Reseting TLM-103's curve with EQ

[Sokar]

I have read on the newsgroup where the response on a TLM-103 starts going up
at 4khz to +4db at 6khz and stays that way until 15khz where it slopes down
and crosses 0db at 17.5khz (correct me if I'm wrong here).

I have set up a Voxengo CurveEQ to negate that rise in the frequency
response before doing my own processing with EQ, compressor, etc.

Is that a good idea?

I'm cutting tracks at a new studio that primarily uses this mic and I'm not
real happy about it on the singer. I sure wish I had a Rode NTK on hand.

Any suggestions on dealing with this beast would be most appreciated.

[Scott Dorsey]

Sokar > wrote:
>I have read on the newsgroup where the response on a TLM-103 starts going up
>at 4khz to +4db at 6khz and stays that way until 15khz where it slopes down
>and crosses 0db at 17.5khz (correct me if I'm wrong here).

Maybe if you're on-axis. The response changes totally as you move off-axis,
which is the whole point of having the large diaphragm. There are also some
fairly narrow-Q things that go on in the top octave that are pretty hard to
duplicate with EQ.

>I have set up a Voxengo CurveEQ to negate that rise in the frequency
>response before doing my own processing with EQ, compressor, etc.
>
>Is that a good idea?

Probably not. You'd probably do better to try using different positioning
or a different microphone. But how does it sound after you EQ it?

>I'm cutting tracks at a new studio that primarily uses this mic and I'm not
>real happy about it on the singer. I sure wish I had a Rode NTK on hand.

If it's not the right mike for the singer, try something else.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I have read on the newsgroup where the response on a TLM-103 starts going up
> at 4khz to +4db at 6khz and stays that way until 15khz where it slopes down
> and crosses 0db at 17.5khz (correct me if I'm wrong here).
>
> I have set up a Voxengo CurveEQ to negate that rise in the frequency
> response before doing my own processing with EQ, compressor, etc.
>
> Is that a good idea?

If it makes your tracks sound better, then yes. If it makes them sound
worse, then no.

> I'm cutting tracks at a new studio that primarily uses this mic and I'm not
> real happy about it on the singer. I sure wish I had a Rode NTK on hand.

Sounds like the right approach - if not an NTK, some other mic.
Doesn't the studio have a mic collection? I thought that was one of
the best reasons for going to a studio rather than buying only what
you think you need and working on your own.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Nathan Eldred]

"Sokar" > wrote:

>>I sure wish I had a Rode NTK on hand.

So you need more brightness at 12k compared to the TLM103?

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

[Garthrr]

In article >, "Sokar"
> writes:

>I have set up a Voxengo CurveEQ to negate that rise in the frequency
>response before doing my own processing with EQ, compressor, etc.
>
>Is that a good idea?

Probably not if what you're doing is trying to undo the mic's natural (or
unatural) frequency response. If it sounds good then fine, do it, but chances
are that your not going to achieve some sort of flat and neutral response curve
using an outboard EQ. If what you want is a flat mic then there are some mics
out there that are much closer to flat than the 103. The thing is that most
people do not actually want a flat response. It generally sounds unexciting.
Thats why people dont record using measurement mics (apart from the high self
noise of some of them).
You'll be much better off if you find a mic that compliments your source and
use as little EQ as possible.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Peter Larsen]

Garthrr wrote:

> Thats why people dont record using measurement mics (apart from the high self
> noise of some of them).

??? ... self noise of the users or of the mics? - eq-wise, and you are
actually talking eq, it is in my observation a common newbie error to
add more of what is there a plenty already rather than aiming for an
improved balance.

We would have a cleaner sounding audio world if mixer input channels
only allowed turning down the upper midrange instead of additionally
boosting what the mic has tstooo mmuuuuucccchhhhhh of ... O;-)

> Garth~


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Sokar"
> wrote:
>I have read on the newsgroup where the response on a TLM-103 starts going up
>at 4khz to +4db at 6khz and stays that way until 15khz where it slopes down
>and crosses 0db at 17.5khz (correct me if I'm wrong here).
>
>I have set up a Voxengo CurveEQ to negate that rise in the frequency
>response before doing my own processing with EQ, compressor, etc.
>
>Is that a good idea?
>
>I'm cutting tracks at a new studio that primarily uses this mic and I'm not
>real happy about it on the singer. I sure wish I had a Rode NTK on hand.
>
>Any suggestions on dealing with this beast would be most appreciated.


The NTK has a +5 dB peak at around 11kHz. That can get a bit irritating.
Waht are you not happy about with the TLM 103?

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Sokar]

More of less it's just the overall sound of the 103 on this singer. I've
had him on an NTK tube mic and it sounded incredible. Now it just sounds
honky (and not as in 'white people').

