High‑end analogue kit is still an important part of Universal Audio’s product range, and the latest additions are a trio of highly desirable studio mics.
In recent years, industry giants Universal Audio have acquired not one but two microphone manufacturers. Both were high‑end companies, but with very different specialisms and skill sets. Townsend Labs majored on digital wizardry, first seen back in 2017 in their Sphere L22 modelling microphone, whilst Bock Audio were a boutique analogue manufacturer, producing meticulously crafted studio mics in the classic German and Austrian traditions.
Townsend Labs’ groundbreaking technology has been put to work in UA’s affordable Standard series, a range of six task‑oriented mics with simple yet effective modelling features. And although Bock Audio founder David Bock has since parted ways with UA, a series of three high‑end studio mics that he developed has now reached the market under the UA Bock sub‑brand. All three are refinements of mics previously sold under the Bock Audio and/or Soundelux names, and all three draw inspiration from historic classics without being slavish recreations.
The flagship UA Bock 251 is the latest revision of a model that was previously sold both as the Soundelux 251 and Bock Audio 251. As the name suggests, it is a large‑diaphragm valve mic somewhat based on the Telefunken ELA M 251, which was itself an adaptation of the AKG C12. The UA Bock 167 likewise derives from a Soundelux model, in this case the U99. Another valve mic, it is broadly patterned after the Neumann U67. Finally, the solid‑state UA Bock 187 represents the next generation of the Soundelux U195, and is perhaps more loosely inspired by the U67’s successor, the Neumann U87. UA sent all three mics for this review.
UA Got The Look
The UA Bock mics are manufactured in Universal Audio’s in‑house Custom Shop facility in Santa Cruz, California, alongside classic hardware such as the LA‑2A and 1176, and the build quality and finish are uniformly exceptional. The enamelled shells and matte grey metalwork are effortlessly classy — much more so to my eyes than other, blingier mics. There is also an obvious and pleasing visual continuity in the design of the three mics, with sympathetic colour schemes and common elements such as the badges and engraved lettering. All of them occupy a cylindrical form factor reminiscent of the ELA M 251 and the Neumann U47, with the capsule mounted surprisingly high up in the headbasket, almost to the point where it begins to be obscured by the band that forms the top of its frame.
Dig deeper, though, and you’ll find a surprising number of differences of detail. For example, the 251 ships with a gorgeous attaché case bound in grey and tan leather, with cutouts for the PSU, the shockmount and the wooden box that houses the mic itself, and a nifty secret compartment to store the cable. The heavy card‑based packaging for the 167 is completely different in literally every respect, with a much more modern aesthetic.
These differences in detail go well beyond the cosmetic, too. Both the 251 and the 167 connect to their power supplies using six‑pin cables, but the 251’s uses locking screw‑on connectors whilst the 167 has a six‑pin XLR. The 251’s pattern control is on the mic itself, while that of the 167 resides on the PSU. And although all three mics are similar in size and shape, they come with different mounts; the 167’s spider mount screws onto the base of the mic, whilst the 251’s is attached using clasps that grip the shell, and the 187 comes with a swivel mount.
Spirit Of ’67
In terms of features, the UA Bock 251 is probably the closest of the three to its inspiration. It has a German‑made, large‑diaphragm, edge‑terminated capsule patterned after the ‘brass ring’ CK12 that was used in both the C12 and the ELA M251, and apart from the on/off switch on the power supply, the only control is an authentically T‑shaped pattern selector that switches between cardioid, omni and figure‑8. There are no pads or filters. One area where the UA Bock 251 differs from the Telefunken original is in the choice of valve: UA use an ECC85 dual triode, whereas the ELA M251 was sold with a 6072 (aka 12AY7) in the USA, or an AC701 miniature valve in Europe. UA have also chosen to use a larger transformer than the Haufe T14/1 found in the ELA M251, which may have contributed something to that mic’s distinctive character but also restricted its low‑frequency response.
The UA Bock 167, by contrast, has quite a few features that were never present on the Neumann U67. It is, naturally, based around a replica of the K67 capsule used in both the U67 and the current Neumann U87Ai, but whereas those mics offer just three switched polar patterns, the 167 has a continuously variable control like that found on the Neumann M49. Again, there’s a valve substitution, with the EF86 found in the U67 replaced by an EF732. And as well as the familiar 10dB pad, it has two further recessed switches that introduce tone‑shaping features. You can put the 167 into a ‘Fat’ mode, which applies a broad boost between 10Hz and 400Hz, and you can tinker with the high‑frequency response, applying either a 1.5dB cut at 5kHz, a 3dB cut at 10kHz, or a 2dB boost at the same frequency.
Although it’s loosely based on the Neumann U67 design, the UA Bock 167 retains the same cylindrical form factor as the 251.
Finally, the UA Bock 187 bears an even more distant resemblance to its muse. Like the 167, it eschews the characteristic wedge‑shaped form factor of the U87 and U67, and although it too employs a K67‑type capsule, its operation in this mic is restricted to cardioid only. Once again, the 10dB pad is joined by a Fat option, but in this case the third switch introduces a high‑pass filter rather than any high‑frequency tonal changes. UA say that it also uses a larger transformer than the U87, which apparently helps avoid stridency on loud sources. Being a solid‑state mic, it has a standard three‑pin XLR socket and requires 48V phantom power.
Specs Noises
Staying true to David Bock’s belief that mics should be judged by ear, rather than by eye, Universal Audio haven’t published frequency response plots or polar pattern graphs for any of the UA Bock mics. The specifications list a response of ±2dB from 10Hz to 18kHz in the case of the 167 and 251, and 20Hz to 16kHz for the 187, measured at the standard distance of one metre. The claimed low‑frequency extension in each case is noteworthy. Both the ELA M 251 and the U67 are known for their relatively constrained bass response, and it seems David Bock and UA have made a concerted effort to improve on the designs in this respect.
Maximum sound pressure levels for 1% THD are given as 125dB in the case of the 187, and 118dB for the 167 and 251. It’s not stated whether these measurements were taken with the Neumann‑style mics’ pad switch active, but they are roughly comparable with the originals, and clearly don’t represent a sort of ‘brickwall’ limit, as the 2% reading for the 251 is a much higher 129dB SPL. The three mics vary considerably in sensitivity, with the 167 delivering a spicy 33mV/Pa while the 251 clocks in at 19mV/Pa and the 187 a more modest 8mV/Pa — the same as the older pre‑Ai Neumann U87 from which it draws its inspiration. Finally, although explicit values for self‑noise are not given, these can be calculated from the signal‑to‑noise ratio, and work out at 12dB for the 187, 19dB for the 167 and 18dB for the 251. UA confirmed that all the specs for the multi‑pattern 167 and 251 relate to the cardioid pattern.
The In Group
Testing three UA Bock mics at the same time certainly improved my skills at microphone Tetris, and I tried to run as many tests as possible with them all up at once, alongside a known reference. In nearly every case, the results were encouraging, in that whichever UA Bock mic I switched to immediately made me think “That’s the one!” In fact, although they obviously do sound different from one another, there was sometimes more of a family resemblance between all three UA Bock mics than there was between, say, the 187 and a Neumann U87.
Even on a relatively midrange‑y source such as male vocals, you can really hear the difference that UA’s larger transformers make to the bass response.
That, I think, is partly down to the aforementioned low end. Even on a relatively midrange‑y source such as male vocals, you can really hear the difference that UA’s larger transformers make to the bass response, and a mic such as the U87 sounds almost constricted in comparison. The low‑end response on all three mics seems more open, natural and relaxed than I’ve heard from vintage mics belonging to any of these design families. Of course, there may be circumstances where that tighter low end is actually what you want — I think it could be preferable when miking guitar cabs, for example — but in general, it feels as though the UA Bock mics just open a slightly deeper window on the source than do their inspirations, or many other vintage‑inspired models.
The cardioid‑only 187 ships with a standmount rather than a spider mount.
And if you want to enhance the view through that window, there’s the Fat switch on the 187 and 167. This falls squarely into the category of things that on paper I wouldn’t expect ever to use, but which in practice work very well. The low end doesn’t become overwhelming or boomy like, say, a ribbon mic can when worked up close. Instead, it adds just the right amount of weight to thin sources, or even sources that are not so thin. I absolutely loved it for voiceover work, where it allowed even a hack like me to sound like I was voicing a Hollywood movie trailer.
The tone‑shaping switch on the 167 is an interesting addition. It is probably the least bright of the three mics to start with, so the option to darken it further is perhaps best reserved for screechy female vocalists, amateur violinists, triangle solos and the like. Conversely, the 10kHz boost is often just the ticket, and certainly isn’t overdone. Even without this option, I’d probably say the 167 would narrowly be my choice of the three as a studio all‑rounder. With the filters switched out, in fact, its sound was subjectively fairly similar to that of my U87, albeit with a richer low end. And, just as UA claim, the midrange stays smooth even with loud signals, and never becomes reedy, harsh or honky.
