[Tobiah]

Disagree strongly. The NT1-A is a very natural sounding mic. What it
lacks is the upper mid hump which many seem to regard as giving a mic
"character". I prefer my mics flat - I'll bugger with the response
later myself if I feel like it.

I agree with the assessment. I recorded a group of friends having
a discussion with a pair of NT1-A's, and then played it back while
we were still talking as a joke. Even though I knew that the recording
was playing, I couldn't help jerking my head around to one of the
speakers in response to a voice, as if I would answer. I had great
trouble distinguishing between recorded conversation and ongoing
conversation. I got back what I put in with no detectable change.
That, without noise, is what I want from my mics. Some want other
things, but I'm getting this from the NT1-A's.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:51:46 -0800, Tobiah wrote:


Disagree strongly. The NT1-A is a very natural sounding mic. What it
lacks is the upper mid hump which many seem to regard as giving a mic
"character". I prefer my mics flat - I'll bugger with the response
later myself if I feel like it.

I agree with the assessment. I recorded a group of friends having
a discussion with a pair of NT1-A's, and then played it back while
we were still talking as a joke. Even though I knew that the recording
was playing, I couldn't help jerking my head around to one of the
speakers in response to a voice, as if I would answer. I had great
trouble distinguishing between recorded conversation and ongoing
conversation. I got back what I put in with no detectable change.
That, without noise, is what I want from my mics. Some want other
things, but I'm getting this from the NT1-A's.

That is the ultimate test of any mic - that it can fool you into
thinking a real person has spoken.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Tobiah" wrote in message


Disagree strongly. The NT1-A is a very natural sounding
mic. What it lacks is the upper mid hump which many seem
to regard as giving a mic "character". I prefer my mics
flat - I'll bugger with the response later myself if I
feel like it.

IME (I also own a pair) the NT1-A pushes the hump higher then many other
common mics, and in some circumstances the hump is not a problem at all - it
can be a good thing when other effects would produce a rolled-off high end.

I agree with the assessment. I recorded a group of
friends having a discussion with a pair of NT1-A's, and then played it
back while we were still talking as a joke. Even though I knew that
the recording was playing, I couldn't help jerking my
head around to one of the speakers in response to a
voice, as if I would answer. I had great trouble
distinguishing between recorded conversation and ongoing
conversation. I got back what I put in with no
detectable change. That, without noise, is what I want
from my mics. Some want other things, but I'm getting
this from the NT1-A's.

When one talks about mics, one needs to be aware of the fact that the degree
of natural sound of every directional microphone is at minimum related to,
in the bass - the distance to the source and its radiation pattern, and in
the treble - the nature of the reverberation of the room and the radiation
pattern of the source.

If your usage of a given mic is not guided by a lot of knowlege of how that
mic operates in various circumstances, any such percpetion of extremely
natural sound is a happy accident.

Finally, there are some mics that are very unlikely to ever sound natural.

Depending on your application, all of the above is either good news or bad
news. ;-)

[Ian Bell]

Ty Ford wrote:

Yes, when used with the wrong preamp, the TLM 103 can be wrong, but still
righter than an NT-1a


I do hate it when people express opinions as fact. These are the same ones
that recommend an SM57 on snare.

Ian

[Ian Bell]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:58:41 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ab2b7d.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:12:13 -0500, Agent 86 wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:35 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:00:29 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:


Rode NT1-A
dbx 286A

Why?

The NT1-A has one of the lowest self noise figures around today and it
is a good all round mic suitable for instruments and voice. It is not
expensive and is available in matched pairs for stereo work. I have
one and use it all the time.

Yes, it has pretty low self noise on paper. It doesn't sound very good,
but it has pretty low self noise on paper. It's a pretty significant
step down from the 4033 which to OP already owns, but it has pretty low
self noise on paper.

Persactly. Proceed to the Neumann TLM 103 which has lowself noise and
sounds good.



Persactly not. The TLM103 has a self noise of 7.5dB-A (per IEC651) and
the NT1-A has 5db-A (per IEC651).

Ian

Ah, yes, well you're not taking into consideration the sensitivity of the
mics. The TLM 103, I think, is more sensitive. As a result, you have to
boost the NT1-a up to where the selfnoise is more evident.


Wrong again. The TLM 103 has a sensitivity of 23mV/PA and the NT1-A is
slightly more sensitive at 25mV/Pa.

The again, if the mic sounds nasty, who cares about selfnoise.


Indeed, but nasty is subjective.

Ian

[Agent 86]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:58:07 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:51:46 -0800, Tobiah wrote:

I agree with the assessment. I recorded a group of friends having
a discussion with a pair of NT1-A's, and then played it back while
we were still talking as a joke. Even though I knew that the recording
was playing, I couldn't help jerking my head around to one of the
speakers in response to a voice, as if I would answer. I had great
trouble distinguishing between recorded conversation and ongoing
conversation. I got back what I put in with no detectable change.
That, without noise, is what I want from my mics. Some want other
things, but I'm getting this from the NT1-A's.

That is the ultimate test of any mic - that it can fool you into
thinking a real person has spoken.


