AKG 414 or Neumann U87 for voice over???

[Ted Spencer]

You folks should listen to what Ted is saying, his advice is right on, IMHO

Thank you sir!

Personally my recommendation for the person in the original posters situation would be to skip the U87 and 414 in favor of the TLM103, mostly because it sounds like the U87 might break the bank, and if you can't afford to get a quality preamp, you will really be wasting a lot on a good microphone.

The TLM103 is an excellent choice, but it's quite a bit brighter sounding than a U87, and even more so compared to an older U87 (say mid-80s era or earlier). That isn't by any means necessarily a bad thing, but it is a distinct difference between the two. The 103's top end is what I'd call "extra crispy" : ) It can be just great, but when it's not it's usually because it's too hyped up on the top.

The U87 (again, especially older ones) tends toward the neutral/warm side, which is one of the reasons it's often so effective on female voices. Some male voices will want some HF EQ added to open up the sound on an 87. In some of those cases, a TLM103 will actually sound better right out of the box.

By the way, I decided to get up on my high horse and ride it: I ordered an M-Audio Sputnik today. I should have it by tomorrow, and will report back when I've spent some time using it. Hopefully it'll be the giant killer it's cracked up to be. I certainly have enough "giants" hanging around my studio to measure it against : )

 

[Ted Spencer]

I just realized you meant "it sounds like the U87 might break the bank", not "[the TLM103] sounds like the U87". Sorry for the misinterpretation.

I'm leaving the post intact though, since it's probably useful information anyway : )

 

[ullanta]

The U87 (again, especially older ones) tends toward the neutral/warm side, which is one of the reasons it's often so effective on female voices. Some male voices will want some HF EQ added to open up the sound on an 87. In some of those cases, a TLM103 will actually sound better right out of the box.

Or, one might say... go to Berklee and try a few different mics to see which one works with your voice ;-)

 

[Ted Spencer]

Or, one might say... go to Berklee and try a few different mics to see which one works with your voice ;-)

Right. As long as that's feasible, and one knows how to interpret such a comparison, especally if it's instead in a music store soundroom or the like. Otherwise, they should just take my damn advice!!

:evil:

 

[Pierre Petit]

If i may add a small note.

A few points:
-Regarding higher quality digital converters (than the M-Audio 410's):

There certainly are such things, but to get a worthwhile improvement over the sound of your 410, you'd probably have to spend at least half your $3000 on it, and easily all of it or more. Don't do it. Your money is far more effectively spent on a quality mic, preamp, equalizer and plugins. Trust me - I own about 10 such converters/interfaces, from cheapies to $8K jobs, and at your budget level you should stick with the 410 for now. Later on, if you have the budget and want to upgrade your signal path, something like an Apogee Rosetta 200 ($1800 at Sweetwater) might be a good choice.

Rme has a two channel converter thats affordable. The ADi-2. Lucid also has good stuff in a similar price range. Thats bellow 1k.
We might disagree if its worth the price over the onboard converters of the 410.
I got the adi-2 and it made a big difference for me. Night and day.

Some stores allow you to borrow the equipment to try before you buy. I know i saved so much money having such an arrangment with my local store.
You can see for yourself what product makes the difference for you and if its worth the price you pay for.

 

[Ted Spencer]

I got the adi-2 and it made a big difference for me. Night and day.

What were you using before?

 

[Pierre Petit]

Motu 2408. And a few others...
I even tested it against a protools systems. I prefered it against the converters of the 96i-o. You can look at the specs, the signal to noise ratio speaks for itself.
Anyhow that's all very subjective.
For the price they are pretty amazing.

protools

rme

 

[Ted Spencer]

Motu 2408.

Which version? I have a 2408 MkI which sounds horrible and a MkII which sounds pretty decent. Then there's the MkIII which I haven't tried. I also have an 828 MkII which is a bit better than the 2408 MkII.

And a few others...
I even tested it [the RME] against a protools systems. I prefered it against the converters of the 96i-o. You can look at the specs, the signal to noise ratio speaks for itself.

