Rode NT1 vs. TLM-103
Brad Bolton
lots of awards, for sure. I just wondered if it is worth the extra expense
over the Rode. I have a part-time studio, so my requirements are not as
stringent as someone who depends on getting the best sound. But I do have a
critical ear. I can afford the 103, but if the Rode comes close in
openness, quietness, and versatility, I'd go for it. I've no experience
with either of these mics. Any ideas?
BTW, I posted the KM84 / 184 question awhile back. The used 84's had been
sold, and further research revealed the mics I'm asking about now.
Thanks, Brad Bolton
Milton Finks
made capsule won't be worth zip and its capsule probably will have loosened up
and not sound like it did the day you got it.
Milton Finks
JNM
>
> Before you laugh me off the group, I know the 103 is preferable - it's won
> lots of awards, for sure. I just wondered if it is worth the extra expense
> over the Rode. I have a part-time studio, so my requirements are not as
> stringent as someone who depends on getting the best sound. But I do have a
> critical ear. I can afford the 103, but if the Rode comes close in
> openness, quietness, and versatility, I'd go for it. I've no experience
> with either of these mics. Any ideas?
You can get 90% of the way toward a great sound with an $80 mic.
Getting the rest of the way is very expensive. I haven't had a chance
to use the NT-1 but I can tell you that the TLM-103 sounds better to my
ears than any other mic I've tried under $1,800. You need to get to a
store where you can compare. Only you can judge whether the extra $600
or so is worth it to you.
Jay
ID DaveL
I don't like the Rode NT1, I have used and SM57 over it on vocals
Jamie
Anyone had the opportunity to compare these mics?
I need a mic that will sound good for vocal, acoustic guitar and violin.
Thanks,
-Jamie K
Rich
>I have a part-time studio, so my requirements are not as
>stringent as someone who depends on getting the best sound. But I do have a
>critical ear. I can afford the 103
Brad:
I too have a part-time studio, & I can't tell you what a good investment the
103 has been. Unlike you, perhaps, I have a good selection of mics to choose
from, but the 103 gets the nod on MOST (that's right) sources. That is it's
most amazing attribute - it does so well so often. I would think that's just
the kind of mic someone would want who doesn't want to own a bunch of em.
I haven't tried the NT1.
And you have a critical ear? And you can afford it?
End of story. Good luck.
Best...
Rich
Stolen Moments Audio
StoMo...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/stomoaudio
"Practice." --- Fletcher (Mar 15, 1999 11:44 AM)
Garthrr
writes:
I have and like both these mics. The Neumann is a little brighter and is
certainly a very fine mic. For an overall mic its hard to beat. It has never
failed to sound _at least_ good to my ears no matter what I had it on. On hand
percussion, acoustic guitar and voice I have had consistently excellent
results. However I havent ever had the experience of a match between source and
mic where its just stunning. Always very good but not amazing.
On the other hand, the KSM 32 is slightly darker (but not as dark as a Neumann
TLM 193). It has worked very well for me on acoustic instruments (great on
mandolin!) and on a male jazz singer where it was really majic (or maybe the
guy's voice was just amazing). We were doing what was intended as a scratch
vocal but ended up being used on the final mix and it just sat in the mix with
so much presence.
If I had to go with one of these I'd choose the 103 but if I had to go with
the KSM 32 I wouldnt be too upset. Both mics are a bargain too. You cant lose!
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
Ty Ford
>Brad Bolton wrote:
>>
>> Before you laugh me off the group, I know the 103 is preferable - it's won
>> lots of awards, for sure. I just wondered if it is worth the extra expense
>> stringent as someone who depends on getting the best sound. But I do have a
>> openness, quietness, and versatility, I'd go for it. I've no experience
>> with either of these mics. Any ideas?
>
>You can get 90% of the way toward a great sound with an $80 mic.
>Getting the rest of the way is very expensive. I haven't had a chance
>to use the NT-1 but I can tell you that the TLM-103 sounds better to my
>ears than any other mic I've tried under $1,800. You need to get to a
>store where you can compare. Only you can judge whether the extra $600
>or so is worth it to you.
>
>Jay
With all due respect; I've never been in a store in which the acoustics or
monitoring allowed me to make that sort of critical decision. It's a no-lose
situation for the store; they don't care which one you buy.
Converting people who are used to buying by the bottom line is a hopeless
and thankless task. You're not buying pizza. You're investing in a piece of
equipment. In this particular case, of the mics you've chosen, the Neumann
is much more likely to increase or hold its value over time and it obviously
will sound better, even if the constraints of your system or your ears or
your knowledge in using the mic keep you from hearing what a great mic it is.
