SM87 like a U87

[straightnut]

I have the 1st and 5th sets of the RAP CDs and I went back to listen
again. I found that whenever either a U87 or an AKG 414 were used on
vocals there was a naturalness and focus that was an unmistakable sign
of quality.
The U87 seems to be more lush, but I also liked the lushness of a
couple of ribbon and tube mics used as well. One thing that I found
interesting is that a lot of people used the TLM103, which most of the
time didn't "sing" to me. I found it clear, but a little harsh.
Anyway, all of these mics are out of my price range, but then I came
across a recording on the 1st set disc 2 by Glen Drinkwater.

I had made it an exercise not to look at the recording notes before
guessing which mic, or at least what price and type of mic, it might
be. I guessed the drinkwater vocal to be the U87. I was very surprised
to see that the mic was a $275 stage mic, the Shure SM87.

So now I'm curious about the "87." Did Shure attempt to mimic the
sound of the U87 with this mic?

By the way, I loved the AKGC414B/uls on one of the acoustic guitar
recordings. Is it commonly used on acoustic?

Thanks,
Jeff

[Riccardo Rubini]

straightnut wrote:

> So now I'm curious about the "87." Did Shure attempt to mimic the
> sound of the U87 with this mic?
>

The 87 in the name is suspicious, but so far I've seen the SM87 used mostly
within a live environment than anything else. The U87 is the classic studio
mic, on the other hand.

Riccardo

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 21, 10:44 am, straightnut > wrote:
> I have the 1st and 5th sets of the RAP CDs and I went back to listen
> again. I found that whenever either a U87 or an AKG 414 were used on
> vocals there was a naturalness and focus that was an unmistakable sign
> of quality.
> The U87 seems to be more lush, but I also liked the lushness of a
> couple of ribbon and tube mics used as well.

Those CDs and their recordings were produced just at the dawning of
the "cheap condenser mic" age. It's likely that anyone who had a U87,
C414, or ribbon mic had a fair amount of recording experience under
his belt so they know better than to release a harsh sounding
recording. Even today, those mics are hard to beat, but today you can
get a lot closer for a quarter of the price than you could in 1996 or
whenever the first RAP CD was made. One today would be very different
in many ways.

> One thing that I found
> interesting is that a lot of people used the TLM103, which most of the
> time didn't "sing" to me. I found it clear, but a little harsh.

Well, that's the difference between $1000 and the roughly $2500 that a
U87 cost when the TLM103 was first introduced. But today a lot of
people might prefer the brighter (more hyped) sound of the 103 for
many types of music.

> So now I'm curious about the "87." Did Shure attempt to mimic the
> sound of the U87 with this mic?

No, not at all. The SM87 is an outgrowth of the SM85, which was their
first "stage" vocal condenser mic. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85
of the SM85 was related to the 58 of SM58, but the numbering system
for microphones is rarely obvious.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

Not a chance.

DM

[straightnut]

On Dec 21, 12:31*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

>
> > One thing that I found
> > interesting is that a lot of people used the TLM103, which most of the
> > time didn't "sing" to me. I found it clear, but a little harsh.
>
> Well, that's the difference between $1000 and the roughly $2500 that a
> U87 cost when the TLM103 was first introduced. But today a lot of
> people might prefer the brighter (more hyped) sound of the 103 for
> many types of music.

Interestingly, back then I was looking for that hyped sound on
everything I recorded. I fell for the aural exciters and high end EQ
boosts and such, anything to avoid the muffled mumbly sound I was
getting with my cheap equipment and untreated room. Now though I find
myself going the opposite way, not towards muffled/mumbly of course,
but towards mellow with a sense of fresh open air around it.

>
> > So now I'm curious about the "87." Did Shure attempt to mimic the
> > sound of the U87 with this mic?
>
> No, not at all. The SM87 is an outgrowth of the SM85, which was their
> first "stage" vocal condenser mic. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85
> of the SM85 was related to the 58 of SM58, but the numbering system
> for microphones is rarely obvious.

