Neumann U87 or Sennheiser MKH416 for voice over work?

N

Nicholas Natteau

Veteran
I know that Neumann U87 is a huge expense at over $3,000, but is this what I should be going for to get the best sound possible for doing documentary voice overs or will a Sennheiser MKH416 at a third of the price be good enough?

The reason I ask is that I've read in a number of forums that the shotgun Sennheiser 416 is considered the industry standard and used by the major networks for dialogue recording and that it can supposedly even double as a good voice over microphone.

Thanks in advance for any advice regarding these mics or others.
 
I know of several sound studios in Burbank that use the 416 for VO work. The U87 is a good mic, but if all you are recording is VO it's overkill.
 
I don't think the U87 is overkill at all if you can afford. It's one of the best sounding large diaphragm studio mics I've ever used, especially for VO. The 416 is used more on production, and then for ADR to help match the production track. I've done a TON of dialogue recording for video games and animation, and we never used a 416. We used the Neuman TLM-103, which is a good mic. A large diaphragm studio mic is what I would use for VO. You don't have to use a U87. There are lots of alternatives that are more cost effective that will do a good job.
 
I have been doing VO work for a very long time, and can say both mics you mention are great, and each has it's place in the booth.
But in reality, it's the voice talent, not the mic, that makes the difference. If it were me, I would make sure I had a good clean audio path, and quiet booth before I started to worry about spending big coin on a mic. In the last week I worked with 12 different mic/pre combos.
And to be honest I seriously doubt anyone listening to the finished product could pick out which mic was used on any of the projects.

All the Best!

Dave
 
I think the 416 is used in VO specifically to record deep voices for trailers and other announcements thanks to its proximity effect.

It's pretty cool actually, I own a 416 and if I speak a couple inches away from it it makes me sound like Barry White :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

I think it would work well for documentary VO as the narrator often has that deep, warm voice.
 
Thanks everyone. I was actually at B&H in NY yesterday and a salesman demo'd the Sennheiser 416, Neumann U87 and Schoeps CMIT U5.

All sounded fantastic and I had a very tough time deciding which one would work best as a VO mic. But if I can use one as both a VO mic and also as mic for documentary talking head interviews then I'm set. If I'm going to invest in a top of the line mic, I would ideally want to be able to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. What got me interested in the 416 was that the salesman said that it's often used as a voice over mic in addition to being used for interviews. Thank you all for the feedback.
 
The 416 is a great exterior shotgun. I also use it for trailer style up front VO delivery.
We keep one in the booth along with an mkh 50 and mkh 60 for ADR as well.
I don't care for the tlm 103 as much as I do the u 87 when doing louder IE screaming car commercials, as it seems to overload quicker.
If the mic your looking for is just for your voice, I would audition as many as possible with your voice. As some people sound great on some mics, and crappy on others. For example I get a weird sibilance when working on an RE27 that I can't stand.
As mentioned, there are many less expensive mics that still offer high quality when used for VO/narration.
Most people won't be able to tell the difference between a U87 and an AT4047. Or tell the difference between a John Hardy M1 and an SCA Jensen J99.

Good Luck with your quest!

Dave
 
The TLM-103 is pretty good. I don't like it as much as the U87, but there is a cost difference there as well. All of the games I've edited dialogue on (Mass Effect, Gears of War, Lost Odyssey..just to name a few) were all recorded with the TLM-103. Of course, as you see, you'll get different opinions on that mic. If I were in your situation, I'd be doing the exact same thing you are doing, and checking out as many microphones as possible. I've found the schoeps CMIT-5 to be warmer and more pleasing sounding to me, but that's my personal opinion. The 416 is kind of like the shure SM57 in the music world. It's sturdy, robust, sounds good, and if you need to, you can stir paint and hammer nails with it and it still works. :)

The mention of the AT4047 is a good one. I had that at my most recent gig at Petroglyph games, and used that for the games I worked on there. It's a good sounding mic that won't break the bank. But Dave Jones makes a great point. Some people don't sound good on certain mic's. With the TLM-103, there were one or two actors that just didn't sound good on it, no matter what we tried.

The mic's you are looking at are all great, so you are on a good start already.
 
I would say that the U87 would be best for voice-overs.

