| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each
mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be. I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.? My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-) So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set before, so I don't know what to expect. I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those frequencies too. Any suggestions? Recommendations? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121
R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 R121 Just my R121cents worth, Joe Egan EMP Colchester, VT www.eganmedia.com |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
If you have a choice between the two, I would go with the Royers for
overheads. Just be prepared to do some eq'ing if you want that bright pop sheen. The royers deliver beautifully in that dept when eq'd. And most ribbons eq very well. I run my royers through an nti pre-q 3 with airband engaged, which seems to provide enough sheen. Christopher Stevens producer/engineer cs productions, inc. http://www.christopherstevens.com http://www.fabmusic.com "Brandon" wrote in message om... I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be. I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.? My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-) So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set before, so I don't know what to expect. I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those frequencies too. Any suggestions? Recommendations? |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
"Brandon" wrote in message om... I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be. Just guessing here, but I would expect the 103s to be a bit strident on cymbals ? geoff |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
I've got a pair of Royer 121s that get used a hell of a lot more than
my pair of Neumann U89s, which aren't too dissimilar to the TLM103 I suppose. If I had to give up one of these four mics, I would hand over one of the U89s without hesitation. And I think the 121 has no real shortage of treble. Sometimes old beat-up ribbon mics tend to sound a bit rolled-off in the highs, and I suspect that can be due to ribbon stretching and/or ferrous dust stuck in the magnet gap, as much as any roll-off inherent in the design. On top of that, the 121 is magical in a few ways that set it apart from other ribbons I've used, including the B&O it was modelled after. In short, buy another 121 and don't assume you'll need that EQ on the DVC. ulysses In article , Brandon wrote: I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be. I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.? My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-) So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set before, so I don't know what to expect. I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those frequencies too. Any suggestions? Recommendations? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Stephen Boyke wrote:
in article , Brandon at wrote on 11/13/03 4:06 PM: I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum overheads and a general stereo set. snip happens Why limit your choices to the 103 and 121? If you're gonna spend nearly a grand per mic, consider the Gefell M930. It may do exactly what you want, and add more versatility to your mic closet. -- Stephen T. Boyke The M-930's are really fantastic... but the brother was talking about pairing a mic to one that already exists in his arsenal... roughly a $1k expense rather than a $2k expense... in which case I'll have to go with the crowd on the 121 recommendation... -- Fletcher Mercenary Audio TEL: 508-543-0069 FAX: 508-543-9670 http://www.mercenary.com "this is not a problem" |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Remember, you can turn the 121's around & get the backside brightness,
which is almost like getting 2 mics for 1. However, I really think the 121s will be the better "OH/cymbal closer-in" mics, while I think the 103s will surprise on a more "roomy/distant" sound. I love the 103 midrange scoop for taming a less-than-optimal room. Is there any reason you aren't considering better SDCs? Mikey Nova Music Productions (Brandon) wrote in message . com... I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be. I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.? My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-) So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set before, so I don't know what to expect. I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those frequencies too. Any suggestions? Recommendations? |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In article 0ZWsb.144706$ao4.462764@attbi_s51, "Chris Stevens"
writes: If you have a choice between the two, I would go with the Royers for overheads. Just be prepared to do some eq'ing if you want that bright pop sheen. The royers deliver beautifully in that dept when eq'd. And most ribbons eq very well. I run my royers through an nti pre-q 3 with airband engaged, which seems to provide enough sheen. You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the kit. It is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that being a few feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of being harmed from the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more vunerable to damage when used this way. Garth~ "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle." Ed Cherney |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Garthrr wrote:
You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the kit. It is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that being a few feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of being harmed from the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more vunerable to damage when used this way. Where did you get that? You really think the SPL coming off of some cymbals is going to damage a microphone? ulysses |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In Article , Justin Ulysses Morse