Having a +5db PEAK at 11khz seems to be alot easier to deal with using a
multiband deesser as opposed to a +4db SHELF that goes on for 7khz.

No problem, I'll just whip out my U87 and C1A and fix it all. Yeah, right.

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...
> In Article >, "Sokar"
> > wrote:
> >I have read on the newsgroup where the response on a TLM-103 starts going
up
> >at 4khz to +4db at 6khz and stays that way until 15khz where it slopes
down
> >and crosses 0db at 17.5khz (correct me if I'm wrong here).
> >
> >I have set up a Voxengo CurveEQ to negate that rise in the frequency
> >response before doing my own processing with EQ, compressor, etc.
> >
> >Is that a good idea?
> >
> >I'm cutting tracks at a new studio that primarily uses this mic and I'm
not
> >real happy about it on the singer. I sure wish I had a Rode NTK on hand.
> >
> >Any suggestions on dealing with this beast would be most appreciated.
>
>
> The NTK has a +5 dB peak at around 11kHz. That can get a bit irritating.
> Waht are you not happy about with the TLM 103?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> **Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
> Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
> For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
> click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Sokar" > wrote in message

> I have read on the newsgroup where the response on a TLM-103 starts
> going up at 4khz to +4db at 6khz and stays that way until 15khz where
> it slopes down and crosses 0db at 17.5khz (correct me if I'm wrong
> here).
>
> I have set up a Voxengo CurveEQ to negate that rise in the frequency
> response before doing my own processing with EQ, compressor, etc.

> Is that a good idea?

As others have pointed out, if it works for you, then it's a good idea, and
if it doesn't, well...

I've made mic eq work to my satisfaction on occasion, but some might say
that I'm easy to please. I've also picked my targets with some care. IOW I
didn't try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, I just tried to
tenderize the sow's ear so it was a little more palatable because I was very
hungry.

Here's one problem with mic equalization. No mic has the same frequency
response for sound arriving at the mic from *every* direction. Even
so-called omnidirectional mics can be surprisingly directional at high
frequencies. When you equalize a mic for sound approaching from some
particular direction, you're automatically doing the same thing to sound
coming from other directions, but those changes may not be what you desire.

One example of the potential pitfalls of equalization is what happens when
you equalize a medium-diameter mic with a rising on-axis high frequency
characteristic so that it has flat response. You do this by rolling-off the
electrical output of the mic, which affects sound arriving in all
directions. While your equalization has the desired effect of flattening the
on-axis response, it is also rolling-off the off-axis response of the mic,
which is already somewhat rolled off. The net effect could be a mic that
sounds a little dull, all things considered, even though the on-axis
response is now perfectly flat. How much this happens depends to some degree
on how reverberant your room is. Your equalization might sound OK in a dead
room, but it might sound a bit dead in a live room. That might be just what
you don't need.

Compare this to a small-diameter omni that has nearly flat response on-axis
and has barely rolled-off response in most other directions. It will have
fewer problems with sounding dead in a live room due to off-axis response
being rolled-off.

Similar things can happen with cardiod mics, but since their pickup patterns
are more complex, its might be harder to predict what effects equalization
will have.

[Scott Dorsey]

Sokar > wrote:
>More of less it's just the overall sound of the 103 on this singer. I've
>had him on an NTK tube mic and it sounded incredible. Now it just sounds
>honky (and not as in 'white people').

So, get an NTK. It's always much easier to deal with at the microphone
than trying to fix it after the fact.

>Having a +5db PEAK at 11khz seems to be alot easier to deal with using a
>multiband deesser as opposed to a +4db SHELF that goes on for 7khz.

Again, depends on the singer. If the singer is right for the NTK, use the
NTK.

>No problem, I'll just whip out my U87 and C1A and fix it all. Yeah, right.

Well, that's why you're at the studio, right? You rent time there so that
you can have access to gear you couldn't normally afford to own. The mike
closet is half of what you're paying for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Sokar"
> wrote:
>More of less it's just the overall sound of the 103 on this singer. I've
>had him on an NTK tube mic and it sounded incredible. Now it just sounds
>honky (and not as in 'white people').
>
>Having a +5db PEAK at 11khz seems to be alot easier to deal with using a
>multiband deesser as opposed to a +4db SHELF that goes on for 7khz.
>
>No problem, I'll just whip out my U87 and C1A and fix it all. Yeah, right.

Ah so it's sibilance! If that's the problem, he may just be overly sibilant.
The TLM 103 through an HHB Radius 40 preamp is not zippy on top. It's very
meaty. TLM 103's trough my GMLs are really clear, but more natural. Perhaps
your preamp is exacerbating the problem.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford