Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content

Why is the U87 missing in the new cab update?


MarcDwonn
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, i like the new cabs better, they sound more open, tight and lively. Some of my presets use the 160 mic, and switching to the new cabs, while keeping the same mic, upgraded the sound instantly. But updating the cabs of U87 presets requires much fiddling and tweaking, and i'm not 100% happy yet (but i'm hearing a better core sound, so i'll keep tweaking).

 

Why did they not include the U87? Isn't it one of the most popular condensers? (And IME the best sounding one for guitar)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 2:46 PM, MarcDwonn said:

Why did they not include the U87? Isn't it one of the most popular condensers? (And IME the best sounding one for guitar)

 

It's a good question.... maybe toss it over on "ideascale" (line6.ideascale.com)... with some traction they might add it back in. 

I suspect they wanted to get this update out.... and simply didn't have the time to add everything they wanted without holding it up longer. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess would be that if Line 6 keeps supporting this iteration of the HX hard- and software series, they will subsequently add some more cabs and mics.

 

Fwiw, on a sidenote: While I quite like the new cabs, I guess I will just stick to what's a handful of carefully curated IRs (in fact 2 main ones and 3 more when I feel bored). They suit me more than well and I just got used to their sort of special (if a tad neutral) sonic fingerprint. Might fire up the new cabs for recordings ocassionally, though, but others than that I'm absolutely happy being able to call it a day, at least more or less. It's also why I'm not particularly psyched about this update (but I can perfectly understand people who are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 2:46 PM, MarcDwonn said:

Why did they not include the U87? Isn't it one of the most popular condensers? (And IME the best sounding one for guitar)


Eric (aka, Digital Igloo, who occasionally posts here) said they actually did shoot impulses with the U87 but they found them to sound very close to the U67, and they thought U67 actually sounded slightly better, so they decided to just go with that.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I analyzed all the mic models (as of the previous OS) for my Helix book. If you have it, check Chapter 6. The U87 has a more extended high-frequency response,which is why it's so popular for vocalists in the real world. It's also good for dry guitar. The U67 doesn't go quite as high, and has a bit of a bass bump. Here are the images from the book (top U67, bottom U87):

 

image.png.72e6f6765aec659b28e5def6ec8a2643.png

 

So, if you want a sound more like a U87, use EQ on the U67 to add a gentle treble boost starting around 2 - 3 kHz (shelf EQ would be a good place to start), and lower the bass response around 100 Hz. But also remember that the response for either mic depends on whether they modeled the cardioid, omni, or figure-8 mode. I'm assuming cardioid based on the frequency response graphs, but that's a guess.

 

Many engineers feel the U67 has a more "natural" sound than the U87, so it's often used for instruments as opposed to the U87. One of the major differences is that the U87 handles higher SPLs and the U67 has a lower output impedance, but that doesn't matter in our virtual world.

 

Hope this helps...

  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2022 at 5:00 AM, MarcDwonn said:

but i don't like it when options are taken away from me.

 

No options have been taken away from you. You don't have a re-captured U87, correct. But then, all you had before is still there, so "taken away" simply doesn't apply.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could never really hear any significant difference between the U67 and U87 in Helix, so I don't miss the latter.

 

But what I'm actually missing is the 160 Ribbon in the Bass section. Earlier this year I spent quite some time to compare all the miking nuances with my favorite amp/cab combinations, and eventually settled on the 160 Ribbon sounding as the most pleasing to me.

On a quick switch to the new cab format, none of the available mics sound as good to me as the 160 while keeping the same parameter values. In fact, I also had to add a few extra dB volume level on the cab block to get the same punch as with my "legacy" cab.

 

That all said, being a Stomp user, I appreciate the fact that the new cabs save a lot of DSP power that I can use elsewhere. In that sense, I'm confident that with a few tweaks on the amp and cab EQs I will eventually dial in a solid equivalent of my "old" basic preset.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...