wrote: I've got a pair of Royer 121s that get used a hell of a lot more than my pair of Neumann U89s, which aren't too dissimilar to the TLM103 I suppose. If I had to give up one of these four mics, I would hand over one of the U89s without hesitation. And I think the 121 has no real shortage of treble. Sometimes old beat-up ribbon mics tend to sound a bit rolled-off in the highs, and I suspect that can be due to ribbon stretching and/or ferrous dust stuck in the magnet gap, as much as any roll-off inherent in the design. On top of that, the 121 is magical in a few ways that set it apart from other ribbons I've used, including the B&O it was modelled after. In short, buy another 121 and don't assume you'll need that EQ on the DVC. ulysses U, Even new ribbons don't have anywhere near the HF respopnse of a condenser. Sorry, I didn't hear the magic in the 121 or 122. They just sounded like ribbon mics to me. The 122 was more sensitive due to the extra circuitry, but that's not what I'd call magic. Ribbons do work well in smoothing the nasty edges off of sources, but that's due in great part to the rolled off top end, relative to condensers. I have a U 89 and two TLM 013s. The TLM 103s sound very much alike. They sound NOTHING like my U 89. 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 |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In Article ,
(RL,nyc) wrote: (Brandon) wrote in message . com... Any suggestions? Recommendations? Everybody is saying it: Royer Royer Royer. No joke... No not everyone. they are great mics. As with all, for some things. Right now I only have one. I use it on the kick drum when doing drums, and it is so good there that I cannot move it anywhere else, so I am contemplating getting 2 more for overheads. And I do use a TLM103 as a room mic sometimes and it does a pretty good job there, bringing that presence bump it has to the distance I have it away from the kit. Myself, I HATE that top end that everyone else loves which gets harsh and strident in the digital realm. Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe. Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very brittle. What wavelengths? The reasons for digital brittleness could fill up this forum for a year, if you're referring to the problems with each and every circuit. My top 4 a 1. Cheap Chinese mics 2. Bad mic/preamp combos 3. Cheesy preamps 4. Bad A/D conversion I have been fighting with the mastering labs to attenuate that f**ing "Sheen" that they think has to be on everything, and am happy when I can get them to make a record sound dull, like an old vinyl record. Records only sound duller till the ears get used to a certain soundscape, which takes about 40 seconds, and only if they have been subjected to something brighter immediately before. Since most of the "competing" "product" out there sounds like crap a day later, I don't care one whit. After all, I want to still be able to listen to my records in 5 and 20 years. I don't want to love them this week and not be able to stand them a week later cause they produce ear fatigue. We agree pretty much there. Back to the topic on hand...Ribbons have an uncanny way of sustaining a beautiful top end even into the digital crap era. For that reason alone, one should get used to understanding that there is PLENTY of top end in a Royer 121. My favorite mic hands down. but whatever you do, best luck. rl, nyc Sorry, I can't hear it; backside or front. I'll stick with a Schoeps and good preamps. 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 |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
RL,nyc wrote:
Everybody is saying it: Royer Royer Royer. No joke... they are great mics. Right now I only have one. I use it on the kick drum when doing drums, and it is so good there that I cannot move it anywhere else, so I am contemplating getting 2 more for overheads. And I do use a TLM103 as a room mic sometimes and it does a pretty good job there, bringing that presence bump it has to the distance I have it away from the kit. Myself, I HATE that top end that everyone else loves which gets harsh and strident in the digital realm. There are a lot of condenser mikes out there that don't have that peaky top end, if that's what you're looking for. And if you like the Royer for overheads, you might also like the Beyer M160, which has a little bit more detail and I think a flatter upper midrange than the Royer. It's also great on drum overheads, and since it's a hypercardioid you can get it in a little closer than you can the figure-8 mikes. My real problem using any of these for overheads is that I have to just pull them so far back to get decent room sound. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
Garthrr wrote: You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the kit. It is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that being a few feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of being harmed from the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more vunerable to damage when used this way. Where did you get that? You really think the SPL coming off of some cymbals is going to damage a microphone? Not if you keep it away from the air blast of a hi-hat heading for closure. -- ha |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Scott Dorsey wrote:
And if you like the Royer for overheads, you might also like the Beyer M160, Hey, now you're talkin'; I really do often appreciate the M160 over drums. -- ha |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Brandon wrote:
(Mikey) wrote in message news: Is there any reason you aren't considering better SDCs? I'm not sure of what I can get for $1000 in the SDC area. Consider that a mathced pair of Josephson Series 4's are less than a couple hundred more... -- ha |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
RL,nyc wrote: Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that This is wrong. You have the process backwards. Start at the source. Then choose microphone/preamp. Then position microphone. Listen with ears. Everything else is secondary. If all the other processes are set up properly, then anything else in the chain, assuming modern digital or analog equipment, is WAY less important. I think what you are referring to is that digital tends to make certain high frequencies sound a little more strident, so you like to attenuate highs on some tracks to make them sound more pleasant at the end. Of course this can be accomplished way back at the beginning of the chain (by using a duller microphone). But please don't blame this phenomena on analog recording and playback equipment. -Rob |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Rob Adelman wrote:
RL,nyc wrote: Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that This is wrong. You have the process backwards. Rob (Mortgage Man), Do you have even half a clue to whom you are replying in that manner, and what are the man's accomplishments in professional performance and recording? Open mouth, insert real estate? He's talking about the way he prefers to _make records_, what he knows about analog response and specral retention _from direct and successful experience in that medium_, and how that compares with his present activities in the digital realm, which also happen to be direct and successful. He is suggesting that a whole lot of aural pain is begotten from ignoring differences in the two realms and then becoming inured to hearing way too much high end compared to what we appreciated in days gone by. Note how much you like vinyl; now read again what RL has written, in the light of your appreciation for the older medium. -- ha |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
LeBaron & Alrich wrote: Rob (Mortgage Man), What the hell is your problem with mortgages? And what does this have to do with audio discussion? Do you have even half a clue to whom you are replying in that manner, and what are the man's accomplishments in professional performance and recording? What manner is that? And no, I do not know who RL is. And whatever his accomplishments, how does this effect stating my opinion? Open mouth, insert real estate? What is your ****ing problem? He's talking about the way he prefers to _make records_, what he knows about analog response and specral retention _from direct and successful experience in that medium_, and how that compares with his present activities in the digital realm, which also happen to be direct and successful. That's cool. But I still think analog recorders are capable of capturing all the high frequency material you give them. I think technical data supports this as well. Note how much you like vinyl; now read again what RL has written, in the light of your appreciation for the older medium. I did this before I spoke. I stand by my contention that the media is capable of reproducing highs through the full spectum of human hearing. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today
are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. That would explain why you can find TLM 170s for $1000 on Ebay. I think it is the most underrated Neumann mic precisely because it doesn't have the added zizz of so many other large (okay, medium) diaphragm mics. Joe Egan EMP Colchester, VT www.eganmedia.com |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe. Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very brittle. Microphone manufacturers seem to have quite a bit of control over the frequency response shape of their mics. I wonder why they don't just make flatter mics (in the directional patterns) for those who are getting tired of the hyped high-mids. It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. When you get close to the $1000 range, it's not that hard to find a nice smooth mic, or a contoured mic, whichever you want. But at the bottom-feeding end, seems like if you want flat response, you have to get an omni, and a somewhat noisy one at that. Maybe one of those $35 Earthworks copy mics (Behringer?) would serve in place of the Royer on the kick, freeing the Royer up to try elsewhere. Behringer ECM8000. Nice mic on kick. -- 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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- Les Cargill |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In article znr1068899120k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
Microphone manufacturers seem to have quite a bit of control over the frequency response shape of their mics. I wonder why they don't just make flatter mics (in the directional patterns) for those who are getting tired of the hyped high-mids. Because those of us who are getting tired of it are in the minority. AKG makes a bunch of reasonably flat mikes, but what they sell in the US are those horrible C1000 and C3000 mikes. The AKG folks tell me that they are basically voiced specifically for the American market. It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. When you get close to the $1000 range, it's not that hard to find a nice smooth mic, or a contoured mic, whichever you want. But at the bottom-feeding end, seems like if you want flat response, you have to get an omni, and a somewhat noisy one at that. Well, it's true that it's a lot easier to make cheap omni capsules that are good than it is to make cheap cardioid capsules that are any good. Maybe one of those $35 Earthworks copy mics (Behringer?) would serve in place of the Royer on the kick, freeing the Royer up to try elsewhere. Actually, I think the Behringer is a knockoff of the older low-end measurement mike that Josephson first made. Or maybe a knockoff of the Crown, which came out a little bit after the Josephson. Or maybe a knockoff of the Audix, which came out a little bit after the Crown. Or maybe... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Brandon wrote:
I'm not sure of what I can get for $1000 in the SDC area. From what I read around here, I don't think $1k is gonig to get me something that will bowl me over. Honestly, the Oktavas are good, but they seem rather utilitarian to me. I knew, from this group, that buying from the sound room would get me a good quality mic. They work and they work well, but they're not my first choice on anything. Try the Josephson Series Four. Two of them for $1000, and you will find they are a lot cleaner than the Oktavas. Give them a listen. If you don't like them, don't buy them. If you don't like them, then borrow a Schoeps and just see if it makes you happy. If it doesn't, you probably won't be happy with any of the small diaphragm condensers, which is a good thing to know. But don't give up on them until you've done that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In article , Justin Ulysses Morse
writes: You can also turn the R 121 around so that the backside is toward the kit. It is significantly brighter when used this way. I'm assuming that being a few feet from the cymbals the mic would not be in any danger of being harmed from the SPL of the cymbals although the mic is more vunerable to damage when used this way. Where did you get that? You really think the SPL coming off of some cymbals is going to damage a microphone? ulysses No, as I said above I dont think it would although I have to admit that I was considering the possibility. Garth~ "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle." Ed Cherney |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Rob Adelman wrote:
That's cool. But I still think analog recorders are capable of capturing all the high frequency material you give them. I think technical data supports this as well. Yes, they are... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less the next day... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less the next day... and then you put the tape in the box [multiply by 30-45 days... or 3 months... or 6 months... and you start to get the picture. "RL,nyc" wrote: Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe. Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... snip happens Back to the topic on hand...Ribbons have an uncanny way of sustaining a beautiful top end even into the digital crap era. For that reason alone, one should get used to understanding that there is PLENTY of top end in a Royer 121. My favorite mic hands down. but whatever you do, best luck. Note how much you like vinyl; now read again what RL has written, in the light of your appreciation for the older medium. I did this before I spoke. I stand by my contention that the media is capable of reproducing highs through the full spectum of human hearing. Capability and reality being two different things. Yes, the machinery is capable of capturing and reproducing highs through the full spectrum of human hearing... no, it's not capable of preserving the original *quantity* of highs originally laid upon the tape... so you start with some **** that's a little brighter than you envision it ending up as you know you're going to have some self erasure issues. Some folks that have been through the record making process in the analog domain a couple/three times have experienced this... it's not something anyone made up on the spot... honest. -- Fletcher Mercenary Audio TEL: 508-543-0069 FAX: 508-543-9670 http://www.mercenary.com "this is not a problem" |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
That's a hard choice, because I like both mics in their right place,
but neither for overheads. The R-121, is a ribbon, and a damn fine one, but for me ribbons don't work on overheads in general. The TLM103 is a condenser, which in general I like better, but it's a LDC and it seems kind of beamy in it's directionality and the ups and downs in it's frequency response (especially off axis) make it not so great a condenter. I'd go for the TLM if I had to. I'd go for neither if I had a choice, for this application. Nathan Eldred http://www.atlasproaudio.com (Brandon) wrote in message . com... I know this is somewhat apples to oranges here. I've got one of each mic. I'm looking to buy another one to use primarily as drum overheads and a general stereo set. The recent price increase of the 103 makes these mics closer in the price range than they used to be. I do have a matched set of sound room oktavas. I don't like them much for overheads as I don't feel I'm getting the toms as much as I would like. I think I'm gonig for a "this is the drum kit" sound.? My drum room is going to be a good size. My guess is 20'x30' with a slopping ceiling that goes from say 8' to 15'. It's a house, I haven't moved in yet, so I don't have the specifics, but by my home studio standards, the room is "huge". ;-) So, what kinds of things can I expect from an X/Y, ORTF, spaced set of tlm103s vs. a blumlein set of R-121s? I've never heard a blumlein set before, so I don't know what to expect. I have a Langevin DVC, so I was thinking that I would be able to give the R-121s a bit of rise in the 8kHz or 12kHz range to make up for their natural roll off. LIkewise, I can adjust the tlm103 at those frequencies too. Any suggestions? Recommendations? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In Article znr1068899120k@trad, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
In article writes: Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that you were going to lose more when you mastered to vinyl on the lathe. Now in the digital era, you don't lose any top... in fact, because the wavelenghts are shorter, the resolution on the top tends to get very brittle. Microphone manufacturers seem to have quite a bit of control over the frequency response shape of their mics. I wonder why they don't just make flatter mics (in the directional patterns) for those who are getting tired of the hyped high-mids. It could be a competitive thing, that the majority of mics sold today are still sold to inexperienced users, and those people would be afraid of buying a mic that sounded dull compared to others. When you get close to the $1000 range, it's not that hard to find a nice smooth mic, or a contoured mic, whichever you want. But at the bottom-feeding end, seems like if you want flat response, you have to get an omni, and a somewhat noisy one at that. Very clever Mike. Question asked and answered. Regards, Ty **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 |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In Article ,