Just a coincedence then. It sounded like the U87 to me and then the
number corresponded. I'm finally listening to the Moulton Golden Ears
course that's been gathering dust. I hope to be able to better
identify and describe what I'm hearing and searching for.
Thanks,
Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 21, 2:19*pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:
> Not a chance.
>
> DM

Not a chance that it sounds like a U87 or that the numbering is
significant?
Thanks,
Jeff

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"straightnut" > wrote in message...

> Not a chance that it sounds like a U87 or that the numbering is
> significant?

The prior. However, it's somewhat irrelevant in the long run...... I've
got a boatload of released product with nothing better than an SM-58
for lead and background vocals. It's all in how you use it and how you
treat it. You might be perfectly happy with an SM-87... I think it's grossly
bright to the point of piercing, and have to roll off tons of high-end when
singers show up in live venues wanting to use these.

DM







--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[straightnut]

On Dec 21, 6:18*pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:
> "straightnut" > wrote in message...
> > Not a chance that it sounds like a U87 or that the numbering is
> > significant?
>
> The prior. *However, it's somewhat irrelevant in the long run...... *I've
> got a boatload of released product with nothing better than an SM-58
> for lead and background vocals. *It's all in how you use it and how you
> treat it. *You might be perfectly happy with an SM-87... I think it's grossly
> bright to the point of piercing, and have to roll off tons of high-end when
> singers show up in live venues wanting to use these.
>

It surprises me that you have to subdue brightness from an SM87. The
recording I'm referring to on the RAP CD is anything but bright. It's
rather mellow. Maybe Drinkwater rolled it off like you do.
Jeff

[nebulax]

On Dec 21, 10:44 am, straightnut > wrote:
> I have the 1st and 5th sets of the RAP CDs and I went back to listen
> again. I found that whenever either a U87 or an AKG 414 were used on
> vocals there was a naturalness and focus that was an unmistakable sign
> of quality.
> The U87 seems to be more lush, but I also liked the lushness of a
> couple of ribbon and tube mics used as well. One thing that I found
> interesting is that a lot of people used the TLM103, which most of the
> time didn't "sing" to me. I found it clear, but a little harsh.
> Anyway, all of these mics are out of my price range, but then I came
> across a recording on the 1st set disc 2 by Glen Drinkwater.
>
> I had made it an exercise not to look at the recording notes before
> guessing which mic, or at least what price and type of mic, it might
> be. I guessed the drinkwater vocal to be the U87. I was very surprised
> to see that the mic was a $275 stage mic, the Shure SM87.
>
> So now I'm curious about the "87." Did Shure attempt to mimic the
> sound of the U87 with this mic?
>
> By the way, I loved the AKGC414B/uls on one of the acoustic guitar
> recordings. Is it commonly used on acoustic?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff


The SM-87 is a small diaphragm, hand-held, electret bias mic, and the
U-87 is a large diaphragm, externally polarized condenser, and by
those criteria alone they will probably sound different. The frequency
curves may be similar, but the physics of the capsules will give them
different results.

I think the AKG 414 works great for acoustic guitar, especially if you
want a bigger sound than some of the smaller diaphragm mics, like AKG
451's, or Shure SM-81's (which are also electret, BTW).

-Neb

-Neb

[HKC]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5RXaj.12532$gF4.9363@trnddc02...

I've got a boatload of released product with nothing better than an SM-58
for lead and background vocals. It's all in how you use it and how you
treat it.

This is not entirely true because with a 58 you have to work within the
capabilities of the mic which is closed and midrangy but also very rock'n
roll. You will never be able to dial in the open and natural sound of a U87
but on the other hand you may not want to, it all depends on the material
you want to capture.
With a more detailed mic (like a U87, 414, UMT70s etc) you can pretty much
get any sound you want if you are prepared to do a little post production.
I have only used the SM87 for live gigs and it is nice but it's nothing like
a U87. It's way more artificial in the high end which is hard to get rid of
but it's probably a good allrounder.