Anyone who comes to this group to get "convinced" that buying for quality
and the long run is a good idea will probably end up letting their wallet
instead of their ears do the decision making. Better check with
rec.audio.non-pro, they'll probably be more sympathetic.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's equipment reviews and V/O files can be found at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
JNM
> With all due respect; I've never been in a store in which the acoustics or
> monitoring allowed me to make that sort of critical decision. It's a no-lose
> situation for the store; they don't care which one you buy.
>
Ty,
I agree it's not easy. Nearly impossible in your average music store,
probably, but the mic room at B&H Photo/Video in Manhattan is a nice
quiet space where you can compare mics head to head and get some idea of
what you prefer on vocal, at least. Is it the same as having half a
dozen mics in your studio to compare on a number of sound sources over
time? No, but it's still pretty helpful. I think even an inexperienced
ear will be able to distinguish the timbre of a TLM-103 versus an
AT4033, for example.
I once had the salesguys at Sam Ash in Cleveland set up a number of
small condensors in a quiet room with good monitors (Genelecs) so I
could test them on acoustic guitar, hihat and ride cymbal. This was not
a perfect environment for comparison, but it allowed me to determine
that I wanted the SM-81 over the AKG C-1000 for the application.
I agree with the rest of your post.
Jay
Larry Williams
didn't find the "non-pro" group. <g>.
LW
Ty Ford <tf...@jagunet.com> wrote in message
news:FF11DBA8017A229F.8A61A821...@lp.airnews.net...
> In Article <385683...@execpc.com>, JNM <jmue...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >Brad Bolton wrote:
> >>
> >> Before you laugh me off the group, I know the 103 is preferable - it's
won
> >> lots of awards, for sure. I just wondered if it is worth the extra
expense
> >> over the Rode. I have a part-time studio, so my requirements are not
as
> >> stringent as someone who depends on getting the best sound. But I do
have a
> >> critical ear. I can afford the 103, but if the Rode comes close in
> >> openness, quietness, and versatility, I'd go for it. I've no
experience
> >> with either of these mics. Any ideas?
> >
> >You can get 90% of the way toward a great sound with an $80 mic.
> >Getting the rest of the way is very expensive. I haven't had a chance
> >to use the NT-1 but I can tell you that the TLM-103 sounds better to my
> >ears than any other mic I've tried under $1,800. You need to get to a
> >store where you can compare. Only you can judge whether the extra $600
> >or so is worth it to you.
> >
> >Jay
>
> With all due respect; I've never been in a store in which the acoustics or
> monitoring allowed me to make that sort of critical decision. It's a
no-lose
> situation for the store; they don't care which one you buy.
>
Sam Trenholme
>didn't find the "non-pro" group. <g>.
There is alt.music.4-track.
- Sam
--
"Reality is the most perfect vision of God's will" -- Orson Scott Card
The email address used to post this will time out in two weeks
Jamie
Garth, thanks much for your input!
Best Regards,
-Jamie K
Lawrence
In a Sampler CD done by Bear Creek Recording Studios (they record the
Seattle Symphony, among others) the TLM and the ADK are both used on a
variety of source materials. To be sure, the TLM has a lower self
noise spec. But on the guitars, vocals, and even the drum kits, it
seemed to be more warm sounding - a fatter sound (I hate the term but
discussing mics is a bit like a wine tasting - words tend to be less
than useful in describing sensations of taste or of tone). Anyway,
give them a listen and see if you agree.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bill Roberts
Brian Lucey wrote: [Re: Shure KSM32 vs. Neumann TLM-103]
> Shure mic is not a full condenser but an electret, old technology,
> sounds thin and cheap to me..
> Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on idiots.
> Don't be an idiot.
>
> Brian Lucey
Aren't you the fellow who wrote that the Great River preamp
was "painful" to listen to? Is the KSM32 equally painful?
-- Bill
Brian Lucey
>
>I need a mic that will sound good for vocal, acoustic guitar and violin.
Shure mic is not a full condenser but an electret, old technology, sounds thin
and cheap to me..
103 sounds very good, has a Neumann sound but not as nice as the 'big' ones.
Audix 101/111's are very nice for 4-500.
Garthrr
(Brian Lucey) writes:
>Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on idiots.
>Don't be an idiot.
>
>Brian Lucey
Wow, what a clever way to insult almost everybody in the biz. Nice work Brian
;-)
Dirk Offringa
> Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on
idiots.
> Don't be an idiot.
>
I am happy to be an idiot in a world of fools.
Bye
Dirk
Steve
>>Anyone had the opportunity to compare these mics?
>>
>>I need a mic that will sound good for vocal, acoustic guitar and violin.