Then again...

Somewhere around here I have an old VHS tape of a family gathering
recorded with the built in mic on the camcorder. At one point, my dog
decided he wasn't getting as much camera time as a star with his
reputation deserved. I told him to sit, and the command was caught on tape.

Now, I'll wager that old Jake's hearing is about as good as any human
reading this group, and he'll only sit on command if the command comes
from me, my wife, or my brother. But play that tape back through cheezy
little 3" TV speakers, and he sits right on cue -EVERY TIME.

[Ian Bell]

Tobiah wrote:


Disagree strongly. The NT1-A is a very natural sounding mic. What it
lacks is the upper mid hump which many seem to regard as giving a mic
"character". I prefer my mics flat - I'll bugger with the response
later myself if I feel like it.

I agree with the assessment. I recorded a group of friends having
a discussion with a pair of NT1-A's, and then played it back while
we were still talking as a joke. Even though I knew that the recording
was playing, I couldn't help jerking my head around to one of the
speakers in response to a voice, as if I would answer. I had great
trouble distinguishing between recorded conversation and ongoing
conversation. I got back what I put in with no detectable change.
That, without noise, is what I want from my mics. Some want other
things, but I'm getting this from the NT1-A's.


Precisely, I have tried lots of mics over the last 40 years and the NT1-A
was the first mic in a long time to surprise me that way. So many others
have such obvious coloration.

Ian

[Tobiah]

I agree with the assessment. I recorded a group of friends having
a discussion with a pair of NT1-A's, and then played it back while
we were still talking as a joke. Even though I knew that the recording
was playing, I couldn't help jerking my head around to one of the
speakers in response to a voice, as if I would answer. I had great
trouble distinguishing between recorded conversation and ongoing
conversation. I got back what I put in with no detectable change.
That, without noise, is what I want from my mics. Some want other
things, but I'm getting this from the NT1-A's.
That is the ultimate test of any mic - that it can fool you into
thinking a real person has spoken.


Then again...

Somewhere around here I have an old VHS tape of a family gathering
recorded with the built in mic on the camcorder. At one point, my dog
decided he wasn't getting as much camera time as a star with his
reputation deserved. I told him to sit, and the command was caught on tape.

Now, I'll wager that old Jake's hearing is about as good as any human
reading this group, and he'll only sit on command if the command comes
from me, my wife, or my brother. But play that tape back through cheezy
little 3" TV speakers, and he sits right on cue -EVERY TIME.


Right, but then if my Boss calls me on my cell phone and tells me
to start a project, I recognize that it's him, and do as he says,
yet if I hear him on someone's speaker phone, it doesn't cause me to
hit "Alt-tab" and get off of RAP and back to work, like it would if
he came in behind me and said the same thing.

Tobiah

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Gary Morrison]

Mike Rivers wrote:

This is a common "beginner" problem. You think you should test out your
system (always a good thing) but you don't realize what you're actually
testing. You turn up the gain or monitor volume until you can hear a
problem and then think you have a problem. But then you find, as you
have, that in practice you can't use that much gain for what you're
recording.

In short, my experiments seemed to be realistic, but ultimately they
weren't. The main problem was that my volume reference wasn't absolute
enough. When I used the 0dB, "margin exceeded" indicator on my DAT
deck, I could tell that it was really a lot louder than I realized.

--

(Preferably reply to the newsgroup, please. If you reply by Email, I
will sincerely try to receive your message, but it will probably get
buried in spam.)

[hank alrich]

Ian Bell wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:

Yes, when used with the wrong preamp, the TLM 103 can be wrong, but still
righter than an NT-1a


I do hate it when people express opinions as fact. These are the same ones
that recommend an SM57 on snare.

Ever hooked an SM57 to a good preamp with a transformer front end? Ever
tried to figure out how many great sounding snare tracks have meen mic'd
with an SM57?

FWIW, Ty has more experience with more mics than many folks posting
here.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[hank alrich]

Ian Bell wrote:

The OP was principally concerned about noise.

Ian, I am familiar enough with the kit in question to know that the
noise problem cannot be due to the mic and preamp combo, unless one or
both of them are broken. It is actually _that_ simple.

If you've followed the whole thread, you now know that ambient
acoustical noise was his problem from the gitgo.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Agent 86]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:15:52 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:


I do hate it when people express opinions as fact. These are the same ones
that recommend an SM57 on snare.

News Flash!!!!!

SM57 on snare is a BIG part of what made rock and roll rock and roll.

If you can't get a ROCKING snare drum sound out of a 57 (even through a
Mackie), then the mic ain't to blame.

I truly doubt that "NT1a and ?????" (fill in your own favorite
application) will ever become the classic combination that "SM57 and
snare" has been for several decades.

[Gary Morrison]

wrote:

Sorry for the second post and this is probably a silly suggestion, but
by any chance are you recording into the "back" of the AT4033?

Yes, that occurred to me, so I checked it. No, I'm not talking into the
back. Thanks for the sanity check though.

