Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:08:50 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ad6064.0@entanet): 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 I'm not writin' a review here, Ian. It's just us talking. I'm sorry you can't follow that. 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 |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
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. Hmm. Objectively speaking, the TLM produces a flatter, smoother power spectral density when stimulated by Ty's voice coming from what seems to be a small distance. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Ian Bell" wrote in message
news:45ad6113.0@entanet 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. So what? Are you sure? My Neve mic pres are constructed on single layer phenolic board. Does this mean they are no good? Score! |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Try this - I've extracted the same part from your two files, joined them end-to-end and equalised the levels. Cool, but: 1) You are comparing two different segments of the original test. Both contain counting from one to 10, but they are images of different events. Equalizing the levels may have been fair, but certainly not equalizing levels of different parts of the original test. 2) You don't mention which side is the Rode. I'm guessing that it's the latter, given the name of the sound file. 3) I wish you had not added your own EQ. It doesn't seem fair somehow, as you may have masked or accentuated some of the characteristics of either mic. I realize that your eq was extremely tame, but we are trying to be scientific about this. Thanks for doing the work though, I find all this very interesting. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Ty Ford wrote:
A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 An you appear to enjoy being obtuse. Ian |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Ty Ford wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:08:50 -0500, Ian Bell wrote (in article 45ad6064.0@entanet): 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 I'm not writin' a review here, Ian. It's just us talking. I'm sorry you can't follow that. I see, so all normal terms lose their meaning when you talk. Why am I not surprised. Ian |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:41:50 -0800, Tobiah wrote:
Try this - I've extracted the same part from your two files, joined them end-to-end and equalised the levels. Cool, but: 1) You are comparing two different segments of the original test. Both contain counting from one to 10, but they are images of different events. Equalizing the levels may have been fair, but certainly not equalizing levels of different parts of the original test. 2) You don't mention which side is the Rode. I'm guessing that it's the latter, given the name of the sound file. 3) I wish you had not added your own EQ. It doesn't seem fair somehow, as you may have masked or accentuated some of the characteristics of either mic. I realize that your eq was extremely tame, but we are trying to be scientific about this. Thanks for doing the work though, I find all this very interesting. Good catch. OK, I've fixed all that - the parts are the same and no eq. All I have done now is fine tweaked the level of the second (Rode) part to make it exactly the same as the Neumann. See what you think. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"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. I think the DMPs are the pres that are in my Delta66. They are exceptionally good for the price and makes a heck of a front-end for tracking bass. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Ian Bell" wrote in message
news:45ade3e7.0@entanet Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, period. That makes perfect sense for his situation, as a cursory glance at his web site makes perfectly clear. He's focussed on Voice Over work. Thing is, there's more than VO work in most of our lives. In fact, I may never record or do SR work for spoken word presented in a sound booth, in my entire life, past present or future. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
"Ian Bell" wrote in message news:45ad6113.0@entanet... 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 Of course not. If they're good, they're good. I mentioned the glass boards in connection with the DMP-3 because it showed that somebody cared. If you read up on current electronics production techniques in China, you may find out that all FR-4 boards mean is that someone took the default choice. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Ricky Hunt" wrote in message
news:7worh.227816$aJ.170321@attbi_s21 "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. I think the DMPs are the pres that are in my Delta66. Delta 66 has no pres. The Delta 1010LT has 2 pres, based on 5532s. They are exceptionally good for the price and makes a heck of a front-end for tracking bass. I don't understand why the Delta 44 and 66 are even still in M-Audio's catalog, given the capabilties, performance and price of the 1010LT. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
In article 45ad6113.0@entanet, Ian Bell wrote:
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? No, BUT if they were using high impedance FET stuff, there would be a big difference between that old phenolic and modern FR4. With low-z bipolar circuits there's probably no difference. Multi-layer boards, though, are a recipe for disaster. There are just too many possibilities for coupling. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Ian Bell wrote:
Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? Ty does a lot of voiceover work, like within inches of the mic. Further, I'll bet 90% of folks reading here are close-mic'ng stuff. I'm not saying that's the way to go. I'm saying most folks are no longer working in a room with sufficient space and isolation to distant-mic. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Bell" wrote Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, period. That makes perfect sense for his situation, as a cursory glance at his web site makes perfectly clear. He's focussed on Voice Over work. Thing is, there's more than VO work in most of our lives. In fact, I may never record or do SR work for spoken word presented in a sound booth, in my entire life, past present or future. He also tracks acoustic guitar, and nicely, too. SR for music most often involves plenty of very close mic'ing of various sources. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Don Pearce wrote:
Do you agree? If so, I have just won myself a very cheap Neumann from my Rode. As before, the Neumann is the first part, and the Rode is the second. Interesting. I had not read the last line when I played the files and I assumed the Neumann was the second because it sounded subjectively more 'toppy'. If the Neumann is first then I am surprised it sounds so dull compared to the Rode. Ian |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"hank alrich" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Ian Bell" wrote Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, period. That makes perfect sense for his situation, as a cursory glance at his web site makes perfectly clear. He's focussed on Voice Over work. Thing is, there's more than VO work in most of our lives. In fact, I may never record or do SR work for spoken word presented in a sound booth, in my entire life, past present or future. He also tracks acoustic guitar, and nicely, too. Methinks in a relatively small room. SR by definition involves relatively large spaces. SR for music most often involves plenty of very close mic'ing of various sources. Agreed - but its not the only asymmetry involved with his tests. I did some FFT analysis of his TLM103-NT1-a recordings. The two recordings are far more different than I would expect, were the mics the only variable. I'm worried about the small performance space. Perhaps there a significant difference in positioning. Both mics are relatively large, especially in shock mounts. That means that they can't be very coincident. Either that or the NT1 was just plain broken. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
No, BUT if they were using high impedance FET stuff, there would be a big difference between that old phenolic and modern FR4. With low-z bipolar circuits there's probably no difference. Multi-layer boards, though, are a recipe for disaster. There are just too many possibilities for coupling. --scott I hear what you are saying but for audio work phenolic does not present any problems for high impedance. Just look at all the tube guitar circuits built on it. P.S I am assuming Phenolic is the same as SRBP. Ian |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:40:42 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: Do you agree? If so, I have just won myself a very cheap Neumann from my Rode. As before, the Neumann is the first part, and the Rode is the second. Interesting. I had not read the last line when I played the files and I assumed the Neumann was the second because it sounded subjectively more 'toppy'. If the Neumann is first then I am surprised it sounds so dull compared to the Rode. Ian I suspect we may be trying to delve deeper than a quick and dirty test will allow. It may be that Ty was facing just a little more towards the Rode than the Neumann. What interests me was the ease with which I could make the Rode sound like the Neumann. I guess this is what mic modellers do? As I have said, I personally prefer the slightly more forward sound of the Rode, but I'm sure there would be times I would want the Neumann sound - well now I have it, and for no money. I guess close-miking, which is what Ty does mostly is where you want a mic that is not too in-your-face with its presentation. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
In article 45ad6113.0@entanet, Ian Bell wrote: 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? No, BUT if they were using high impedance FET stuff, there would be a big difference between that old phenolic and modern FR4. With low-z bipolar circuits there's probably no difference. Multi-layer boards, though, are a recipe for disaster. IME, in the hands of a skilled engineer, multi-layer boards can be a platform for greatness. Consider the extreme dynamic range of the Lynx studio audio interfaces. I don't think they could have done as well with single layer boards. There are just too many possibilities for coupling. There's also the possibility of excellent decoupling. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Ian Bell" wrote in message
news:45ae64fe.0@entanet Don Pearce wrote: Do you agree? If so, I have just won myself a very cheap Neumann from my Rode. As before, the Neumann is the first part, and the Rode is the second. Interesting. I had not read the last line when I played the files and I assumed the Neumann was the second because it sounded subjectively more 'toppy'. If the Neumann is first then I am surprised it sounds so dull compared to the Rode. Ever compare the spec sheets? http://www.rodemic.com/downloads/NT1-A_InstMan.pdf http://www.neumann.com/zoom.php?zoom...am&w=878&h=278 The TLM103 is significanly smoother on axis. The TLM103 also seems to be smoother at +/- 90 degrees. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:56:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Ian Bell" wrote in message news:45ae64fe.0@entanet Don Pearce wrote: Do you agree? If so, I have just won myself a very cheap Neumann from my Rode. As before, the Neumann is the first part, and the Rode is the second. Interesting. I had not read the last line when I played the files and I assumed the Neumann was the second because it sounded subjectively more 'toppy'. If the Neumann is first then I am surprised it sounds so dull compared to the Rode. Ever compare the spec sheets? http://www.rodemic.com/downloads/NT1-A_InstMan.pdf http://www.neumann.com/zoom.php?zoom...am&w=878&h=278 The TLM103 is significanly smoother on axis. The TLM103 also seems to be smoother at +/- 90 degrees. The problem with the TLM903 spec sheet is that it is very clear the frequency response line has never been near a measuring instrument, it has been drawn by a graphic artist with an eye for a pleasing shape. The Rode plot, on the other hand, has a smell of realism about it. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
In article 45ae65da.0@entanet, Ian Bell wrote:
I hear what you are saying but for audio work phenolic does not present any problems for high impedance. Just look at all the tube guitar circuits built on it. Yup, and I have seen bigtime problems with leakage paths in tube guitar circuits using it. It's usually okay for a while, but after forty years bad things happen. The Ampex 354 electronics are a great example of how phenolic boards can turn into leakage nightmares. P.S I am assuming Phenolic is the same as SRBP. Phenolic is bakelite, although some boards used a bakelite/cotton or bakelite/fibreglass sandwich. SRBP is a British variant, I think, isn't it? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On 17 Jan 2007 13:29:54 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article 45ae65da.0@entanet, Ian Bell wrote: I hear what you are saying but for audio work phenolic does not present any problems for high impedance. Just look at all the tube guitar circuits built on it. Yup, and I have seen bigtime problems with leakage paths in tube guitar circuits using it. It's usually okay for a while, but after forty years bad things happen. It soaks up enormous quantities of moisture from the cut edges is what happens. The Ampex 354 electronics are a great example of how phenolic boards can turn into leakage nightmares. P.S I am assuming Phenolic is the same as SRBP. Phenolic is bakelite, although some boards used a bakelite/cotton or bakelite/fibreglass sandwich. SRBP is a British variant, I think, isn't it? SRBP is synthetic resin bonded paper. About as cheap as a board can be. All that can be said for it is that cutting and drilling could be done with cheap steel tools - you didn't need tungsten carbide, which are a must for anything glass-based. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, Hmmmm.. So how 'bout it Ty, would you do the same comparison again using a few different instruments at various distances? It might cost or save me $1500. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Bell" wrote in message news:45ade3e7.0@entanet Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, period. That makes perfect sense for his situation, as a cursory glance at his web site makes perfectly clear. He's focussed on Voice Over work. Thing is, there's more than VO work in most of our lives. In fact, I may never record or do SR work for spoken word presented in a sound booth, in my entire life, past present or future. Ty does quite a bit of bluegrass acoustic guitar too, I believe. Presumably exclusively 'close'. geoff |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Don Pearce wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 13:29:54 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: It soaks up enormous quantities of moisture from the cut edges is what happens. That's one of the worst problems. Note that the edges can be the result of holes drilled in the board, too. Another problem is that sometimes a high voltage arc between pins will burn the board internally, and create a small bridge of carbon that causes a leakage path. The cotton fabric ones are the worst for this. SRBP is synthetic resin bonded paper. About as cheap as a board can be. All that can be said for it is that cutting and drilling could be done with cheap steel tools - you didn't need tungsten carbide, which are a must for anything glass-based. That's one of many phenolic variants, then. Does it delaminate and come apart like those Tandberg 64 boards? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On 17 Jan 2007 14:48:07 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On 17 Jan 2007 13:29:54 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: It soaks up enormous quantities of moisture from the cut edges is what happens. That's one of the worst problems. Note that the edges can be the result of holes drilled in the board, too. Another problem is that sometimes a high voltage arc between pins will burn the board internally, and create a small bridge of carbon that causes a leakage path. The cotton fabric ones are the worst for this. SRBP is synthetic resin bonded paper. About as cheap as a board can be. All that can be said for it is that cutting and drilling could be done with cheap steel tools - you didn't need tungsten carbide, which are a must for anything glass-based. That's one of many phenolic variants, then. Does it delaminate and come apart like those Tandberg 64 boards? --scott After a while it can actually delaminate into sheets - the components wired through are all that holds it together. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"Ian Bell" wrote in message news:45ad6064.0@entanet... 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. Excuse my objectivity, but I find your objectionable post quite subjective at best. I will indeed subject you no further. bg None of this will mater in a 100 years (or after a 100 posts). -zero |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:11:51 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ): On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:43:32 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:41:50 -0800, Tobiah wrote: Try this - I've extracted the same part from your two files, joined them end-to-end and equalised the levels. Cool, but: 1) You are comparing two different segments of the original test. Both contain counting from one to 10, but they are images of different events. Equalizing the levels may have been fair, but certainly not equalizing levels of different parts of the original test. 2) You don't mention which side is the Rode. I'm guessing that it's the latter, given the name of the sound file. 3) I wish you had not added your own EQ. It doesn't seem fair somehow, as you may have masked or accentuated some of the characteristics of either mic. I realize that your eq was extremely tame, but we are trying to be scientific about this. Thanks for doing the work though, I find all this very interesting. Good catch. OK, I've fixed all that - the parts are the same and no eq. All I have done now is fine tweaked the level of the second (Rode) part to make it exactly the same as the Neumann. See what you think. d OK, I now have two files to listen to. The first is what should have been the comparison - extracts from Ty's two files, simply joined together end-to-end and the levels equalised as exactly as I can make them. The two mics do sound slightly different, although I'm not sure where my preference would lie http://81.174.169.10/odds/neumann_rode.wav Now I have posted a second version of this file, in which I have listened hard and designed a top end eq curve which I am pretty convinced has turned the Rode into the Neumann. As far as I am concerned, the two halves of the file now sound identical. (The Neumann is unchanged, I've only eq'd the Rode half) http://81.174.169.10/odds/neumann_rode_eq.wav Do you agree? If so, I have just won myself a very cheap Neumann from my Rode. As before, the Neumann is the first part, and the Rode is the second. d Mic are not just about EQ. I once EQd a RE 20 to sounds like a U 87 (at that moment with that voice and that read). Obviously the two mics don't have a lot in common. 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 |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:40:42 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ae64fe.0@entanet): Don Pearce wrote: Do you agree? If so, I have just won myself a very cheap Neumann from my Rode. As before, the Neumann is the first part, and the Rode is the second. Interesting. I had not read the last line when I played the files and I assumed the Neumann was the second because it sounded subjectively more 'toppy'. If the Neumann is first then I am surprised it sounds so dull compared to the Rode. Ian how subjective! The TLM 103, about which I take GREAT pains to report so many times, is highly dependent on the premap it's plugged into. Not unlike the C414 that way. Plug it into an old neve or a GML or a Radius 40 and you'll be quite turned on your ear. But first, please tell me in what application you use these mics at any more than a meter form the source. 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 |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:56:10 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Ian Bell" wrote in message news:45ae64fe.0@entanet Don Pearce wrote: Do you agree? If so, I have just won myself a very cheap Neumann from my Rode. As before, the Neumann is the first part, and the Rode is the second. Interesting. I had not read the last line when I played the files and I assumed the Neumann was the second because it sounded subjectively more 'toppy'. If the Neumann is first then I am surprised it sounds so dull compared to the Rode. Ever compare the spec sheets? http://www.rodemic.com/downloads/NT1-A_InstMan.pdf http://www.neumann.com/zoom.php?zoom..._diagrams.htm& zoomlabel=Diagram&w=878&h=278 The TLM103 is significanly smoother on axis. The TLM103 also seems to be smoother at +/- 90 degrees. Exactly, and it's that nasty little edge that plagues every low dolalr mic I have heard so far. Don't know what causes it. Don't care. I've told the makers (or importers) about the problem for years, suggesting they clean up their act and put out a proper mic. Nobody in that class has done it yet that I've heard. 