[[email protected]]

Well, I may as well chip in here, since I made the recording. The
vocal, btw was W. C. Spencer. The performance was recorded live at a
venue I used to run, the late, sometimes lamented, 12 Corners
Coffeehouse. The mic in question is one of my "go to" live
performance condensers. The other is the AKG 535. The original SM87
had a very smooth and extended response - compared to the newer Beta
87. The Beta version has a midrange bump, of which I'm not a big fan
( for instance, I absolutely loathe the ubiquitous SM58), and also
rolls off more in the bass than the SM87. As a result, it's often a
really fine mic for many female voices, and does a creditable job as
an extra, or emergency mic for fiddle or acoustic guitar. (Think of
festival situations where guest musicians suddenly appear and grab any
mic nearby)

I don't think Shure had the Neumann in mind at all, it's just a
progression of Shure's model numbers - and a perusal of old Shure
catalogs shows an SM85 and an SM87. For some reason Shure tended to
use odd numbers for their 80 series back then (sm81 sm85, sm87), and
even numbers for the 90 series(sm94, sm96, sm98) Anyway the the sm85
was a cardoid, and had a pretty nasty 'presence' bump, while the sm87
was super-cardioid and very smooth bottom to top.

I'm sure that's way more than you wanted to know.

-glenn





On Dec 21 2007, 10:44*am, straightnut > wrote:
> I have the 1st and 5th sets of the RAP CDs and I went back to listen
> again. I found that whenever either a U87 or an AKG 414 were used on
> vocals there was a naturalness and focus that was an unmistakable sign
> of quality.
> The U87 seems to be more lush, but I also liked the lushness of a
> couple of ribbon and tube mics used as well. One thing that I found
> interesting is that a lot of people used the TLM103, which most of the
> time didn't "sing" to me. I found it clear, but a little harsh.
> Anyway, all of these mics are out of my price range, but then I came
> across a recording on the 1st set disc 2 by Glen Drinkwater.
>
> I had made it an exercise not to look at the recording notes before
> guessing which mic, or at least what price and type of mic, it might
> be. I guessed the drinkwater vocal to be the U87. I was very surprised
> to see that the mic was a $275 stage mic, the Shure SM87.
>
> So now I'm curious about the "87." Did Shure attempt to mimic the
> sound of the U87 with this mic?
>
> By the way, I loved the AKGC414B/uls on one of the acoustic guitar
> recordings. Is it commonly used on acoustic?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff

[[email protected]]

David,

I'd be shocked if they were showing up with the SM87. More likely
they have the Beta87, which is quite hyped up in the high end compared
to the original sm87. The Beta is a bit thinner on the bottom as well.

-glenn


On Dec 21 2007, 6:18*pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /
Odm> wrote:
> "straightnut" > wrote in message...
> > Not a chance that it sounds like a U87 or that the numbering is
> > significant?
>
> The prior. *However, it's somewhat irrelevant in the long run...... *I've
> got a boatload of released product with nothing better than an SM-58
> for lead and background vocals. *It's all in how you use it and how you
> treat it. *You might be perfectly happy with an SM-87... I think it's grossly
> bright to the point of piercing, and have to roll off tons of high-end when
> singers show up in live venues wanting to use these.
>
> DM
>
> --
> David *Morgan (MAMS)
> Morgan Audio Media Servicehttp://www.m-a-m-sDOT com
> Dallas, Texas *(214) 662-9901
> _____________________________http://www.januarysound.com

[[email protected]]

Nope- didn't roll off the high end, at least not to any significant
degree. It was never my modus operandi to use a lot of eq. I always
had lots of mic choices at hand, so if I didn't like it during sound
check, I'd pull it & use something else. Sometimes I'd go thru 4 or 5
before I was happy. BTW, it was tracked thru a Mackie 1604, so it
wasn't like I was using some fabulous pre-amp, either.

