Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"dullness" with a TLM103. Questions abt. new 414
I've had a TLM103 in active-duty for voice work since early-1998.
(Think we mighta bought one of the first ones made). Recently I did some A/B'ing with my 416 and it seems there's been a performance change in the 103 - like, a veiled quality. I'm considering sending it in for a check-up... Meantime, anyone have comparison- opinions on the 103 vs the new incarnation AKG 414 TL? Primary app. is voiceover; The new 414 has impressed me alot in other studios- especially the radical improvement in self-noise which rivals the 103 to my ear. Just wondered if anyone had specific thoughts on these two in particular; A/B'ing experience, et.al.....and specifically with regard to preference of one over the other for any particular reason, as it applies to the V.O./narration application. I've favored the 416 for broadcast'for a few years now, yet in narration applications have tended to switch to the 103. However in that same pricerange, the 'new'akg414 caught my ear! (it's nearly healed now). Glad to hear any thoughts, Thanks! Mike E |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with Ty that it could be a difference in compression, but it could
also be that you've just discovered the better transient response of the 416's small diaphragm. And the increased reach of the interference tube exaggerates the mouth noises, saliva, polyps, etc. that really show the transient response off. I LIKE IT. I also like that very low bass is not such a problem with the 416 as with the TLM-103. Every time I use the 103 I run a 50 Hz rolloff in software to take out the rumble of the A/C thru the concrete floor 20 feet away -- and that's with the Neumann suspension mount on an Atlas boom. I used to switch to the 103 for narrations also, but now I angle the 416 at 45 degrees, rather than the 10-15 degrees I normally use for spots, and that takes enough of the edge off to satisfy me. One thing you may consider is the delivery format. MP3 erases a bit of the resolution, as does eventual transfer to VHS. But if you're sending out ..wav or .aiff, the 416's hype could be more of a factor in your choices. No client has ever complained that files I've sent in either format were "too crisp" with the 416, but the compliments have been many. For what it's worth, I sold my old TL-II and now regret it. Right after I made the deal I did a shootout of all my mics, and the results were surprising. The TL-II was more transparent than the 103 if you ignore the difference in tone. My particular TL-II did not match the published curves too well. The rise on the high end transitioned from the mids more smoothly than the published curves, and the test plot also showed a very broad hump in the bass from about 300Hz down that gave it a sound that was a little too cozy if you were less than 8" out. It was as warm on the bottom as the 103, but in a slightly different way; more emphasis on the upper bass. Low bass was not quite as problematic with the 414. If I buy one of the new models, it'll be the "flat" one, and I'll EQ it to my taste, not AKG's. A friend's ULS had test plots with flat bass. In fact, the plots for the ULS were flat as a fritter other than the usual slight dip at 2k , and it took only a little EQ to get a great sound. Live and learn. Incidentally, self noise was always swamped by room noise for all three mics. If only self noise were a "problem." Frankly, I've only been in one studio in 30 years quiet enough for that to really be a factor. In my studio I always use low-level expansion and even then often mute pauses in software, and my *product* is dead-quiet. Jeff Jasper http://www.jeffjasper.com Ty Ford wrote: Veiling of the type you're talking about can also be the result of over aggressive use of compression. Check your settings. The TLM 103 and 416 develop peaks at different places. I own two TLM 103 and had the new 414 here a few months back for a review. The new 414 are pretty much as quiet as the TLM 103. Not so much an issue if you never compress or limit, but everyone does these days. When you DO compress and limit, and the material is sparse (like voice) you do hear more selfnoise. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the thoughts guys... dunno for certain if i've just suddenly
