I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.

writes:

I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.

You might also look into the Microtech Gefell UMT70 -- somewhat similar to
the U87, 3-pattern LD, but in a slimmer package (and price). (Mercenary
probably has them.)

A pair has been loaned to me to add to the kit for two concerts I'm
recording this weekend. Tests have been quite favorable so far; we'll see
how they do "for real" (preamps are also Grace, the 801 and 201).

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

wrote:
I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.

Get both on eval, and return the one you don't like.

Personally, I find the 193 to be a much more useful mike, but then I
don't like the top end on the U87 most of the time. On the other hand,
I have got several calls from customers who wouldn't have hired me if
I didn't have a U87 available. The U87 paid for itself even when I never
used it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Fri, 26 May 2006 00:01:05 -0400, wrote
(in article .com):

I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.


I use a U 89 a LOT for vocals. It's the predecessor (parent) of the TLM 193.
It's not that dark at all. Go to my site and click on the Music Produced Here
link in the last column. Download "Wind." I used the U 89 on Karyn's vocals
with an STT-1 preamp.

Sibilance and mouth noises will not appreciably be reduced by a TLM 193 as
compared to a U 87. You need to fix that stuff at the source.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

When you compare the actual sound in the recording room to the signal
which the microphone is putting out, the TLM 193 isn't dark; it's close
to neutral (though it does have a mild, broad rise above the dip, which
can be heard if you listen for it). I think it only gets called dark
because people expect all condenser microphones to be "in your face"
sounding. But there's no physical reason why a microphone has to be
that way just because it's a condenser.

The dip in the TLM 193's frequency response isn't large, either. Plus
we humans don't seem to perceive dips as strongly as we perceive rises
and peaks. But if you're used to a rise in the same region of the
spectrum, a microphone that doesn't have one will sound different to
you. How a person will evaluate that subjectively will vary--some
people sense that something is "missing" when all that's missing is
false brightness.

Sometimes a direct comparison isn't the best way to select a
microphone--again, psychologically we humans lean toward whatever's
brighter, louder and shinier as being "better". But what ultimately
matters is the impression that a listener will get when they're not
comparing one microphone to another, but just hearing the finished
recording on its own terms. That's a whole different kind of judgment,
as you know.

Neumann doesn't make the KM 84 any more, and all their newer-generation
small microphones have "condenser sparkle" bumps in their
high-frequency response--it seems to be the company's sonic branding
strategy. For sheer overall usability in a simple cardioid, the TLM 193
might be their closest equivalent to the KM 84 nowadays, though its
response isn't really as smooth as the diagrams show and its
directional pattern isn't as clean as a KM 84's. But it can be used on
nearly anything, it takes EQ well, and there are no knobs or switches
to break.

--best regards

In article .com,
wrote:

I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.


I've used the TLM-193 for many years as the primary vocal mic and find it to be
pretty neutral, giving a realistic representation of the voice. Also very nice
on instruments. If it's dark, it's only so in comparison to the bright mics
we're finding all over these days.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.


Yes, I agree with what the others are saying, the TLM193 is pretty much a
neutral mic, not really dark. I think they sound great for voice and drum
overheads etc. It gives you what you give it.

--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com

In article .com,
wrote:

I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.



Compared to most of the mics in my collection, I would def not call the
87 bright.

As far as mouth noises, you can't make them go away without affecting
the vocal quality, no matter what eq or mic you use. You can use your
daw software to edit and lessen them 'tho.

And remember, for most music that has some instrumental accompaniment,
when you mix the track you gotta brighten up the vocal at least a little
with eq anyway.

As far as which mic to choose, when it comes to vocals, it's all about
what mic works with what voice. I own 87's and Soundelux U195's, and
when A/B'd with an individual singer, the U195 usually tops it. And I'll
include other mics into the derby when I'm about to record someone's
voice for the first time. Whichever one wins the battle of the mics for
that particular voice is the one that we use.

Remember, nobody except other engineers cares about which mic you used,
only that you got a nice sounding vocal. And the dollar amount you paid
for it is not necessarily the arbiter of best choice. If you are working
with the public, you wanna have more than one mic to audition on your
clients. You'll be surprised with what sounds best with some folks.

And if you are still hot for an 87, def A/B it with a U195.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

"david correia" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:

I'm torn between getting the U87 or the 193. I've recorded vocalists
with the U87, either rented or their own, and it sounds stellar. But I
haven't had the opportunity to use a U87 on the really sick people who
have sibilant issues, shrill voices or mechanical mouth noises. So I
figure these sick people need a mic that dips, not boosts, in the 5k
range. If any of you have ever used a 193 or better yet did an a/b with
the U87, how dark is it in comparison? I have a Grace Design 101, which
is "airy," so the 193 might not be that dark after all. Maybe the 193
is the cure.



Compared to most of the mics in my collection, I would def not call the
87 bright.

As far as mouth noises, you can't make them go away without affecting
the vocal quality, no matter what eq or mic you use. You can use your
daw software to edit and lessen them 'tho.

And remember, for most music that has some instrumental accompaniment,
when you mix the track you gotta brighten up the vocal at least a little
with eq anyway.

As far as which mic to choose, when it comes to vocals, it's all about
what mic works with what voice. I own 87's and Soundelux U195's, and
when A/B'd with an individual singer, the U195 usually tops it. And I'll
include other mics into the derby when I'm about to record someone's
voice for the first time. Whichever one wins the battle of the mics for
that particular voice is the one that we use.

Remember, nobody except other engineers cares about which mic you used,
only that you got a nice sounding vocal. And the dollar amount you paid
for it is not necessarily the arbiter of best choice. If you are working
with the public, you wanna have more than one mic to audition on your
clients. You'll be surprised with what sounds best with some folks.

And if you are still hot for an 87, def A/B it with a U195.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

I second David's advice of the U195. IMO, it has a terrific midrange. I
never liked the mids on my U87 or GefellUM70. I felt they were too forward
in the mids. The U195 is very balanced and versatile (try the 'fat' switch
on acoustic gtr sometime). I had a 193 and liked it. Very flat and honest,
compared to many other LDCs. It's nice to have in a large collection.

Mikey
Nova Music Productions