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 |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:29:56 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ade3e7.0@entanet): Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? When the mic is a couple of meters away, you're not micing the source, you're micing the room. 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 |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:18:33 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Ian Bell" wrote in message news:45ade3e7.0@entanet Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, period. That makes perfect sense for his situation, as a cursory glance at his web site makes perfectly clear. He's focussed on Voice Over work. Thing is, there's more than VO work in most of our lives. In fact, I may never record or do SR work for spoken word presented in a sound booth, in my entire life, past present or future. Not so Arny. I'm in the studio making music. Visit my site and check out the listening area. (I also do VO work.) 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 |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:43:41 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "hank alrich" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Ian Bell" wrote Ty Ford wrote: A couple of meters away!? In that case the room would compromise pretty much what any mic might offer. Thanks, Ty Ford ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, period. That makes perfect sense for his situation, as a cursory glance at his web site makes perfectly clear. He's focussed on Voice Over work. Thing is, there's more than VO work in most of our lives. In fact, I may never record or do SR work for spoken word presented in a sound booth, in my entire life, past present or future. He also tracks acoustic guitar, and nicely, too. and e. guitar. and drums and percussion., etc. Methinks in a relatively small room. SR by definition involves relatively large spaces. 23' x25' SR for music most often involves plenty of very close mic'ing of various sources. Agreed - but its not the only asymmetry involved with his tests. I did some FFT analysis of his TLM103-NT1-a recordings. The two recordings are far more different than I would expect, were the mics the only variable. I'm worried about the small performance space. Perhaps there a significant difference in positioning. Both mics are relatively large, especially in shock mounts. That means that they can't be very coincident. Either that or the NT1 was just plain broken. Again 23' x 25' is not what I'd consider small. The mics were side by side angled into me slightly. There was no significant difference in positioning. There was a significant difference in the mics. Preamps were matched GML. Notice, BTW, that the TLM 103 was not spitty at all. 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 |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:19:05 -0500, Tobiah wrote
(in article ): Yeah - the big problem with Ty's mic evaluations for most of us is that he seems to see mics only as tools for doing spoken word in a sound booth, That's not even close to true. 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 |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:33:26 -0500, Ian Bell wrote
(in article 45ade4b9.0@entanet): Ty Ford wrote: On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:08:50 -0500, Ian Bell wrote (in article 45ad6064.0@entanet): 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 I'm not writin' a review here, Ian. It's just us talking. I'm sorry you can't follow that. I see, so all normal terms lose their meaning when you talk. Why am I not surprised. Ian That's a ****y remark, even from you. 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 |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Arny Krueger wrote:
Ever compare the spec sheets? http://www.rodemic.com/downloads/NT1-A_InstMan.pdf http://www.neumann.com/zoom.php?zoom...am&w=878&h=278 The TLM103 is significanly smoother on axis. The TLM103 also seems to be smoother at +/- 90 degrees. The Rode shows the polar response at several frequencies; the Neumann shows a completely unannotated single polar and I don't for a moment think that means it is the same at all frequencies; hardly a fit comparison IMHO. Ian |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article 45ae65da.0@entanet, Ian Bell wrote: P.S I am assuming Phenolic is the same as SRBP. Phenolic is bakelite, although some boards used a bakelite/cotton or bakelite/fibreglass sandwich. SRBP is a British variant, I think, isn't it? --scott SRBP is synthetic resin bonded paper - not the same as bakelite I would have thought. Ian |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Daisy chaining preamp channels? | Pro Audio | |||
tube amp -- should it be with tube phono preamp? | Audio Opinions | |||
amp or preamp? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
How to get studio quality sound into my computer from a preamp? | Pro Audio | |||
Upgrading My Adcom Preamp & Amp | High End Audio |