--

(Preferably reply to the newsgroup, please. If you reply by Email, I
will sincerely try to receive your message, but it will probably get
buried in spam.)

[Gary Morrison]

Mike Rivers wrote:

That's clearly nothing wrong with the mic and preamp, but you can
easily determine this by setting up the mic, setting the gain to where
you need it in order to get a good recording level, and record some
"silience." Then listen to what you have. If you hear a constant hum or
buzz, this indicates that there may be a problem with a cable, or (less
likely) a problem with the mic or preamp. If you hear any recognizable
noises like a furnace (or air conditioner if you're in that part of the
world) fan, a computer fan, traffic, kids playing in the yard - that's
a problem with room noise.

What I hear is pretty much an even white-noise hiss. It does have a
wind-like feel to it, so it could be air in the room, even though I've
turned off the house blower fan.

--

(Preferably reply to the newsgroup, please. If you reply by Email, I
will sincerely try to receive your message, but it will probably get
buried in spam.)

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
news:45ac1282.0@entanet...
Tobiah wrote:


Disagree strongly. The NT1-A is a very natural
sounding mic. What it lacks is the upper mid hump
which many seem to regard as giving a mic "character".
I prefer my mics flat - I'll bugger with the response
later myself if I feel like it.

I agree with the assessment. I recorded a group of
friends having a discussion with a pair of NT1-A's, and then played it
back while we were still talking as a joke. Even though I knew
that the recording was playing, I couldn't help jerking
my head around to one of the speakers in response to a
voice, as if I would answer. I had great trouble
distinguishing between recorded conversation and
ongoing conversation. I got back what I put in with no
detectable change. That, without noise, is what I want
from my mics. Some want other things, but I'm getting
this from the NT1-A's.

Precisely, I have tried lots of mics over the last 40
years and the NT1-A was the first mic in a long time to
surprise me that way. So many others have such obvious
coloration. Ian

The NT1-A is up 4 dB at 12kHz vs. 1kHz.:
http://www.rodemic.com/downloads/NT1-A_InstMan.pdf
The TLM-103 is also up 4dB at this frequency:
http://neumann.com/zoom.php?zoomimg=...am&w=878&h=278

However, the TLM has a broad shelf starting at 5 kHz,
while the total elevation of the NT1-A over the treble
spectrum is much smaller.
But both of theses microphones are colored.
Here is an uncolored microphone:
http://www.dpamicrophones.com/, type 4011-TL --"Graphs
and More". This microphone has a 2dB rise that does not start until
10kHz, and vanishes after 15 kHz. It is a much more
accurate microphone.

True only if you use the mic in an anechoic chamber.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
news:45ac1223.0@entanet
Ty Ford wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:58:41 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ab2b7d.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:12:13 -0500, Agent 86 wrote
(in article
):

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:35 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:00:29 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:


Rode NT1-A
dbx 286A

Why?

The NT1-A has one of the lowest self noise figures
around today and it is a good all round mic suitable
for instruments and voice. It is not expensive and
is available in matched pairs for stereo work. I
have one and use it all the time.

Yes, it has pretty low self noise on paper. It
doesn't sound very good, but it has pretty low self
noise on paper. It's a pretty significant step down
from the 4033 which to OP already owns, but it has
pretty low self noise on paper.

Persactly. Proceed to the Neumann TLM 103 which has
lowself noise and sounds good.



Persactly not. The TLM103 has a self noise of 7.5dB-A
(per IEC651) and the NT1-A has 5db-A (per IEC651).

Ian

Ah, yes, well you're not taking into consideration the
sensitivity of the mics. The TLM 103, I think, is more
sensitive. As a result, you have to boost the NT1-a up
to where the selfnoise is more evident.

Wrong again. The TLM 103 has a sensitivity of 23mV/PA and
the NT1-A is slightly more sensitive at 25mV/Pa.

The again, if the mic sounds nasty, who cares about
selfnoise.

Indeed, but nasty is subjective.

Nasty with the NT1A comes when you use the mic in ways that it was not
designed to be used.

Every time I've researched people who think the NT1A sounds nasty, I've
found usage that does not correspond to its intended purpose.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]

Strangely, the dbx 286a defies the standard
price/performance ratio by sounding a lot better than it
should. A review of it in in my On Line Archives.

Where does the Midiman DMP-3 fit in to this? Have you had
one in? I've take one apart, and been impressed by the
construction.

Once construction techniques reach normal levels, further improvements have
zero impact on sound quality.

[Mike Rivers]

Agent 86 wrote:

If you can't get a ROCKING snare drum sound out of a 57 (even through a
Mackie), then the mic ain't to blame.

Unfortunately it's the drummer, and occasionally the drum or drum
setup. People are willing to buy a new mic or a new preamp, but are
reluctant to buy a new drummer for the session (particularly if they're
the drummer).

[Ian Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:


Nasty with the NT1A comes when you use the mic in ways that it was not
designed to be used.

Every time I've researched people who think the NT1A sounds nasty, I've
found usage that does not correspond to its intended purpose.

You piqued my curiosity - care to give an example or two?