heard the "real" difference with fresh ears or there actually could be some physical problem with it. I've swapped out mics on the same cable and best i can describe it upon checking it again today - is more like a 'tubbiness' -- Now, we've not done any major adjustment to compression... this is running through a finalizer that I had the esteemed Jay Rose's consultation on to tweak it specifically for mp3 file prep - primarily aimed at broadcast end-usage. I usually find myself posting .wav/.aif for any long-form/narration stuff though. Anyhow, we're going out of the TC into a Lynx L22. I did this changeout and A/B'd the 416 and 103 again and also even compared fresh tracks cut on the 103 with some done maybe...a month or so ago -- and there is a distinct change in character apparent. Nothing environmentally or processing-wise has been altered. Changing mics and running the 416 on the same cable and into the same processing, it's clean and "right" sounding - yet i'm still hearing this 'in-a-barrel' quality with the 103 using the identical configuration..which kind of suggests it isn't a condition of altered processing. Strange. I know several folks who've used a 103 for about the same length of time and none have ever encountered performance changes or noticeable deterioration from 'age' or "maintenance" issues. I just wish i could rule out an internal problem before parting with it for a lengthy Service period. (Kinda nice to have as a back-up and i don't have a spare so if any "matching" issues come up-- pick-ups, revisions to older stuff etc. it could be a little inconvenient). I appreciate the notes on the 416 Jeff.. I ve found similar success repositioning and it's been fine for narration. i'm also fortunate to have a well-treated, acoustically 'sound' booth (living in the country--sort of-- , helps too) and i find it pretty easy to work both mics at a further distance when needed without ambient problems. Regards, MikeE |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MikeE wrote:
I did this changeout and A/B'd the 416 and 103 again and also even compared fresh tracks cut on the 103 with some done maybe...a month or so ago -- and there is a distinct change in character apparent. Nothing environmentally or processing-wise has been altered. Changing mics and running the 416 on the same cable and into the same processing, it's clean and "right" sounding - yet i'm still hearing this 'in-a-barrel' quality with the 103 using the identical configuration..which kind of suggests it isn't a condition of altered processing. I was going to ask if you reset the preamp level for the difference in mic output between the 416 and the 103. But a quick check of the specs revealed the 416's 25mV/Pa versus the 103's 23mV/Pa shouldn't be so drastic as to cause the 103 to sound weird. I'd really expected the 103 to be significantly hotter, and thus hit the Finalizer harder and bring up the room drastically, but apparently that's not the case at all. And what I've heard of your demos does not sound like the Finalizer is being abused. I think you've got a busted mic. Aren't you using a Red1? I assume you're not using 2 different channels on it to A/B the mics, perhaps with a pad accidentally engaged on the 416.....? That's the only variable left that I can come up with. Oh, and hopefully nobody's played a joke on ol' Mike and turned the back side of the 103 in your direction, right? Can you post a link to a test for us? Jeff Jasper www.jeffjasper.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff, yeah the preamp levels winds up being pretty close to the same
for both mics. BTW the demos you may have heard were not done with this FInalizer involved but a producer who I outsourced that task to.. I'd be glad to email you some test reads if you'd have time to give a listen to some dry tracks.. What would you suggest for parameters? Perhaps for starters just :30 or so of something through the current Finalizer set-up to Peak and converted to a mono 320k mp3? I usually also do Normalize within Peak to around -1.0db. In addition maybe another read unprocessed i.e Finalizer in "bypass" - with or without Normalization in Peak to mp3... Of course with the subjective variables like acoustics and my particular voice characteristics i don't know how easy it'd be to judge the 103's functionality based on a test this way but i'd be happy to get your overall impression of the sound in any event. Regards, Mike PS - Nope nobody turned the mic around on me -- (though this place does seem haunted sometimes)! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MikeE wrote:
I'd be glad to email you some test reads if you'd have time to give a listen to some dry tracks.. What would you suggest for parameters? Perhaps for starters just :30 or so of something through the current Finalizer set-up to Peak and converted to a mono 320k mp3? I usually also do Normalize within Peak to around -1.0db. In addition maybe another read unprocessed i.e Finalizer in "bypass" - with or without Normalization in Peak to mp3.... Sure, that would be great! Jeff Jasper www.jeffjasper.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Are newbie questions welcomed here? | Pro Audio | |||
Questions, questions, questions | Audio Opinions | |||
REQ: update on DAW PC questions (long) | Pro Audio | |||
update on DAW PC questions (long) | Tech | |||
Seven Questions + | Audio Opinions |