I would only use the 416 for dialogue replacement where the original dialogue had been recorded with a 416, so you use a 416 to match the sound.
 
John Willett said:
I would say that the U87 would be best for voice-overs.

I would only use the 416 for dialogue replacement where the original dialogue had been recorded with a 416, so you use a 416 to match the sound.
Click to expand...

I have voiced literally thousands of spots with a 416, and work with producers that request a 416/John Hardy combo. I'm not pushing any mic, because the original poster should audition mics and find one that his voice sounds good on, and is in his budget. Something like an inexpensive AT4033 sounds just as good as a U87 with the right voice behind it. Again, proper care should be taken in choosing a VoiceOver environment. Meaning a properly isolated booth, as using a large diaphragm condenser or shotgun mic in an untreated studio area with a computer near by, you will quickly start to hear the room in your recordings. Although you will likely not notice, because you are monitoring in the same environment. But your clients listening in a different acoustic area will.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Thanks Dave and everyone else for taking the time to give me all this feedback. I went ahead and ordered my 416. Looks like my best bet after everything I read. Thanks again and best to all.
 
Nick,

The U 87 and TLM 103 don't sound alike at all. The TLM 103 sounds more like an AKG C414 (but remember, there are at least 5 version of the C414 each of which sound a little different.) Both the C414 and TLM 103 are also a lot more finnicky about which mic preamp they are plugged into.

And if you really think about it, the U 87's presence peak makes it peaky in a way that has a tendency to make voices sit better in mixes because they stick out. It's not really "warm" relative to other mics out there.

The 416 has an even more aggressive peak, but if you get close enough, the low end blooms a bit. (Remember the mic element is at the bottom of the tube, not the tip, so you're not as close to the diaphragm as you might think. The Sanken CS-3e DOES have the capsule at the tip of the tube. Haven't tried it in a while for VO, but it should do well.

As Mr. Jones says, if you don't have a good voice, who cares? I do VO workshops from time to time. I have had some folks come in with really wonderful voices that don't have a clue as to how to use them.

We are now just coming through a period in which many have experimented with "Anyone can do VO! After all, it's just talking!" It's sort of like the American Idol Syndrome. I love watching the early shows where the "raw talent" shows up and says, "All my friends say I sing great! How can the judges not love me?"

Does the script deserve a better voice and interpretation? For the simplest scripts (and the lowest expectation bars) you can get almost anyone to do your VO. But when you have a good script and you really do need to persuade the listener, you'd be foolish not to pay a good VO person to bring the words to life.

But I digress..:)

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Nicholas Natteau said:
I know that Neumann U87 is a huge expense at over $3,000, but is this what I should be going for to get the best sound possible for doing documentary voice overs or will a Sennheiser MKH416 at a third of the price be good enough?

The reason I ask is that I've read in a number of forums that the shotgun Sennheiser 416 is considered the industry standard and used by the major networks for dialogue recording and that it can supposedly even double as a good voice over microphone.

Thanks in advance for any advice regarding these mics or others.
Click to expand...

You don't mention your recording setup .. do you have an accoustic studio or booth that's been designed for spoken voice. Any of the expensive mics mentioned won't deliver the goods if you don't set them up properly and employ a pro narrator or a good sounding voice who can read a script.

And if you spend big $$$$ on a Neumann and don't get the results you crave .. you'll hate that mic forever, I've seen that happen.

So it'd be prudent to audition a few good men and women and spend your mic money recording it on line. Most pros will help in other ways too, suggesting things with your scripts you'd never think of etc. Good luck etc.

Cheers.
 
The U87 is a classic...and industry standard. I was looking into the Mojave MA-200...has the characteristics of the old U67 for about a quarter of the price.
 
smithy said:
The U87 is a classic...and industry standard. I was looking into the Mojave MA-200...has the characteristics of the old U67 for about a quarter of the price.
Click to expand...

Which characteristics? That's sort of damning it with faint praise, or worse. There are a few that sound very nice, but most old U67 don't necessarily sound that good due to their age. The U 67 that I heard most recently (and its been a while) had two tubes. With the one tube, the mic sounded very good. With the other tube it sounded truly great.