Ian

[Ian Bell]

Mike Rivers wrote:


Agent 86 wrote:

If you can't get a ROCKING snare drum sound out of a 57 (even through a
Mackie), then the mic ain't to blame.

Unfortunately it's the drummer, and occasionally the drum or drum
setup. People are willing to buy a new mic or a new preamp, but are
reluctant to buy a new drummer for the session (particularly if they're
the drummer).

IME drummers are more variable than on location room acoustics ;-) And the
number of drummers I have met who actually know how to tune a kit properly
I can count on the fingers of one hand.

Ian

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
news:45acfcd1.0@entanet
Arny Krueger wrote:


Nasty with the NT1A comes when you use the mic in ways
that it was not designed to be used.

Every time I've researched people who think the NT1A
sounds nasty, I've found usage that does not correspond
to its intended purpose.

You piqued my curiosity - care to give an example or two?

I'm primarily thinking of people who used them close-up and found them hot
or harsh.

They are, IMO designed for micing from a distance, most likely in a fairly
reverberent room.

I have used them to mic percussion instruments up-close, but I did that
expecting some *heat*. ;-)

[Ian Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Ian Bell" wrote in message

You piqued my curiosity - care to give an example or two?

I'm primarily thinking of people who used them close-up and found them hot
or harsh.

They are, IMO designed for micing from a distance, most likely in a
fairly reverberent room.


Don't know about the reverberance but I agree with the distance. First time
I got mine I tested it on a drum kit from about 10 feet. Uncannily
accurate.

Ian

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:15:52 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ac1088.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

Yes, when used with the wrong preamp, the TLM 103 can be wrong, but still
righter than an NT-1a


I do hate it when people express opinions as fact. These are the same ones
that recommend an SM57 on snare.

Ian

Look Ian,

I've had both here side by side. I have been reviewing mics for a long time.
I'm not just ****ing off here. I know what I'm talking about and it's facts
not opinions.

The NT-1 a is a nice step up from the NT-1, but it's not a TLM 103 killer.

Take your hate somewhere else.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:22:43 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ac1223.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:58:41 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ab2b7d.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:12:13 -0500, Agent 86 wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:35 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:00:29 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:


Rode NT1-A
dbx 286A

Why?

The NT1-A has one of the lowest self noise figures around today and it
is a good all round mic suitable for instruments and voice. It is not
expensive and is available in matched pairs for stereo work. I have
one and use it all the time.

Yes, it has pretty low self noise on paper. It doesn't sound very good,
but it has pretty low self noise on paper. It's a pretty significant
step down from the 4033 which to OP already owns, but it has pretty low
self noise on paper.

Persactly. Proceed to the Neumann TLM 103 which has lowself noise and
sounds good.



Persactly not. The TLM103 has a self noise of 7.5dB-A (per IEC651) and
the NT1-A has 5db-A (per IEC651).

Ian

Ah, yes, well you're not taking into consideration the sensitivity of the
mics. The TLM 103, I think, is more sensitive. As a result, you have to
boost the NT1-a up to where the selfnoise is more evident.


Wrong again. The TLM 103 has a sensitivity of 23mV/PA and the NT1-A is
slightly more sensitive at 25mV/Pa.

The again, if the mic sounds nasty, who cares about selfnoise.


Indeed, but nasty is subjective.

OK. I just uploaded 16-bit 44.1 side by side samples of the TLM 103 and
NT1-a. They should take a few minutes to load up, but should be there by 5:15
EDT.

Giving Ian his due, the mics are very close in sensitivity. My meters showed
the TLM 103 being barely more sensitive, but that could have been sue to the
increased bass from proximity. The files are there in my Online Archive for
anyone to listen to in a folder called TLM103-NT1-a. Help yourself.

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.

Regards,

Ty Ford





--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:07 -0500, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ) :


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]

Strangely, the dbx 286a defies the standard price/performance ratio by
sounding a lot better than it should. A review of it in in my On Line
Archives.

Where does the Midiman DMP-3 fit in to this? Have you had one in? I've take
one apart, and been impressed by the construction.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894



dunno.

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:56:49 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.

Er - no. That s subjective, not objective. You appear confused as to
the meaning of the terms.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:56:49 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:22:43 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ac1223.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:58:41 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ab2b7d.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:12:13 -0500, Agent 86 wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:35 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:00:29 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:


Rode NT1-A
dbx 286A

Why?

The NT1-A has one of the lowest self noise figures around today and it
is a good all round mic suitable for instruments and voice. It is not
expensive and is available in matched pairs for stereo work. I have
one and use it all the time.

Yes, it has pretty low self noise on paper. It doesn't sound very good,
but it has pretty low self noise on paper. It's a pretty significant
step down from the 4033 which to OP already owns, but it has pretty low
self noise on paper.

Persactly. Proceed to the Neumann TLM 103 which has lowself noise and
sounds good.



Persactly not. The TLM103 has a self noise of 7.5dB-A (per IEC651) and
the NT1-A has 5db-A (per IEC651).

Ian

Ah, yes, well you're not taking into consideration the sensitivity of the
mics. The TLM 103, I think, is more sensitive. As a result, you have to
boost the NT1-a up to where the selfnoise is more evident.


Wrong again. The TLM 103 has a sensitivity of 23mV/PA and the NT1-A is
slightly more sensitive at 25mV/Pa.

The again, if the mic sounds nasty, who cares about selfnoise.


Indeed, but nasty is subjective.

OK. I just uploaded 16-bit 44.1 side by side samples of the TLM 103 and
NT1-a. They should take a few minutes to load up, but should be there by 5:15
EDT.

Giving Ian his due, the mics are very close in sensitivity. My meters showed
the TLM 103 being barely more sensitive, but that could have been sue to the
increased bass from proximity. The files are there in my Online Archive for
anyone to listen to in a folder called TLM103-NT1-a. Help yourself.

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.

Regards,

Ty Ford


And I've just listened, and I disagree. I would say they are extremely
close, but I get a slightly more natural feel from the Rode. The
Neumann seems rather more subdued. I know this may simply be another
way of describing what you said, albeit with a different conclusion
about what is "right", but that's the way I hear it.

I would say though that your test is a bit unfair to both of them.
These mics are both suffering enormous bass lift because you are so
close. Another trial from a couple of metres might reveal a different
side to them.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:47:11 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:56:49 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:22:43 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ac1223.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:58:41 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ab2b7d.0@entanet):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:12:13 -0500, Agent 86 wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:35 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:00:29 +0000, Ian Bell wrote:


Rode NT1-A
dbx 286A

Why?

The NT1-A has one of the lowest self noise figures around today and it
is a good all round mic suitable for instruments and voice. It is not
expensive and is available in matched pairs for stereo work. I have
one and use it all the time.

Yes, it has pretty low self noise on paper. It doesn't sound very good,
but it has pretty low self noise on paper. It's a pretty significant
step down from the 4033 which to OP already owns, but it has pretty low
self noise on paper.

Persactly. Proceed to the Neumann TLM 103 which has lowself noise and
sounds good.



Persactly not. The TLM103 has a self noise of 7.5dB-A (per IEC651) and
the NT1-A has 5db-A (per IEC651).

Ian

Ah, yes, well you're not taking into consideration the sensitivity of the
mics. The TLM 103, I think, is more sensitive. As a result, you have to
boost the NT1-a up to where the selfnoise is more evident.


Wrong again. The TLM 103 has a sensitivity of 23mV/PA and the NT1-A is
slightly more sensitive at 25mV/Pa.

The again, if the mic sounds nasty, who cares about selfnoise.


Indeed, but nasty is subjective.

OK. I just uploaded 16-bit 44.1 side by side samples of the TLM 103 and
NT1-a. They should take a few minutes to load up, but should be there by
5:15
EDT.

Giving Ian his due, the mics are very close in sensitivity. My meters
showed
the TLM 103 being barely more sensitive, but that could have been sue to
the
increased bass from proximity. The files are there in my Online Archive for
anyone to listen to in a folder called TLM103-NT1-a. Help yourself.

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.

Regards,

Ty Ford


And I've just listened, and I disagree. I would say they are extremely
close, but I get a slightly more natural feel from the Rode. The
Neumann seems rather more subdued. I know this may simply be another
way of describing what you said, albeit with a different conclusion
about what is "right", but that's the way I hear it.

I would say though that your test is a bit unfair to both of them.
These mics are both suffering enormous bass lift because you are so
close. Another trial from a couple of metres might reveal a different
side to them.

d



A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much
what any mic might offer.

Thanks,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ian Bell]

Ty Ford wrote:
Look Ian,

I've had both here side by side. I have been reviewing mics for a long
time.

I don't review mics, I use them every day and have been for over 40 years.

I'm not just ****ing off here. I know what I'm talking about and
it's facts not opinions.


No, you are simply expressing an opinion as am I.

Ian

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:34:38 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:56:49 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.

Er - no. That s subjective, not objective. You appear confused as to
the meaning of the terms.

d



You appear to enjoy arguing.

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ian Bell]

Ty Ford wrote:

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.


For someone who considers himself a reviewer you really ought to learn the
difference between objective and subjective. 'Smoother' is subjective.

Ian

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:05:43 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

I would say though that your test is a bit unfair to both of them.
These mics are both suffering enormous bass lift because you are so
close. Another trial from a couple of metres might reveal a different
side to them.

d



A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much
what any mic might offer.


Don't think so - it would just bring out different qualities.

Try this - I've extracted the same part from your two files, joined
them end-to-end and equalised the levels. I've also applied the eq I
would use for 50cm miking, which I suspect is not too far off what you
used. Play this in a loop and see what you hear.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/neumann_rode.wav

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Ian Bell]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Once construction techniques reach normal levels, further improvements
have zero impact on sound quality.

This is true. However, "normal levels" vary. The mic pre on my Tascam
FW-1082 is constructed on a single layer phenolic board. The board in the
DMP-3 is four layer epoxy.


Are you sure? My Neve mic pres are constructed on single layer phenolic
board. Does this mean they are no good?

