull for it to finally settle-down. At that point, it’s actually unusable to them.

It happens to non-super-bright mics too. Some mics (regardless of brightness-factor) you can boost the top like crazy and it never-ever becomes harsh. Others, right away! And every space between.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say.

i've never in my life heard a song where i thought "they should have used a different mic there".

I've recorded a lot of songs where I wish I would have used another microphone!

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I've recorded a lot of songs where I wish I would have used another microphone!

And you're probably te only one that thinks so...

 

[tomas.borgstrom]

And you're probably te only one that thinks so...

I think it's quite common that mixing engineers wish that the vocals (or other sources) were recorded with another microphone (or technique). Rerecording, replacing with samples is not rare even when it comes to acoustic music. One of my friends once mixed a project with the worst vocal sound he had ever heard. Turned out it was a U47 the artist just had bought. Maybe they used the Lady Gaga technique, but more likely it was in desperate need for service.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I think it's quite common that mixing engineers wish that the vocals (or other sources) were recorded with another microphone (or technique).

Of course it happens, but it's often the result of the pursuit for the "perfect" take. Joe Public would not make the difference in most cases.
I would say it's the obsessive nature of sound engineers.

Rerecording, replacing with samples is not rare even when it comes to acoustic music.

Often because of playing/timing issues; seldom for sound character, unless a gross mistake has happened, like using an electric guitar instead of an acoustic. Of course it is quite frequent to replace a leading (rough) track.

One of my friends once mixed a project with the worst vocal sound he had ever heard.

That is a perfect example of the "gross mistake" I was referring to.
But he did not make the mistake. He had to fix it, though.
When I do the tracking, I always make sure that the takes are good for the final results, and I never go back.
Indeed, many times I have received projects with poorly recorded tracks. It's a common issue with people starting a record in their kitchen.
I hate this separation between tasks. When tracking, the SE makes choices that may be conflicting with the mix engineer's vision. Then the mastering engineer may have another...

Turned out it was a U47 the artist just had bought. Maybe they used the Lady Gaga technique, but more likely it was in desperate need for service.

I've often seen people buying expensive gear, not knowing if it's in good shape, not knowing how to use it, and entrusting the results to a professional, hoping they'll turn the sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

[Matador]

In my experience the recording chain is organized backwards in terms of importance...as in, the last items are the least important.

A good source in a well treated room can be recorded with just about anything. The room/space quality, the sound source, and mike position makes probably 85-90% of the final result, and all of that is before the actual microphone is considered.

 

[tomas.borgstrom]

In my experience the recording chain is organized backwards in terms of importance...as in, the last items are the least important.

A good source in a well treated room can be recorded with just about anything. The room/space quality, the sound source, and mike position makes probably 85-90% of the final result, and all of that is before the actual microphone is considered.

These essential conditions are self-evident, but "just about anything" has to be interpreted as nothing but an impactful phrase. The difference between the Berlin Philharmonic recorded with DPA compared to SM57s (or should I say a mobile phone) will not feel like 10-15%.

Why do we even bother to be on this forum with thousands of threads about microphone mods, capsule thicknesses, transformer ratios, tube microphonics etc?

 

[Cqwet Dbdfte]

These essential conditions are self-evident, but "just about anything" has to be interpreted as nothing but an impactful phrase. The difference between the Berlin Philharmonic recorded with DPA compared to SM57s (or should I say a mobile phone) will not feel like 10-15%.

Why do we even bother to be on this forum with thousands of threads about microphone mods, capsule thicknesses, transformer ratios, tube microphonics etc?

Why?
Because we have nothing better to do ATM. ;-)

 

[kingkorg]

Adele Skyfall vocal summary from Audio technology magazine:

"Sure enough her vocal take was done on 2 separate occasions: 1 at Paul Epworth's studio with a Rode Classic 2 into a T-funk pre, the other was at Abbey Road with a 49 into a 1081 into an 1176."

Quote:

"We had also used Rode on that song (Roling in the deep), and because it sounded so good we used it again.(Skyfall)"

Now, let's go listen how cheap Røde's capsule found also in NT2a ruined half of this song. And all the others recorded by Paul Epworth using Classic. Or is there something magical about Classic 2's tube circuit that makes it superior to NT2a? Or is this all in our heads? Or am i crazy to chase Classic 2's sound for 15 years without knowing what it was?

Or is it after all about the person who knows what they are doing even if you give them vocal take made on two diametrically different mics?

The point wouldn't be Classic and m49 are the same, nor that you can eq Classic to sound like m49 or God forbid the other way around , but that PERFORMANCE will outweigh the GEAR even in a multi million $ production.

I'll die claiming there's nothing wrong with Røde mics, but i 100% understand why some people have issue taming them.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

"Sure enough her vocal take was done on 2 separate occasions: 1 at Paul Epworth's studio with a Rode Classic 2 into a T-funk pre, the other was at Abbey Road with a 49 into a 1081 into an 1176."

That's the kind of thing I call a "gross mistake". I can't imagine the reasons for such a poor methodology.
Don't tell me that she was so busy she didn't have time for re-doing a complete take.
Or that the first take was so good they had to keep it.
Honest, if I was the SE, I would be more concerned with the intrusive breathing sounds.
And no, I couldn't notice a significant difference between takes. In addition to being stupid, I may be deaf.

 

[kingkorg]

That's the kind of thing I call a "gross mistake". I can't imagine the reasons for such a poor methodology.
Don't tell me that she was so busy she didn't have time for re-doing a complete take.
Or that the first take was so godd they had to keep it.
Honest, if I was the SE, I would be more concerned with the intrusive breathing sounds.
And no, I couldn't notice a significant difference between takes. In addition to being stupid, I may be deaf.

Whatever it was no one cared in the end. It could be as simple as she was on tour times the deadlines, and him being a rebel to commit a blasphemy in a leap of faith. Or maybe he hadn't spent enough time on forums to realize what he absolutely shouldn't do

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Whatever it was no one cared in the end.

Absolutely.

It could be as simple as she was on tour times the deadlines, and him being a rebel to commit a blasphemy in a leap of faith.

All good reasons for a bad choice.

Or maybe he hadn't spent enough time on forums to realize what he absolutely shouldn't do

Actually I think that's what it is; it takes a dose of OCD to be a sound engineer.
Or it was a hoax the SE devised for his own gratification...