Not really. All these devices have theoretical S/N specs that are vastly beyond what any analog front/back end can deliver in reality. It's more about clock quality, filter quality, analog circuitry and other design criteria.

Anyhow that's all very subjective.
For the price they are pretty amazing.

I took a quick look at a review of the RME in Sound On Sound, a very reputable magazine, and it seemed quite favorable. Sweetwater sells them for $700. If Nicholas were starting from scratch, it might well make a good choice along with a quality mic pre/comp/eq such as I suggested earlier, since he wouldn't need the 410's pres.

He could swap out the 410 for the RME now, but he'd probably get killed on resale. It might be worth the money though, if he could swing it. I'd still start with the other stuff first though (mic, pre/eq/comp, quality AU plugins).

I even tested it against a protools systems. I prefered it against the converters of the 96i-o

I've had very little experience with the 96. I have a 192, and like it a lot. It's better sounding than my Apogee AD8000 or PSX-100.

 

[tigeba]

Thank you sir!
The TLM103 is an excellent choice, but it's quite a bit brighter sounding than a U87, and even more so compared to an older U87 (say mid-80s era or earlier). That isn't by any means necessarily a bad thing, but it is a distinct difference between the two. The 103's top end is what I'd call "extra crispy" : ) It can be just great, but when it's not it's usually because it's too hyped up on the top.

The U87 (again, especially older ones) tends toward the neutral/warm side, which is one of the reasons it's often so effective on female voices. Some male voices will want some HF EQ added to open up the sound on an 87. In some of those cases, a TLM103 will actually sound better right out of the box.
\

I agree with you about the U87 vs TLM103 color. I think the TLM103 is a nice solid VO mic, but I don't really use it much for vox because the top might be a bit too harsh. I did get a great sound out of it with an alto with a really dark voice once. If I want a bright mic, I go for my Peluso P12

I have also heard good words about the Sputnik, but I have not used one myself.

If it hasn't been said already, good analog on the front end (mics, preamps, etc) are almost always better bang for the buck than agonizing over the relatively subtle differences in converters. At some point you will almost certainly trade off/up your converters, but you probably won't have a reason to ditch quality analog gear. This has at least, been my experience.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Well, I just finished a series of comparisons with the M-Audio Sputnik that just landed (pun intended) on my doorstep. I recorded myself speaking into it through an Avalon VT737sp (with light compression and no EQ), into a track in Pro Tools HD through their 192 converter at 24 bit/44.1 KHz, monitoring through an Apogee PSX-100 on Genelec 1030a's.

The other mics in the comparison (with approximate prices in parenthesis) were:

Neumann U87 with Stephen Paul Audio 3 micron mod ($4500) aka SP87
Sanken CU-41 ($2700)
AKG 414-EB ($1000)
Audio-Technica 4050 ($550)

I paid $418 (+tax/shipping) at Alto Music in NY for the Sputnik.

One word: wowowow!

It easily topped the 4050 and 414, and easily held its own with the two big-buck numbers. It was probably closest in sound to the SP87, which is a truly amazing mic, far superior to a stock U87. After pretty extensive listening, I have to say that I (slightly) preferred the sound of my voice on the Sputnik over all the others.

It has a nice, beefy low end, a slightly forward top half (as does the SP87, which I like), and a very clear midrange, which is where it most clearly surpassed the 414 and 4050. The CU41, a superb mic, is very neutral and very clean, and if that neutral qualilty is desired, it's hard to beat. Given that, it certainly rivaled the Sputnik overall, but the fact that I'm wording the sentence that way should definitely tell you something.

Overall, my impressions thus far (certainly "preliminary", since I've had it for all of about 3 hours) are very similar to what Dr. Fred Bashour indicated in his Pro Audio Review Magazine article (see the link to it in one of my previous posts in this thread). Which is to say, at the very least, that the Sputnik is a stupendous value. At best, it could actually be preferable overall to mics costing 10 times as much or more.

Some time soon I'll break out my Telefunken U47 ($6000) and compare it to that. It won't surprise me to find that it holds its own there too, even when disregarding the price difference.

This mic is nothing short of groundbreaking. Believe the hype. It's true.