On Dec 21 2007, 6:27*pm, straightnut > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 6:18*pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
>
> > "straightnut" > wrote in message...
> > > Not a chance that it sounds like a U87 or that the numbering is
> > > significant?
>
> > The prior. *However, it's somewhat irrelevant in the long run...... *I've
> > got a boatload of released product with nothing better than an SM-58
> > for lead and background vocals. *It's all in how you use it and how you
> > treat it. *You might be perfectly happy with an SM-87... I think it's grossly
> > bright to the point of piercing, and have to roll off tons of high-end when
> > singers show up in live venues wanting to use these.
>
> It surprises me that you have to subdue brightness from an SM87. The
> recording I'm referring to on the RAP CD is anything but bright. It's
> rather mellow. Maybe Drinkwater rolled it off like you do.
> Jeff

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote in message ...
David,

I'd be shocked if they were showing up with the SM87. More likely
they have the Beta87, which is quite hyped up in the high end compared
to the original sm87. The Beta is a bit thinner on the bottom as well.

-glenn
________________________


You are quite correct. Given away by the cute little green band around the grille.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com




On Dec 21 2007, 6:18 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /
Odm> wrote:
> "straightnut" > wrote in message...
> > Not a chance that it sounds like a U87 or that the numbering is
> > significant?
>
> The prior. However, it's somewhat irrelevant in the long run...... I've
> got a boatload of released product with nothing better than an SM-58
> for lead and background vocals. It's all in how you use it and how you
> treat it. You might be perfectly happy with an SM-87... I think it's grossly
> bright to the point of piercing, and have to roll off tons of high-end when
> singers show up in live venues wanting to use these.
>
> DM

[geezer[_2_]]

Green band? That sounds like the Beta Green series, which were black
mics with green bands. The BetaGreen 5.0 & 5.1 were rebadged sm96
models, with an on/off switch added for gratuitous signal degradation.
That same mic has now reappeared as the SM86.

The Beta series is a bluish handle and silver grill with a blue band.
Different mic, as the capsule design is a bit different if you look
under the cover. Of the lot of them, only the sm87 has a smooth
response on the top end. Don't know why Shure is so committed to that
lousy presence peak they build into most of their junk. The mics that
don't have it sound rather nice.

-glenn


On Jan 3, 4:08*am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:
> > wrote in ...
>
> David,
>
> I'd be shocked if they were showing up with the SM87. *More likely
> they have the Beta87, which is quite hyped up in the high end compared
> to the original sm87. The Beta is a bit thinner on the bottom as well.
>
> -glenn
> ________________________
>
> You are quite correct. *Given away by the cute little green band around the grille.

[straightnut]

On Jan 3, 1:42*am, wrote:
> Well, I may as well chip in here, since I made the recording. The
> vocal, btw was *W. C. Spencer. *The performance was recorded live at a
> venue I used to run, the late, sometimes lamented, 12 Corners
> Coffeehouse. *The mic in question is one of my "go to" live
> performance condensers. The other is the AKG 535. *The original SM87
> had a very smooth and extended response - compared to the newer Beta
> 87. The Beta version has a midrange bump, of which I'm not a big fan
> ( for instance, I absolutely loathe the ubiquitous SM58), and also
> rolls off more in the bass than the SM87. *As a result, it's often a
> really fine mic for many female voices, and does a creditable job as
> an extra, or emergency mic for fiddle or acoustic guitar. (Think of
> festival situations where guest musicians suddenly appear and grab any
> mic nearby)
>
> I don't think Shure had the Neumann in mind at all, it's just a
> progression of Shure's model numbers - and a perusal of old Shure
> catalogs shows an SM85 and an SM87. *For some reason Shure tended to
> use odd numbers for their 80 series back then (sm81 sm85, sm87), and
> even numbers for the 90 series(sm94, sm96, sm98) *Anyway the the sm85
> was a cardoid, and had a pretty nasty 'presence' bump, while the sm87
> was super-cardioid and very smooth bottom to top.
>
> I'm sure that's way more than you wanted to know.
>
> -glenn

Thanks for clearing things up, Glenn. It was a very nice vocal.
Jeff