(Brandon) wrote: (Mikey) wrote in message news: Is there any reason you aren't considering better SDCs? I'm not sure of what I can get for $1000 in the SDC area. From what I read around here, I don't think $1k is gonig to get me something that will bowl me over. Honestly, the Oktavas are good, but they seem rather utilitarian to me. I knew, from this group, that buying from the sound room would get me a good quality mic. They work and they work well, but they're not my first choice on anything. a pair of matched, used KM 84 Both the 103 and 121 have a sound, a sound that I refer to as "higher fi". I'm at least familiar enough with the 103 and 121 to know that if I get another one, I'll be dealing with a great quality mic. I'm sure opinions vary on the 103 and 121. I'm hoping that the experience of this group with both mics can assist me in picking a mic that might perform better. It's still all subjective I understand. The two are very different. For low level sources, I would NOT try a ribbon. I didn't care for either royer (either backwards or forwards) on acoustic as compared to a good condenser. There just wasn't enough top end and air for me. Another reason I'm limiting my choices is that I'm interested in trying out different stereo techniques. I don't have a set of mics to try a blumlein pair with. I don't think I'll get that with another SDC set. The Royer would allow me to experiment and see if I like it, plus retain its value should I decide to bail or make another choice. Brandon Try two at 4050 for blumlein. (note to Bob Cain: These are not elitest mics) 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 |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In Article , Rob Adelman
wrote: RL,nyc wrote: Used to be with tape that the tape lost all the high end right away and you had to favor bright mics and eq to replace it, knowing that This is wrong. You have the process backwards. Start at the source. Then choose microphone/preamp. Then position microphone. Listen with ears. Everything else is secondary. If all the other processes are set up properly, then anything else in the chain, assuming modern digital or analog equipment, is WAY less important. I think what you are referring to is that digital tends to make certain high frequencies sound a little more strident, so you like to attenuate highs on some tracks to make them sound more pleasant at the end. Of course this can be accomplished way back at the beginning of the chain (by using a duller microphone). But please don't blame this phenomena on analog recording and playback equipment. -Rob Rob, I think he's right. Analog tape does suck up a lot of HF transients. We call that tape compression. 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 |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Ty Ford wrote:
I think he's right. Analog tape does suck up a lot of HF transients. We call that tape compression. It can if you want it to. But if you don't want it to, you can run at low operating levels and get very nice response to transients. At 185 nW/M with 468, I can record a trumpet and you won't be able to tell the source input from the playback head output. You can soften things with analogue tape, but there's no reason you have to. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
In article znr1068990100k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
It's true that from the first rewind-and-play, the high end on an analog tape deteriorates. Some engineers are really bothered by this and attempt to compensate by adding more top end when recording (and also adding more distortion and phase shift between harmonics of the same tone), others just like to complain about it in Mix interviews. If the machine is calibrated right, the machine emphasis should take care of all of this. There are still problems with SOME tapes (like 456) which tend to lose a little top end after a day or so of storage. But that is a flaw in the tape formulation and not something inherent in analogue recording. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
RL,nyc wrote: This is exactly what happens on audiotape. You record something and you store the tape and you come back to listen to it critically and if you have the ears for it you notice that the sound has "softened". It may seem as though the sound has "settled", or gotten "smoother", or that you have lost high-end. In fact, what has happened to the high-end has happened to everything on the tape, but the shorter wavelengths of the treble show evidence that the low-end can manage to hide. If you have been through this enough, you may begin to record bright and to favor mics which give you a lot of top, knowing that the top and is going to soften, or sag. You may also start to use equalization to recover that snappy high-end. Great explanation. I am sure I have run into this but since it is a gradual process may have overlooked what was actually happening. So assuming I am recording on an analog recorder and want to prepare for this, how would you estimate how much loss to expect? Tell me if this is wrong, but I am guessing you would add some brightness on record either through mic selection/position or eq and reduce the high on playback slowing increasing it as I am going through hundreds of playbacks? -Rob |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Still others enjoy the convenience and reliability of an analog
recorder, That's kind of like saying "the convenience and reliablity of a woman". I like both women and analog recording. And for some things there is no substitute for either, but I find dogs and backed-up digital to be both more convenient and reliable. ....and then my wife walked in while I was typing this... I'll be doing my own laundry this week. Joe Egan EMP Colchester, VT www.eganmedia.com |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
TLM103 vs R-121 for stereo
Fletcher wrote:
Rob Adelman wrote: That's cool. But I still think analog recorders are capable of capturing all the high frequency material you give them. I think technical data supports this as well. Yes, they are... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less the next day... and then you put the tape in the box... and a little bit of treble you had yesterday 'self erased' over night... so you have a little less the next day... and then you put the tape in the box [multiply by 30-45 days... or 3 months... or 6 months... and you start to get the picture. So if I want to get a portion of that picture from day one through day stick big number here while using digital storage I can do so just by starting off with a ribbon mic, kind of like RL suggested. Who knows, maybe he's done this before. -- ha |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS: Neumann TLM103 Microphone | Pro Audio | |||
| Pre for Neumann TLM103...RNP or HHB Radius 40??? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