Ian

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:07:08 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:34:38 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:56:49 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.

Er - no. That s subjective, not objective. You appear confused as to
the meaning of the terms.

d



You appear to enjoy arguing.

Ty Ford

No, it is actually quite important to get those kind of terms right,
they are pretty fundamental.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Ian Bell]

Soundhaspriority wrote:


"Ian Bell" wrote in message


Don't know about the reverberance but I agree with the distance. First
time
I got mine I tested it on a drum kit from about 10 feet. Uncannily
accurate.

Ian


Then I don't understand the purpose of the mike. Distance miking is
normally part of coincident stereo. The NT-1A is not a good choice for
this, because it is a large diaphram mike. Ten feet is rather large for a
spot, unless the performers are spaced very far away from each other.



Distance miking is used for all sorts of things, not just stereo pairs.

Stereo can be achieved with non-coincident pairs.

Large diaphragm mics are commonly use in coincident pairs, one upside down
on top of the other.

Ian

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Then I don't understand the purpose of the mike. Distance miking is normally
part of coincident stereo. The NT-1A is not a good choice for this, because
it is a large diaphram mike. Ten feet is rather large for a spot, unless the
performers are spaced very far away from each other.

Bob, you keep touting alleged theory that shows how little variety there
has been in your practice. Ten feet is not far out for a spot mic,
depending on the source and the room and the desired final result.
Stereo happens often with LDC's, one above the other for coincident,
spaced for ORTF or other approaches.

Once outside the text books, one may find that a variety of approaches
gets better results in particular settings.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[hank alrich]

Ian Bell wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.


For someone who considers himself a reviewer you really ought to learn the
difference between objective and subjective. 'Smoother' is subjective.

Is "peaky" subjective?

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Carey Carlan]

(hank alrich) wrote in
:

Ian Bell wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:

The TLM 103 is smoother, that's not subjective. That's objective.

For someone who considers himself a reviewer you really ought to
learn the difference between objective and subjective. 'Smoother' is
subjective.

Is "peaky" subjective?

I would think so. Most adjectives are.

"a 6 dB rise at 8K" is not subjective, but calling it "peaky" is.

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:11:27 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:05:43 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

I would say though that your test is a bit unfair to both of them.
These mics are both suffering enormous bass lift because you are so
close. Another trial from a couple of metres might reveal a different
side to them.

d



A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty
much
what any mic might offer.


Don't think so - it would just bring out different qualities.

Try this - I've extracted the same part from your two files, joined
them end-to-end and equalised the levels. I've also applied the eq I
would use for 50cm miking, which I suspect is not too far off what you
used. Play this in a loop and see what you hear.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/neumann_rode.wav

d

Wow Don, fascinating.

I don't like the sound of them at all. I find them both harsh and edgy. More
like what the NT1-a sounds like here. That's not what the TLM 103 sounds like
here. No wonder no two audio geeks can ever agree on anything.

What EQ did you apply? I remember recently reviewing the TLM 49 (see below),
which I found surprisingly harsh up close without EQ. When I pulled out some
3k, it got a lot sweeter. Did you add something around 3k?

If Ian's still around, he may notice that I use more "objectivity" in the
review.

Regards,

Ty Ford



Neumann TLM 49
Ty Ford
Earlier this year, at NAB in Vegas, I got the chance to see a prototype of
the new Neumann TLM 49. It¹s here. The accompanying literature says that ³the
design of the TLM 49 was inspired by the legendary Neumann M 49...introduced
to German radio broadcasters in 1952.² While the frequency response appears
to be very similar to the original M 49, the differences in time and
technology really make comparison impossible. What¹s important is what the
TLM 49 sounds like.

The TLM designation means the mic is transformerless. The TLM 49 requires a
healthy Phantom Power; 48 V DC at 3.2 mA. It is formidable in appearance;
significantly larger and heavier (just under two pounds) than a TLM 103. The
34 mm capsule is comprised of a gold sputtered, center-tapped front diaphragm
and clear back diaphragm. The capsule sits on a flexible stalk about an inch
long. The stalk is mounted to the circular PC board on which are the Surface
Mount Technology (SMT) electronics. A small ribbon cable connects the PC
board to the XLR connector below. The rubber grommet that surrounds the
circuit board snugs into the throat of the brushed nickel base of the
microphone. The rubber grommet is larger than that used on the TLM 103 and
the TLM 49 base is larger and heavier than that of the TLM 103. The capsule
is extremely well isolated from the body.

Sensitivity is listed at 12 mV/Pa. The TLM 49 is about 4-5 dB less sensitive
than the TLM 103 at a distance where proximity effect is not considered, and
about 3.5 dB less sensitive when in close proximity to a male voice. The 12
dB-A selfnoise of the TLM 49 is slightly noticeable in extremely quiet
circumstances relative to the 7 dB-A selfnoise of the TLM 103, but many other
mics on the market would kill to get an honest 12 dB-A.