MIX's Kevin Becka says, "I really like this mic, but if you're looking for pristine reproduction of your selected source, look elsewhere, because the one word that defines the MA-200 is personality. Time and time again, I put the mic into varying situations and it shined. What I like most is that when you hit it hard, the MA-200 gives you back some crunch. The plate-loaded tube stage rounds out transients nicely, giving it an almost ribbon-like quality. I know that's counterintuitive — this is a condenser after all — but that's what I heard. The high end is not overly bright and the mids and lows are well balanced and full.

While I think of it. The Audio Technica AT 4060 sounds pretty interesting. It's just over a grand at B&H. It's a cardioid and i'd like to hear what it would do as a three-pattern mic, but it does have a nice shimmer.

Let's see. What did I say about it back when it came out...More reviews and audio samples in my archive at https://public.me.com/tyreeford

AT4060 Tube Condenser Mic

Ty Ford
Baltimore, MD

The Audio Technica AT4060 vacuum tube microphone ($1,695) is a transformer
output, cardioid-only condenser microphone with an external power supply.
Included in the price are: a protective vinyl-coated box for the mic, the very sturdy
AT8447 all-metal suspension mount, AT8560 power supply with IEC power cord
and almost 33 feet of multi-conductor cable for connecting the mic to the power
supply. Addition accessory options include a foam screen ($48), and the 8430 clip
that also works on the 4033 or 4050 ($168). The manual suggests that you always
turn off the power supply when connecting or disconnecting the mic. I read that
after I had done both with the power supply on. I had no problem, but maybe I got
lucky.

The AT8447 suspension mount, specially made for the AT 4060, has two knobs
that tighten to hold the mic more securely than earlier mounts that use only
elastic bands. The 1U space AT8560 power supply is half-rack size and comes with
brackets for mounting in pairs. The six-pin XLR on the rear of the power supply
connects a multiconductor cable that provides power to the Sovtek 6922 tube
onboard the mic and retrieves the audio from the capsule.

The 4060 capsule is based on the 4050 and contains dual 21.3mm diaphragms
coated with 2 microns of vapor deposited gold. The diaphragm is polarized at
110VDC and backplate is at ground. The filaments run at 6.3VAC. According to
Audio Technica's Kelly Statham, the Sovtek 6922 tube is used as an impedance
converter. "There are no solid state devices in there except the power supply. The
6922 was chosen by Audio Technica-Japan. We tested a bunch of the ones with the
same number and narrowed it down to a special version of 6922 based on low noise
and having the quiescent current as close to spec as possible before we put our
own serial numbers on them." Audio Technica has been running accelerated
testing on the Sovtek tubes and has yet to see one blow.

Statham says the 4060 doesn't require additional output circuitry because the
higher capsule voltage and tighter (and aged) diaphragm results in a sufficient
output. The method for aging of the diaphragm is proprietary information, but
Statham says it's done to keep the diaphragm from stretching over time.

A closer look at the capsule reveals that it's surrounded by a ring with holes
drilled in it. "That helps to extend our low end, " says Statham, "It changes the
acoustic distance between port A and port B (backside to front side) in a cardioid
pattern, or the lines of low frequency phase. It also provides better off-axis pattern
linearity over frequency and more stable load (acoustic resistance) on the rear
port."

Attached to one side of the internal metal body frame is a rectangular metallic
flap to shield the .22 Farad filament supply filter capacitors. On the inside of the
body shell, a small piece of sheet rubber acts as a shock absorber, should the mic
be jarred, bringing the tube into contact with the shell. The area around the three
screws that hold the shell and head grille to the frame are gold plated to ensure
ground continuity from the body to the shell and head.

THE SOUND OF SILENCE
Although the AT4060's 19dB (A-weighted) self noise is higher than the Neumann
FET TLM 103 at 7dB, the AT4060 surprised me with how quiet it was -- noticeably
quieter than a Neumann U 89, U 87 and Gefell UM70. Tube mics used to get a bad
rap for how much noise the tubes generated The AT4060 is proof that tube mics
don't have to be noisey.

On male announcer voice, the AT4060 through a GML mic preamp was strong
and clear. In fact, there is none of that "warm tubey" sound that I usually only
care for when trying to mask irritatingly edgey sound sources. The extra lift on
the high end is not as detailed as the Neumann M 149 nor the Manley tube
cardioid, but significantly more detailed than the AT4050. This is not the mic to
use on sibilant sources.