>
>Shure mic is not a full condenser but an electret, old technology, sounds thin
>and cheap to me..
>
>103 sounds very good, has a Neumann sound but not as nice as the 'big' ones.
>
>Audix 101/111's are very nice for 4-500.
>
>Don't be an idiot.
It's not the ones who buy or use Shure mics that are the idiots, but the ones
who make a generalized statement condemning 80 percent of the business.
People like their SM57s, SM58s, SM81s and other Shure mics - and for good
reason.
Steve
>Brian Lucey
Mike Rivers
In article <19991221205401...@ng-fa1.aol.com> qwe...@aol.comXXX writes:
> Shure mic is not a full condenser but an electret, old technology, sounds thin
> and cheap to me..
- An electret is a condenser.
- An externally polarized condenser capsule is older technology
- Any mic, mis-applied, can sound thin and cheap
> Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on idiots.
> Don't be an idiot.
I suppose you use dynamic loudspeakers, too, rather than speakers with
permanent maganets, to which an electret is the static equivalent.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I am, too. You're an ignorant
asshole and your advice is of no value to anyone here. Go over to
rec.audio.opinion and stay there.
--
Mike Rivers (I'm really mri...@d-and-d.com)
ScotFraser
<<Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on idiots.
>>
Shure has to increase its revenues by a few billion before it becomes a
corporate giant. Until then their mics are all right to use.
Scott Fraser
syna...@pathcom.com
>Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on idiots.
>Don't be an idiot.
Everybody out there - quick - take your 57s off your snare drums &
guit cabs!! Stop the session! It doesn't matter if it sounds great,
built like a tank and won't overload!......We're all being played for
fools! :)
J.
----------------------------------
Synaptic Gap Productions
Toronto, Ontario
(416) 410 - 6595
syna...@pathcom.com
----------------------------------
Mark Deffebach
for purposes of clarification that an electret is a material exhibiting
the property of permanent static electric charge, just as a magnet is a
material exhibiting the property of permanent static magnetic charge.
I think you probably know this, and so I humbly apologize for my rude
interruption of your well called for reprimanding of the misinformed
and
opinionated Brian Lucey.
Now, back to Lurking so I can glean more expertise from this group
(thanks to all).
Mark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
EnsnareYou
>Everybody out there - quick - take your 57s off your snare drums &
>guit cabs!! Stop the session! It doesn't matter if it sounds great,
>built like a tank and won't overload!......We're all being played for
>fools! :)
I use SM57's but I'd hardly classify them as a great mic or even great
sounding. Most often my use for the SM57 stems from not wanting to see my
other really great mics get destroyed. I never put a nice mic anywhere within
distance of a lame drummer who can't keep his sticks aimed at the drums. On
guitar cabinets I'm not worried about damage so I'll use whatever I want and
rarely is it an SM57. In my experience not once has an SM57 sounded better
than any other mic I own. Of course YMMV and that's what recording is all
about... We all use different tools to get the results we are looking for. Try
a nice ribbon mic (Coles, Royer, RCA) on a guitar cabinet and I bet you'll
never think of using an SM57 again. The SM57 does serve double duty as a hammer
though and that can't be said of many mics.
Lee
Washie
> Shure mic is not a full condenser but an electret, old technology, >sounds thin and cheap to me.
Maybe you should get rid of your Atwater-Kent monitors. Sounds like the
horseshoes are losing their magnetism.
Bill Roberts
EnsnareYou wrote:
> I never put a nice mic anywhere within
> distance of a lame drummer who can't keep his sticks aimed at the drums.
This is one thing I have never understood.
I have never seen a pianist accidentally slam his hand into
the lid, or onto the piano bench... "OOPS!!!!" Nope, somehow
he has an accuracy of a fraction of an inch even when banging
the hell out of the instrument.
I have never seen a percussionist hit air when aiming
for something relatively small. I don't see guitar players
accidentally strumming their tremolo bars.
Why can't all drummers confine their hits to a select few
square inches of drum head? This boggles my mind. I have seen
snare drum heads that have stick marks over almost the entire
surface. I have had snare mics hit that were only just barely
forward of the back edge of the drum. I have heard of snare mics
being hit that were several inches in BACK of the drum.
What is going on?!?!?!
-- Bill
Harvey Gerst
Bill,
It's usually due to poor potty training. They can't hit the inside of the toilet
either.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
Jedd Haas
> >Why can't all drummers confine their hits to a select few
> >square inches of drum head? This boggles my mind. I have seen
> >snare drum heads that have stick marks over almost the entire
> >surface.
'Cause it sounds different depending where you hit it. Some drummers can
control that and make it sound good. And while we are talking about snare
drum technique, here's a trick from amazing New Orleans drummer Shannon
Powell: lean over the kit, put your elbow on the snare head, and slide
your elbow from the edge to the center (and back and forth) as your play
the snare for a cool flanging kind of sound. Of course, you need the
aforementioned control to make it work.
--
Jedd Haas - Artist, Writer, Guitarist. http://www.gallerytungsten.com
http://www.antijazz.com
Daren Lee Johnson
realize that I should buy something 10 times the price because I'm a fool.
Damn me.
And all those 545S's I picked up for ten bucks at an action that sound twice
as good as my Senheiser 421's on toms have just made me look like the
biggest fool of all, right?
Garthrr <gar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991222064044...@nso-cc.aol.com...
> In article <19991221205401...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
qwe...@aol.comXXX
> (Brian Lucey) writes:
>
> >Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on
idiots.
> >Don't be an idiot.
> >
Bill Roberts
Jedd Haas wrote:
>
> > >Why can't all drummers confine their hits to a select few
> > >square inches of drum head? This boggles my mind. I have seen
> > >snare drum heads that have stick marks over almost the entire
> > >surface.
> 'Cause it sounds different depending where you hit it. Some drummers can
> control that and make it sound good.
Hmmm, I think that the guys who sometimes miss the drum
totally, are not doing it for that reason. Some particular
drummers I have in mind, I *KNOW* are not doing it for
that reason... :(
Also, in most rock or country, you really don't want
different sounding snare hits throughout the song...
Two different sounds I could buy. Not 47.
-- Bill
yournamehere
The KSM32 sounds better on more different sources than the
TLM-103.....that's an opinion shared by many who've heard both. Not to say
that about Neumanns in general, but that partcular Neumann is, by Neumann
standards, crap. That's not a judgement of the mic's sound, rather it's a
measure of the TLM-103's components and construction in comparison with
other Neumann mics.
>>Shure mic is not a full condenser but an electret, old technology, sounds
thin
>>and cheap to me..
This is the only semi-valid statement you've made...it sounds cheap to YOU.
You're entitled to your opinion.
>>Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on
idiots.
>>Don't be an idiot.
Shure Brothers is a privately owned company of a few hundred employees that
makes a wide range of mics, from crap to pretty good ones....they also make
great wireless stuff. Their stuff is on more stages worldwide than all
their competition combined....maybe because it's pretty good for what it is.
Neumann is a formerly excellent mic manufacturer, long since owned and
destroyed by a corporate giant known as Harman Industries, who produce far
more crap in a day than Shure does in a year.
As to idiots, Harman's obviously found one in you.
Tonebarge
toilet are wet only after basic sessions. Always wondered what that was about.
B•)
TB
Harvey Gerst wrote:
> Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> >EnsnareYou wrote:
> >> I never put a nice mic anywhere within
> >> distance of a lame drummer who can't keep his sticks aimed at the drums.
>
> >This is one thing I have never understood.
> >
> >I have never seen a pianist accidentally slam his hand into
> >the lid, or onto the piano bench... "OOPS!!!!" Nope, somehow
> >he has an accuracy of a fraction of an inch even when banging
> >the hell out of the instrument.
> >
> >I have never seen a percussionist hit air when aiming
> >for something relatively small. I don't see guitar players
> >accidentally strumming their tremolo bars.
> >
> >Why can't all drummers confine their hits to a select few
> >square inches of drum head? This boggles my mind. I have seen
> >snare drum heads that have stick marks over almost the entire
Peter Bruce Wilder
1.) get out some *real* test equipment
2.) take at least one audio technology history course
3.) line up all your favorite mics, all routing through one brand of preamp, gouge
your eyes out and then try to guess which one you are listening to.
4.) beware the blanket statement. It has a lovely way of making you feel good,
but can come back and eat you alive.
5.) contained within this newsgroup are many, many people who make great sounding
material using a variety of audio equipment. One manufacturer whose equipment is
used a great deal is Shure Brothers. If you are unable to get a good recording
utilizing a KSM-32P and a respectable mic preamplifier, then you may wish to seek
some suggestions as to how others (like Tom Jung) have managed to make such
stellar recordings using the KSM-32P.
6.) lighten up. Its the holiday season.
- Peter
Brian Lucey wrote:
> >Anyone had the opportunity to compare these mics?
> >
> >I need a mic that will sound good for vocal, acoustic guitar and violin.
>
> Shure mic is not a full condenser but an electret, old technology, sounds thin
> and cheap to me..
>
> 103 sounds very good, has a Neumann sound but not as nice as the 'big' ones.
>
> Audix 101/111's are very nice for 4-500.
>
> Shure Bros. is a corporate giant who produces crap and pushes it on idiots.
> Don't be an idiot.
>
> Brian Lucey
hank alrich
> 5.) contained within this newsgroup are many, many people who make great
> sounding material using a variety of audio equipment. One manufacturer
> whose equipment is used a great deal is Shure Brothers. If you are unable
> to get a good recording utilizing a KSM-32P and a respectable mic
> preamplifier, then you may wish to seek some suggestions as to how others
> (like Tom Jung) have managed to make such stellar recordings using the
> KSM-32P.
What Peter sez! Blame the tools and who is the fool? "I can't walk too
good 'cause these shoes are on backwards."
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
ScotFraser
In article <1e39qcf.vu...@alm-ts1-h1-27-95.ispmodems.net>,
walk...@thegrid.net wrote:
<<Blame the tools and who is the fool? "I can't walk too
good 'cause these shoes are on backwards.">>
Or "This damn hammer bent every nail I tried to drive with it!"
Scott Fraser
Bill Roberts
yournamehere wrote:
> Shure Brothers is a privately owned company of a few hundred employees that
> makes a wide range of mics, from crap to pretty good ones....they also make
> great wireless stuff. Their stuff is on more stages worldwide than all
> their competition combined....maybe because it's pretty good for what it is.
> Neumann is a formerly excellent mic manufacturer, long since owned and
> destroyed by a corporate giant known as Harman Industries, who produce far
> more crap in a day than Shure does in a year.
I guess now I finally understand what has happened
with the new Sennheiser models... :(
-- Bill
David Satz
> Neumann is a formerly excellent mic manufacturer, long since owned and
> destroyed by a corporate giant known as Harman Industries, who produce far
> more crap in a day than Shure does in a year.
Neumann is owned by Sennheiser, which is privately held;
it is not owned directly or indirectly by Harman.
Ty Ford
<m...@you.net> wrote:
>From: "yournamehere" <m...@you.net>
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>Subject: Re: Shure KSM32 vs. Neumann TLM-103
>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:38:51 -0800
>References: <3857162A...@Dimensional.com>
<19991221205401...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
<83qq83$hch$3...@bcarh8ab.ca.nortel.com>
>X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>X-ELN-Date: 23 Dec 1999 03:40:09 GMT
>X-ELN-Insert-Date: Wed Dec 22 19:45:02 1999
>Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
>Lines: 32
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0522.cvx6-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net
>Message-ID: <83s5ip$5t7$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>Xref: news-f.iadfw.net rec.audio.pro:430110
>
>>>>I need a mic that will sound good for vocal, acoustic guitar and violin.
>
>TLM-103.....that's an opinion shared by many who've heard both. Not to say
>that about Neumanns in general, but that partcular Neumann is, by Neumann
>standards, crap. That's not a judgement of the mic's sound, rather it's a
>measure of the TLM-103's components and construction in comparison with
>other Neumann mics.
Uh..excuse me but,
Were we to look at market share as regards how many TLM-103 and KSM32 there
are out there, I think the market would disagree with your "sounds better"
comment. Based on the rather heady success the TLM-103 has enjoyed, I'd
have great difficulty in believing that the mic is crap; even by Neumann
standards.
A quick search by DejaVu shows you've made no comments before on
rec.audio.pro about Neumanns or anything else. Your apparent lack of
qualification to comment and your specific effort to make yourself anonymous
tell us a lot more about you than you may realize.
Incidentally, what gave you away was your attempt to piss in a well that is
known for it's quality. By doing so, you show you lack that.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's equipment reviews and V/O files can be found at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Rick Knepper
> Anyone had the opportunity to compare these mics?
>
> I need a mic that will sound good for vocal, acoustic guitar and violin.
>
Jamie,
It seems that we have a couple of exuberant contributors (or dealers)
posting in this thread. One calling Shure crap and the other calling Neumann
crap.
Whatever.
I don't own a KSM32 because I auditioned one against several other mics
including the TLM103 (which btw has become my point of entry against which
all other mics are compared) and I found it lacking for vocals (please note
this distinction - I'm saying for "vocals").
The KSM32 was reasonably flat. But this didn't seem appropriate for a
general vocal mic although who's to say EQ & compression can't help bolster
those areas where a particular voice needs help.
Its output was not as great as the Neumann's. I think this becomes important
to consider for those who may have mid-range preamps that have a spec more
noise in them than say, a GR or Millennia. With the Neumann and its ultra
quiet self noise and big output, your preamp doesn't have to work as hard.
Those quiet acoustic guitar passages will be the most affected by equipment
noise. If you have some quiet clean preamps already please ignore this
diatribe.
I don't know what the noise specs on the KSM32 are and they may be close to
the Neumann for all I know. I was not listening/testing for this during the
comp, but if you need level that requires a so-so outboard preamp to raise
its noise floor, then you nullify the benefits of the mic's quietness by
invoking the noise of the preamp, sonically speaking.
In other words, the crappier the rest of your your input chain is the more
you need the TLM103, IMO.
I can't help referring back to a recent article by Paul Stamler that pegs
the capsule in the KMS32 as one very similar to the one found in the SM81.
(Shure denied it. The magazine stood by their writer. Etc.) Judging from
what I heard during my test, this would make some sense. The SM81 is a
medium diaphragm instrument mic, very popular and well liked - on drum
overheads & various acoustic instruments.
Another mic involved in my l'il test was the Neumann KM 184. It is
essentially an instrument mic. It sounded better to -> me <-, vocally
speaking, than the KMS32.
The KMS32 is a fine mic. It is certainly less expensive. However, I
personally believe the TLM103 would come closer to being a better all-round
mic than the KSM32. I would recommend that you go this direction.
Having said that, I don't think it is wise to count on any one mic to do
the job of many. Having both mics would be a better situation - making an
excellent tandem for your studio.
We don't ask our Les Paul to do the things a Strat can do or our upright
piano to sound like our grand.
This is what you are asking of your mic. Don't do it.
--
Rick Knepper
Wasted Potential Productions
MicroComputer Support Services
Po Box 1461
Ft. Worth, TX 76101
817-239-9632 business hours
817-737-4002 after 6 PM
413-215-1267 eFax
Project Studio
CD Duplication - Budget Short Runs
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
http://www.wastedpotential.com
Paolo Tramannoni
wrote:
> > Neumann is a formerly excellent mic manufacturer, long since owned and
> > destroyed by a corporate giant known as Harman Industries, who produce
> > far more crap in a day than Shure does in a year.
Harman is the owner of AKG. Neumann is owned by Sennheiser, another good
audio equipment producer.
Paolo
--
Paolo Tramannoni
Porto Recanati, Italy
p.t...@fastnet.it
David Satz
Paolo Tramannoni <p.t...@fastnet.it> wrote:
> In article <OxMTD4pT$GA.336@cpmsnbbsa03>, "David Satz" <DS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Neumann is a formerly excellent mic manufacturer, long since owned and
> > > destroyed by a corporate giant known as Harman Industries, who produce
> > > far more crap in a day than Shure does in a year.
Paolo,
I did _not_ write the above lines--I replied so as to correct them!
Please be careful when you edit a posting, or you can accidentally
attribute a very disagreeable quote to the wrong person.
I recognize that your contributions here are serious and factual,
and that you very probably did not mean to do this. No apology
is necessary, but please be a little more careful in the future.
Best regards,
David Satz
Mr. Jan
<rickr...@home.com> wrote:
> Jamie wrote:
If you have some quiet clean preamps already please ignore
> this
> diatribe.
> I don't know what the noise specs on the KSM32 are and they may be
> close to
> the Neumann for all I know. I was not listening/testing for this
> during the
> comp, but if you need level that requires a so-so outboard preamp
> to raise
> its noise floor, then you nullify the benefits of the mic's
> quietness by
> invoking the noise of the preamp, sonically speaking.
> In other words, the crappier the rest of your your input chain is
> the more
> you need the TLM103, IMO.
>
> Wasted Potential Productions
> MicroComputer Support Services
> Po Box 1461
> Ft. Worth, TX 76101
> 817-239-9632 business hours
> 817-737-4002 after 6 PM
> 413-215-1267 eFax
> Project Studio
> CD Duplication - Budget Short Runs
> PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
> http://www.wastedpotential.com
pre's exibit the best S/N ratio at their max gain setting. (see recent
Mackie ads for their new "pro" line of mixers). Therefore a mic with a
higher output going thru any given pre would expose the noise in a mic
pre more then lower output mic with the same self noise.(gain matched
for output)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bill Roberts
"Mr. Jan" wrote:
> Somebody correct me if 'm wrong here, but my understanding is that mic
> pre's exibit the best S/N ratio at their max gain setting. (see recent
> Mackie ads for their new "pro" line of mixers). Therefore a mic with a
> higher output going thru any given pre would expose the noise in a mic
> pre more then lower output mic with the same self noise.(gain matched
> for output)
Uh, no, the more you turn up the knob, the more you hear
the noise of the pre. I am not sure about your theory, but
in practice it certainly does not seem to be so. The hotter
the mic, the less problematic noisiness of the pre is.
-- Bill
Steve
>In article <3864EE04...@home.com>, Rick Knepper
><rickr...@home.com> wrote:
>> Jamie wrote:
>If you have some quiet clean preamps already please ignore
>> this
>Somebody correct me if 'm wrong here, but my understanding is that mic
>pre's exibit the best S/N ratio at their max gain setting. (see recent
>Mackie ads for their new "pro" line of mixers). Therefore a mic with a
>higher output going thru any given pre would expose the noise in a mic
>pre more then lower output mic with the same self noise.(gain matched
>for output)
I'm not sure I understand the whys and hows of this, but I don't think that
all preamps exhibit this characteristic. Earthworks claims that their
Lab102 is like this...someone care to expound?
But to answer the KSM32 VS TLM103 question, the TLM103 is more balanced with a
very tolerable bottom end. Albeit, its got one, but the KSM32 wasn't very
open and had a considerable bottom end in comparison. I considered it dull
and lifeless compared to the TLM. I didn't do an all out test and shootout,
but the TLM handled most of my own petty tests better than the KSM32. To me
the KSM32 sounded somewhat like the SM81 in character while the TLM103 was
reminscent of the KM184 - with more sparkle.
Steve
hank alrich
> Somebody correct me if 'm wrong here, but my understanding is that mic
> pre's exibit the best S/N ratio at their max gain setting. (see recent
> Mackie ads for their new "pro" line of mixers). Therefore a mic with a
> higher output going thru any given pre would expose the noise in a mic
> pre more then lower output mic with the same self noise.(gain matched
> for output)
No, you have it backwards. Electrons hide in the preamp. They quiver
according to their temperature. Quivering electrons cause noise because
they rub against each other. The more you open up the preamp the more
that inherent noise will be amplified. So a mic with low output will
reveal the noise performance of a preamp, while a mic with a higher
output will require less gain from the preamp and hence place the noise
floor at a lower level relative to the signal coming out of the preamp.
(Don't believe anything I write. I just make this stuff up. Compare my
answer to others I am sure you'll receive.)
Tonebarge
heard the rather dramatic increase in noise shouldn't be doing this stuff
for a living. <g>
TB
Dave Gayman
(-459.67 deg. F.), although I guess we'd stop quivering there as
well... never mind.
Why has nobody on the high end produced a supercooled audio chain?
Well-decorated liquid nitrogen vessels (matte black with gold-plated
regulators, or a nice metallic burgundy with black fittings) would add
a certain panache to your mix/mastering suite.
For that matter, wWhy have there been no notable low-noise North
Dakota recordings made outside in January?
Dave
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 17:37:17 -0800, walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:
>
>No, you have it backwards. Electrons hide in the preamp. They quiver
>according to their temperature. [snip]
Ty Ford
<thunauN...@email.msn.com.invalid> wrote:
>Somebody correct me if 'm wrong here, but my understanding is that mic
>pre's exibit the best S/N ratio at their max gain setting. (see recent
>Mackie ads for their new "pro" line of mixers). Therefore a mic with a
>higher output going thru any given pre would expose the noise in a mic
>pre more then lower output mic with the same self noise.(gain matched
>for output)
>
Hi,
There are several things going on; S/N and linearity. For S/N, in my
experience, a mic preamp usually peaks out at about 80% gain. Any attempt to
raise the gain over about 8 (out of 10 and NOT 11) usually results in
increased preamp noise. Then there's linearity and distortion. Most amps
have a sweet spot where the linearity and distortion are the lowest. I'm
less familiar with any "average" gain setting that might be applicable here.
The Mackies require their own special tweek. Follow their instructions and
you'll end up with a better sound. Go over that and you may run into
problems on the channel and the buss.
Also, the VLZ/XDR Mackies have a strange thing going on in their line input.
I've spoken to them about this and we've determined that some distortion
occurs when the trim pot is in a specific range. Because of this, it may be
best to bring line levels in through the insert.
Steve
>Anyone who has ever turned the inputs all the way up on a Mackie and not
>heard the rather dramatic increase in noise shouldn't be doing this stuff
>for a living. <g>
Go to the Earthworks site. They claim that their noise floor goes down at
higher gains. I'm not sure anyone else claims this, and it certainly hasn't
been my experience with Mackies or any other preamp.
Steve
David Satz
when set for maximum gain. Many preamp spec sheets
take advantage of this fact by stating their dynamic range
performance only at maximum gain. Mackie has a point.
But everyone knows that the _output_ noise level still rises
when you turn the gain knob up. You still have to take the
gain into account! The noise level in the circuit, though
lower, is boosted by the increased gain of the circuit. The
result is a much higher output noise level. Ears hear noise,
not ratios, to put it crudely.
