[Ty Ford]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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!

[Tobiah]

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

[Ian Bell]

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


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????

[Ian Bell]

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

[Ian Bell]

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

[Don Pearce]

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

[Don Pearce]

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

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

[Ricky Hunt]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[hank alrich]

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"

[hank alrich]

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"

[Ian Bell]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Ian Bell]

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

[Don Pearce]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Don Pearce]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Don Pearce]

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

[Tobiah]

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

[Geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Don Pearce]

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

[-zero]

"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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ty Ford]

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

[Ian Bell]

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

[Ian Bell]

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