On acoustic guitar, the brightness of the AT4060 gave the somewhat-dead strings
of my D28S Martin a lot more sparkle than they appeared to have in free air. In
order to minimize the bass build up due to the proximity effect, I first positioned
the mic about four inches above the body so that the capsule faced down across the
sound hole. Lots of brights, not too much bottom, but the off-axis sound was a bit
strange. Setting the mic out about 14 inches from the sound hole and twisting it to
about a 30 degree angle to keep the bass from building up resulted in a fairly
natural and balanced acoustic guitar sound.

I visited Jeff Order Productions to compare his 4050 with the 4060. Jeff uses the
preamps in his Soundtracs Solo Logic 32x8 console. We found both the 4050 (in
cardioid) and the 4060 had basically equal output levels. The mid range of both
mics was very similar, but the 4060 had a larger bottom and more detailed top
end. Both mics exhibited the same amount of reach. Pushed inside his baby
grand, it did a nice job of presenting a balanced sound, with perhaps a little too
much bottom.

At Flite 3, Louis Mills, Mark Patey and I compared the 4060 with a Neumann U 87
(not an ai). The 4060 was 6dB-8dB hotter than the U 87. After adjusting the API
preamps for equal gain, the 4060 was 4dB quieter on the meters. The meters don't
always tell the tale. The self-noise of the U 87 was higher in frequency than the
4060, making the 4060 self-noise much less apparent.

Both mics had similar reach and similar rear rejection characteristics. The
proximity effect of each mic was a little different. For voice work, the 4060 worked
well at four to five inches. In order to get the same hot spot on the Neumann, I
had to move in about an inch closer. Both mics exhibited about the same amount
of sensitivity to popping. Speaking of hot spots, both 4060's I had seemed to have
their hot spots slightly off center. On both mics, I had to move about five to ten
degrees to the right before I found the spot.

The 4060 has a brighter top end than the U 87. Mills liked the broad rise and
thought that it was not in detriment of the bass. Patey commented that the 4060
might not be the mic to use on large bass voices because the mic was obviously
sensitive to those frequencies as well. The 4060 begins a lift at 2kHz rises gently to
+4dB by 4kHz and stays there until 13kHz. From there it drops sharply to 0dB at
14kHz and is at -4dB by 15kHz. That broad rise, similar to a shelving EQ boost,
adds a lot of sparkle.

My next project was a TV voice track for a local car dealer. The job called for an
over-the-top delivery, everything turned up to eleven. I'm not sibilant, but it's easy
to "fress" when you're speaking that loud and that quickly and the 4060 did a great
job of capturing it. I applied a high-frequency shelf EQ to the final track to remove
the excess "fress."

IN CONCLUSION
Because of its increased high frequency response and low noise,
the AT4060 does not comply with the old definition of "tube sound." It is neither
murky nor "filmic." I'd be interested in hearing some comparisons between pairs
of AKG 414s and AT4060s on drum overheads. Regardless of the source, if you
regularly boost the 10kHz shelving EQ, try the AT4060, and don't reach for the EQ.
For the price point, it's a player.
 
You don't need an expensive mic to produce great results.
I own a U87 and a 416. I love both of them for their intended applications. However one of my favorite mics is the large diaphragm Oktava MK102.
Bought a matched pair for $1,100. It has a big warm sound but, manages to retain articulation in the voice. Also excellent on violins.
Here's a commercial I recorded. The on camera female is using a G2 lav with Sennheiser MKE2 mic. The male VO is using the Oktava. No boom in the shot.
http://www.jbl4315.com/crispy.html

Unless your into high end studio recording a U87 is over kill. There's a reason they cost $4,000. Here is a recording using a U87 on bottom register of a
Yamaha Grand along with a Neumann km84 on top register. The strings were recorded with a matched pair Oktava MK102's.
http://www.soundchaser.ca/sample/sample.mp3


 
Last edited:
Nice spot! And on the web it sounds fine. Internet audio (and video) is very compressed and that may level the playing field. Lots of data compression makes for compromises that can take away from the qualitative differences that make a great mic sound greater than one that's not so great.


How did you mod the MK012 to make it a large diaphragm mic? Stock, it's a small diaphragm mic.

http://www.oktava-online.com/mk012.htm#tech

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top