The headgrille is larger than that of the TLM 103 and is comprised of the
familiar triple screen mesh. The larger space within the headgrille creates a
very open micro environment that contributes to a very transparent sound. The
pattern of the TLM 49, while called a cardioid, has a small tail that almost
qualifies the mic to be a supercardioid. The tail is more sensitive at higher
frequencies. While in many applications, the tail will not prove to be
problematic, it may become an issue if the mic is deployed too near a hard
surface such as a studio window, or nestled in among the toms and snare of a
drum kit. Having noted that, Neumann literature suggests that the primary use
of the TLM 49 is vocal and speech recording as well as other instrumental
applications.

The TLM 49 frequency response curve is somewhat unusual. From a center point
at 1 kHz, the low end response drops very slowly, about 1 dB over 3 octaves
to -4 dB at 40 Hz before steepening slightly to -7 dB at 20 Hz. Above 1 kHz,
the HF response rises gently to + 3 dB at 5 kHz. Between 5 KHz and 10 kHz
there¹s a mild 2 dB dip just below 8 kHz. After a return at 10 kHz there¹s a
slow roll off to -2 dB at 15 kHz and -6 dB at 20 kHz. That means from 50 Hz
to the peak at 10 kHz there¹s a steady rise of 6 dB before the slight dip and
near 8 kHz.

For voice work at a distance of six inches, this has the effect of rolling
off the bottom, which many of us do on voice anyway. Having worked some
extremely pop sensitive mics over the years, I can work most mics slightly to
the side and at a distance of three to four inches. I had no popping problems
while working the TLM 49 and, the day after it arrived, I used it to track my
voice for a radio spot for Cabrini College in Philadelphia. The preamp was a
Millennia Media STT-1 with mild compression. The music track had some
percussive piano parts that covered the voice track. I found adding 2 dB of
200Hz to the voice track kept it nicely on top.
I used the TLM 49 to record a vocal and acoustic guitar through the STT-1.
For the guitar, I needed to pull out a little bottom; a shelf down 3 dB at
100 Hz. I positioned the mic about four inches out from the 12th fret where
the neck joins the body and angled the mic slightly back toward the sound
hole. I got good thick tracks I¹d have to thin with some EQ if I were going
to add more rhythm instruments.

The vocals surprised me. Based on my commercial voiceover experiment, I was
expecting something thinner but my voice was plenty thick recording at a
distance of eight inches to a foot. During playback, I also pulled out some
wide Q 3 k to smooth the voice a bit. My voice and some other I regularly
record have a lot of energy in that range. If you have soft-voiced singers
that sink too easily into a mix, the TLM 49 will bring them forward. You can
use the TLM 49 to turn up the lights on soft or shy instruments, but probably
won¹t reach for it for a blatty tenor sax.
The next day I gave voiceover lesson using the TLM 49 on one of my male
students. With his voice, a mid baritone, I found pulling out some 3 kHz
smoothed him out. The bottom was fine with no EQ needed.

IN CONCLUSION
With the TLM 49, Neumann has created a very quiet and colorful microphone
with many possible applications. Even though the frequency response doesn¹t
show any major changes, that slow rise of 6 dB does have an audible effect.
In my ears it has the effect of boosting the midrange earlier than I would
expect from most Neumanns; about 3 kHz rather than 4 kHz to 6 kHz.
Ty Ford has been writing for Pro Audio Review since the first issue. He may
be contacted at www.tyford.com



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:37:25 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:11:27 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:05:43 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

I would say though that your test is a bit unfair to both of them.
These mics are both suffering enormous bass lift because you are so
close. Another trial from a couple of metres might reveal a different
side to them.

d



A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty
much
what any mic might offer.


Don't think so - it would just bring out different qualities.

Try this - I've extracted the same part from your two files, joined
them end-to-end and equalised the levels. I've also applied the eq I
would use for 50cm miking, which I suspect is not too far off what you
used. Play this in a loop and see what you hear.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/neumann_rode.wav

d

Wow Don, fascinating.

I don't like the sound of them at all. I find them both harsh and edgy. More
like what the NT1-a sounds like here. That's not what the TLM 103 sounds like
here. No wonder no two audio geeks can ever agree on anything.

What EQ did you apply? I remember recently reviewing the TLM 49 (see below),
which I found surprisingly harsh up close without EQ. When I pulled out some
3k, it got a lot sweeter. Did you add something around 3k?

If Ian's still around, he may notice that I use more "objectivity" in the
review.

Regards,

Ty Ford



Neumann TLM 49
Ty Ford
Earlier this year, at NAB in Vegas, I got the chance to see a prototype of
the new Neumann TLM 49. It¹s here. The accompanying literature says that ³the
design of the TLM 49 was inspired by the legendary Neumann M 49...introduced
to German radio broadcasters in 1952.² While the frequency response appears
to be very similar to the original M 49, the differences in time and
technology really make comparison impossible. What¹s important is what the
TLM 49 sounds like.

