<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: U87	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.preservationsound.com/the-audio-technica-813-condensor-microphone-c-1977/u87-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/the-audio-technica-813-condensor-microphone-c-1977/u87-2/</link>
	<description>information and ideas about audio history</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:06:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: David B.		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/the-audio-technica-813-condensor-microphone-c-1977/u87-2/#comment-619927</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David B.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:06:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/U87.wav#comment-619927</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As Bill says &quot;..The U87 almost acts as a limiter..&quot; ..that was my impression when I rented one to hear how it sounds compared with an M-Audio Sputnik and a CAD e300². The U87 sounds like someone&#039;s talking in a monotone ..no relief!

The Sputnik (don&#039;t laugh!) has iridescent highs, deep lows, and the upper mids attract your attention because they seem to be &#039;distanced&#039; slightly, giving your ears something to latch onto, almost like listening to 3D sounds at different distances.

The CAD mics have the similar &#039;all-present-with-the-same-impact&#039;, rather tiring, &#039;insistence&#039; as the U87 ..with greater bass depth than the 87, and sharper highs ..but the Sputniks &#039;invite&#039; your ears (or brain) to listen with more attention than to the U87.

I thought I was just a lone heretic. Many thanks for the reassurance, Bill.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As Bill says &#8220;..The U87 almost acts as a limiter..&#8221; ..that was my impression when I rented one to hear how it sounds compared with an M-Audio Sputnik and a CAD e300². The U87 sounds like someone&#8217;s talking in a monotone ..no relief!</p>
<p>The Sputnik (don&#8217;t laugh!) has iridescent highs, deep lows, and the upper mids attract your attention because they seem to be &#8216;distanced&#8217; slightly, giving your ears something to latch onto, almost like listening to 3D sounds at different distances.</p>
<p>The CAD mics have the similar &#8216;all-present-with-the-same-impact&#8217;, rather tiring, &#8216;insistence&#8217; as the U87 ..with greater bass depth than the 87, and sharper highs ..but the Sputniks &#8216;invite&#8217; your ears (or brain) to listen with more attention than to the U87.</p>
<p>I thought I was just a lone heretic. Many thanks for the reassurance, Bill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Bill Tedd		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/the-audio-technica-813-condensor-microphone-c-1977/u87-2/#comment-582212</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill Tedd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2019 18:22:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/U87.wav#comment-582212</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The U87 almost acts as a limiter on the picking of the guitar, eliminating the dynamics (transients).  This is either a good or bad thing depending on what you&#039;re trying to achieve.  

Personally, I always choose to preserve as much detail as possible during the actual recording.  It&#039;s easier to tame things afterwards than it is to bring out details that simply aren&#039;t there.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U87 almost acts as a limiter on the picking of the guitar, eliminating the dynamics (transients).  This is either a good or bad thing depending on what you&#8217;re trying to achieve.  </p>
<p>Personally, I always choose to preserve as much detail as possible during the actual recording.  It&#8217;s easier to tame things afterwards than it is to bring out details that simply aren&#8217;t there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