I’ve commented before in mic reviews that mics inspired by the ELA M 251 can be all over the map. Some major on high‑frequency tizz and sparkle, while others seem to favour low‑midrange warmth and valve or transformer coloration. The UA Bock 251 doesn’t really do either. It’s less mid‑forward than either of the others, and a degree of treble emphasis is apparent, but it’s not obviously scooped, and is once again anchored by a really solid low end that you perhaps wouldn’t expect from this type of mic. It pulls off the difficult trick that only the very best large‑diaphragm mics do of subtly flattering the source whilst presenting the results as completely natural, and it too would make a great general‑purpose studio mic. And whereas vintage mics aren’t always as appealing in every polar pattern, both the 251 and the 167 retain their overall tone and their positive qualities in all pattern settings.
It’s unlikely you’ll be using these mics inside a bass drum or hard up against a snare drum, but you’d certainly want the option of putting them up on loud sources such as guitar amps and close‑miked brass. Despite the relatively modest maximum SPL figures given in the specs, I don’t think these mics will struggle. The loudest thing in my studio is a 60W Fender Concert II guitar combo from the early ’80s, which can stun horses at 50 paces, and in the battle between valve amp and UA Bock 167, the amp definitely gave up first.
87 Plus 1
And so to the UA Bock 187, which for me was the surprise package of the three. As I’ve already mentioned, it departs quite significantly from the U87 design on which it’s based. And, unless my ears are broken, it also departs somewhat from the sound of an older U87. That more open, deeper low end already gives the sound a slightly different character, but in addition, I found the 187 to be brighter than either my U87 or my U77 (a very similar, but transformerless mic). Some not‑very‑scientific tests suggested that although the midrange response was fairly similar, the 187 may be 6dB or more up at 10kHz compared with the older mics. From a subjective point of view, it’s also noticeably brighter than either of the other UA Bock models.
That in itself was a bit of a surprise, but what surprised me even more was that I liked this extra brightness. I generally think that the chief strength of the U87 is precisely its mid‑focused sound; it may superficially be less exciting than those cheap Chinese mics with a massive presence boost, but when you come to mix, you’ll be very glad you used the one and not the other. The 187 somehow manages to be more exciting and present than the U87, without that becoming a problem at the mix. And, like the 167, it soaks up powerful midrange sources without ever sounding strained. In comparison, my U87 sometimes even had a touch of the AM radio about it. The Fat option makes the 187 sound even less like a U87 — but if I was a pro voiceover artist, it would elevate it very rapidly to the top of my shortlist.
The 187 also has the advantage of being by far the most affordable of the three UA Bock models. It’s not what you’d call a budget mic, but it is significantly cheaper than the current U87Ai, so represents very good value if you don’t need the other polar patterns. Valve mics are inherently much more costly to make, and so it’s no surprise that the 167 is quite a bit more expensive. There are lots of rival mics billed either as clones of the U67 or as being inspired by it, and of course you can now once again buy the real thing. For a boutique valve mic handmade in the USA — which is essentially what the 167 is — the price is not unreasonable, and certainly lower than that of Neumann’s U67 reissue. UA’s changes to the design also arguably enhance its versatility, whilst perhaps taking it a little away from its inspiration.
The 251 is the flagship of the UA Bock range — and is priced accordingly!
251
Finally, the 251 is UA’s flagship model, and is a big step up price‑wise from the 167. I suspect a large part of this is down to the problem of sourcing an authentic CK12‑style capsule; whereas Far Eastern factories are now producing K67 copies of very high quality, UA have had to obtain the 251’s capsule from Europe, no doubt at considerable expense. Nor have they spared any pennies on the 251’s lavish packaging, or other aspects of the design. They’ve clearly decided to make the best mic they possibly can, rather than cut corners to meet a price point, and the natural consequence is that few of us will be able to afford one. But it’s competitive against other high‑end 251 copies from the likes of Flea and Telefunken USA — and at a time when UA are now perhaps best known for mass‑produced products such as the Apollo and Volt interfaces, it’s a reminder that they can still craft high‑end analogue gear that holds its own against absolutely anything on the market.
Pros
- Superb build quality and cosmetics.
- Inherit the strengths of the classic designs on which they’re based, whilst adding thoughtful changes and improvements.
- The 187 is very good value — and an exceptionally good mic for spoken word recording.
Cons
- The 251 will be out of reach financially for most.
Summary
These impressive microphones demonstrate that boutique quality isn’t only the province of boutique manufacturers.
Information
187 £1180, 167 £2845, 251 £5690. Prices include VAT.
187 $1249; 167 $2999; 251 $5999.
When you purchase via links on our site, SOS may earn an affiliate commission. More info...
