Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"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. ;-) |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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.) |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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" |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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" |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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.) |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"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. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"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. |
#57
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. Once construction techniques reach normal levels, further improvements have zero impact on sound quality. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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). |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"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*. ;-) |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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 |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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" |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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" |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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. Itıs 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. Whatıs 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 thereıs a mild 2 dB dip just below 8 kHz. After a return at 10 kHz thereıs 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 thereıs 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 Iıd 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 wonıt 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 doesnıt 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 |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
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. Itıs 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. Whatıs 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 thereıs a mild 2 dB dip just below 8 kHz. After a return at 10 kHz thereıs 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 thereıs 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 Iıd 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 wonıt 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 doesnıt 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 |
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 |