The TLM designation means the mic is transformerless. The TLM 49 requires a
healthy Phantom Power; 48 V DC at 3.2 mA. It is formidable in appearance;
significantly larger and heavier (just under two pounds) than a TLM 103. The
34 mm capsule is comprised of a gold sputtered, center-tapped front diaphragm
and clear back diaphragm. The capsule sits on a flexible stalk about an inch
long. The stalk is mounted to the circular PC board on which are the Surface
Mount Technology (SMT) electronics. A small ribbon cable connects the PC
board to the XLR connector below. The rubber grommet that surrounds the
circuit board snugs into the throat of the brushed nickel base of the
microphone. The rubber grommet is larger than that used on the TLM 103 and
the TLM 49 base is larger and heavier than that of the TLM 103. The capsule
is extremely well isolated from the body.

Sensitivity is listed at 12 mV/Pa. The TLM 49 is about 4-5 dB less sensitive
than the TLM 103 at a distance where proximity effect is not considered, and
about 3.5 dB less sensitive when in close proximity to a male voice. The 12
dB-A selfnoise of the TLM 49 is slightly noticeable in extremely quiet
circumstances relative to the 7 dB-A selfnoise of the TLM 103, but many other
mics on the market would kill to get an honest 12 dB-A.

The headgrille is larger than that of the TLM 103 and is comprised of the
familiar triple screen mesh. The larger space within the headgrille creates a
very open micro environment that contributes to a very transparent sound. The
pattern of the TLM 49, while called a cardioid, has a small tail that almost
qualifies the mic to be a supercardioid. The tail is more sensitive at higher
frequencies. While in many applications, the tail will not prove to be
problematic, it may become an issue if the mic is deployed too near a hard
surface such as a studio window, or nestled in among the toms and snare of a
drum kit. Having noted that, Neumann literature suggests that the primary use
of the TLM 49 is vocal and speech recording as well as other instrumental
applications.

The TLM 49 frequency response curve is somewhat unusual. From a center point
at 1 kHz, the low end response drops very slowly, about 1 dB over 3 octaves
to -4 dB at 40 Hz before steepening slightly to -7 dB at 20 Hz. Above 1 kHz,
the HF response rises gently to + 3 dB at 5 kHz. Between 5 KHz and 10 kHz
there¹s a mild 2 dB dip just below 8 kHz. After a return at 10 kHz there¹s a
slow roll off to -2 dB at 15 kHz and -6 dB at 20 kHz. That means from 50 Hz
to the peak at 10 kHz there¹s a steady rise of 6 dB before the slight dip and
near 8 kHz.

For voice work at a distance of six inches, this has the effect of rolling
off the bottom, which many of us do on voice anyway. Having worked some
extremely pop sensitive mics over the years, I can work most mics slightly to
the side and at a distance of three to four inches. I had no popping problems
while working the TLM 49 and, the day after it arrived, I used it to track my
voice for a radio spot for Cabrini College in Philadelphia. The preamp was a
Millennia Media STT-1 with mild compression. The music track had some
percussive piano parts that covered the voice track. I found adding 2 dB of
200Hz to the voice track kept it nicely on top.
I used the TLM 49 to record a vocal and acoustic guitar through the STT-1.
For the guitar, I needed to pull out a little bottom; a shelf down 3 dB at
100 Hz. I positioned the mic about four inches out from the 12th fret where
the neck joins the body and angled the mic slightly back toward the sound
hole. I got good thick tracks I¹d have to thin with some EQ if I were going
to add more rhythm instruments.

The vocals surprised me. Based on my commercial voiceover experiment, I was
expecting something thinner but my voice was plenty thick recording at a
distance of eight inches to a foot. During playback, I also pulled out some
wide Q 3 k to smooth the voice a bit. My voice and some other I regularly
record have a lot of energy in that range. If you have soft-voiced singers
that sink too easily into a mix, the TLM 49 will bring them forward. You can
use the TLM 49 to turn up the lights on soft or shy instruments, but probably
won¹t reach for it for a blatty tenor sax.
The next day I gave voiceover lesson using the TLM 49 on one of my male
students. With his voice, a mid baritone, I found pulling out some 3 kHz
smoothed him out. The bottom was fine with no EQ needed.

IN CONCLUSION
With the TLM 49, Neumann has created a very quiet and colorful microphone
with many possible applications. Even though the frequency response doesn¹t
show any major changes, that slow rise of 6 dB does have an audible effect.
In my ears it has the effect of boosting the midrange earlier than I would
expect from most Neumanns; about 3 kHz rather than 4 kHz to 6 kHz.
Ty Ford has been writing for Pro Audio Review since the first issue. He may
be contacted at www.tyford.com



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

The TLM49 sounds like an interesting departure from the normal Neumann
stuff.

Now, back to the eq I used. It was very straightforward, simple bass
cut, about 1dB down at 440Hz, 3dB at 120Hz and 10dB at 30Hz. I used
the FFT filter in Audition, spline to make it smooth. I did nothing at
all to the top end, which is ruler-flat. I wonder why this gave the
impression of fiddling with the upper reaches.

I've done some investigation of the mechanisms of proximity effect on
one of my NT1-A mics, although they apply to any directional mic. They
are he

http:81.174.169.10/odds/mic

I think I've posted this here before, but it still has some value, I
think.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com