A key point of reference is "equivalent input noise"--the level
of noise at the preamp's output minus the gain of the preamp.
It matters because microphone signals aren't completely
noise-free themselves, for a variety of reasons. The noise level
at the output of typical modern condenser microphones might
be -110 dBV, or even a little lower for the quietest ones. Ideally
you want a preamp with 10 dB lower equivalent input noise
than the noise output level of your microphone. Then the
preamp isn't adding a significant amount of its own noise to
the resulting signal.
The subject becomes more complex when you consider the
various noise sources and the different regions of the audio
frequency spectrum which they primarily occupy. But it
becomes a lot less complex again when you actually go to
record something in the real world, and you find that the
background noise level of any actual recording environment
tends to swamp both the microphone's noise and that of any
decently designed preamp completely--at least at typical
miking distances when high-output professional condenser
microphones are being used.
--best regards,
David Satz
Hedley Dan Duke
have the money get the TLM103 by all means, but if not and you don't want to
save up, you won't be left with a hideous mic.
"Mr. Jan" <thunauN...@email.msn.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:054f0654...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com...
> In article <3864EE04...@home.com>, Rick Knepper
> <rickr...@home.com> wrote:
> > Jamie wrote:
> If you have some quiet clean preamps already please ignore
> > this
> Somebody correct me if 'm wrong here, but my understanding is that mic
> pre's exibit the best S/N ratio at their max gain setting. (see recent
> Mackie ads for their new "pro" line of mixers). Therefore a mic with a
> higher output going thru any given pre would expose the noise in a mic
> pre more then lower output mic with the same self noise.(gain matched
> for output)
>
>
Mr. Jan
<aux...@NOSPAMmadasafish.com> wrote:
> hank alrich said...
> > Mr. Jan <thunauN...@email.msn.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Somebody correct me if 'm wrong here, but my understanding is
> that mic
> > > pre's exibit the best S/N ratio at their max gain setting.
> (see recent
> > > Mackie ads for their new "pro" line of mixers). Therefore a
> mic with a
> > > higher output going thru any given pre would expose the noise
> in a mic
> > > pre more then lower output mic with the same self noise.(gain
> matched
> > > for output)
> >
> quiver
> because
> > they rub against each other. The more you open up the preamp the
> more
> > that inherent noise will be amplified. So a mic with low output
> will
> higher
> > output will require less gain from the preamp and hence place
> the noise
> > floor at a lower level relative to the signal coming out of the
> preamp.
> voluminous, electrons which run for their lives. Hence, less
> rubbing,
> less noise (they have no mouths, so cannot scream). The weedy
> signal has
> to get physical with the electrons. Hence, more noise (biff, biff)
> --
> Marc
> Marriage is the only adventure open to the cowardly.
> - Voltaire
I hope this will clarify my point a little. What many of you hear as
dramatic increase in noise when turning up the gain on a mic pre is
amplified noise of your source (especially audible on condenser mics -
they have their own impedience matching output electronics which create
some noise) The noise of most mic pre's or should I say S/N ratio is in
the neighborhood of 127-129 dB - pretty good compared to most other
devices in recording chain and is measured always at maximum gain (it
looks the best on a spec sheet). I my original post I mentioned noise
of mic pre and not summed noise of source and mic pre working together.
Anonymous
"Mr. Jan" wrote:
> I hope this will clarify my point a little. What many of you hear as
> dramatic increase in noise when turning up the gain on a mic pre is
> amplified noise of your source (especially audible on condenser mics -
> they have their own impedience matching output electronics which create
> some noise)
You will observe this with no mic plugged in, too.
> The noise of most mic pre's or should I say S/N ratio is in
> the neighborhood of 127-129 dB - pretty good compared to most other
> devices in recording chain and is measured always at maximum gain (it
> looks the best on a spec sheet). I my original post I mentioned noise
> of mic pre and not summed noise of source and mic pre working together.
The problem here seems to be that you, or someone prior to you,
was arguing that a mic that gave a lower output might ultimately
be advantageous because it let you run the preamp wide open,
where its S/N ratio was best.
The fact is though, that while the S/N ratio of the preamp
itself may be higher with a low-output mic and a wide-open
preamp, this doesn't mean that the above combination will
yield a quieter recording than a hotter mic and a lower
setting on the preamp.
Can it be that of two mics with the same signal/self-noise
ratio, the one with less output may be better suited to
a given preamp? I suppose so. I had never really noticed it
because generally if clipping is a potential problem, then
there is enough signal that noise isn't much of an issue
anyhow.
--
the artist formerly known as Bill
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------