A little mic to mic test: Neuman TLM103 and SP-C1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seventh
  • Start date Start date
S

Seventh

New member
Thought I would post the results of a recent test:

I have been tracking all lead VOX with a SP-C1 for a current CD Project. I have been thus far satisfied with it's performance.

A friend of mine, who is also tracking a project, is using a Neumann TLM-103 for lead vox.

So one day, on a coffee visit at my own studio, we decide to run a quick mic to mic evaluation.

This is not a hardcore scientific test, just a test of how I TYPICALLY track a lead vox.

We only used a male baritone voice.

The signal chain we kept identical for the two of them, mostly because it was the easiest. ;)
FWIW, the signal chain was: Mic, Avalon, VT737SP PRE, Delta 44 Converter, into HD.

The singing performance was done at the same distance from the mic, which was roughly 5".

We took two takes of each microphone, and picked the best "performance" just to keep the singing performance equal, as to not distract from the listening.

Here is what we found:

The C1 had a distinctive HF definition that was not as pronounced on the TLM-103, nor did it sound abnormal, rather, we both felt that we would normally simply EQ the TLM-103 to get this bit of high end air. We also noticed a nice 50-60Hz (roughly) response that gave a little bit of that expensive sounding "thickness" at the very low frequencies. Normally, I specifically EQ my other mics for this effect, since it's nice for the attack on vocal phrases.

The TLM-103: Very nice sounding mic also. The lower mids (250-400Hz) were very woody (if I can use that term) and "solid" sounding. Absolutely NO low-mid "floppyness" - a very tight sound in this area. The upper HF region from about 8kHz up was not quite as pronounced on this mic, as it was with the C1. Here, we decided that we would simply EQ the TLM under normal circumstances to simply achieve that. The upper frequencies were smooth enough that they could be EQ's without added harshness, especially using the Avalon EQ. The LOW frequencies (50-100Hz) were a little bit less than the C1, although, not by a lot. There were two phrases that revealed this in the performance. It was quite close, all things considered in the low frequency performance.

In the end, we both agreed that BOTH mics sounded very good, with some differences between them, but not differences that would make one "better" than the other - rather we felt that we could make very good recordings with either one of them, and we would simply just get used to how they sounded.
I would definately say, that for some singers, that solid low-mid sound of the TLM-103 would be just awesome.

We didn't try anything else other than lead vox. So I can't comment on other sources.

There a lot of this mic vs that mic in other thread, but it's not my intent for this post.

My intention behind this was to simply say that I have LEARNED now, by experience, that each mic has it's own signature sound, and that each signature can be effective, just different. Not necessarily better, just different.

Actually, we had a blast doing this sort of test.

Just wanted to post our findings. I hope someone finds it useful in some way.

Cheers,

SH
 
Nah that's not the way to do it....

Start controversy...Antagonize, ie:
"My xxx mic beats the hell out of your yyy mic, so shut it"

You'll learn...



"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
- Zapp Brannigan



P.S : Just kidding, great post! :D
 
It would be nice if we could hear the 2 mics.
And please don't ask us to guess which one is which.;)
 
Seventh, FWIW I'm also a (lyric) baritone and coincidently pulled the 'ol
C1 out tonight to test my vocal booth (ahem walk-in closet).
Anyway, for uptempo songs the HF definition can be fine, however,
for ballads a cut of about 2db at a 12Khz shelf works much better for me.
The C1 blew away the Shure Beta 87 condenser mike I use for "practice".
(Even though the Beta 87 is a good sounding microphone)
 
Great post. I enjoyed it. It bears out my thinking--namely, the right mic for the right application. Actually, I haven't even heard either of these mics you discuss, but you demonstrate two ideas. First, it is possible to EQ some frequencies on a given mic to achieve a result. Second, learning the real strengths of a mic is invaluable knowledge when it comes to choosing what is best for a session--in particular, a singer.

I have built up a nice little mic locker lately, and I have learned something. You can't make blanket statements like "The TLM 103 is a great vocal mic." Why? because it depends on what voice you use it on. Same applies to every other mic out there.

A case in point. I recently bought two MXL mics--a V67 and a V93. Both are great mics, but when it comes to micing my vocals, the 67 is better. The reason why is that I seem to have a naturally bright sounding vox, for better or worse. The V67 rounds it out in a pleasing way. I actually use an Oktava 219 often on my voice too, due to the high end rolloff. Makes me sound good.

The V93 doesn't work as well on my voice, but when I used it on my daughter the other day for her voice, it was fantastic! It had this wonderful airiness that captured her performance and added a sheen that was mesmerizing. Its much better on her than on me.

I've started thinking about each mic as being a "filter" or "lens" that captures certain parts of the frequency spectrum. Now the trick is to learn to match up the right mic with the right source, which I am beginning to learn through experience.

All of this makes a point that one should beware in drawing too many conclusions from mic shootouts because one mic will be great on one singer and terrible on another. If I were to do it over, I would do my shopping with thoughts of multiple LD condensers. I'd get one that was bright or airy, one that was rather flat and neutral, and one that was darker, with a bit more low end. Its always nice to have choices.
 
At my school (Stockholm Music Conservatory), the sound engineering students use TLM103 for pretty much all singers. I have to say I think it sounds great on male singers, particularly those with darker voices. But the top end tends to get too much when they record female singers. They always seem to de-ess the snot out of all the female vocal takes with that mic. It never gets shrill or really unpleasant, just - too much.

It's possible they EQ the vocals in a way that doesn't appeal to me, but my impression of the TLM103 is that is not a perfect choice for lighter female voices. I've heard recordings with about four male and four female singers.

So if you say the C1 has even more top end than the TLM103 - I'm thinking it may be an even less perfect choice for that particular application.

I know many others really like the TLM103 (obviously the sound engineering students at my school do), so I suppose it's merely a matter of taste.

Cheers
/Henrik
 
Yup, Henrik, I couldn't agree more. I find the v67 bright for most voices, and the v93 more so. Depends on what you're after, but for taming a bright source I end up running to grab a nice m260 rather than these....

My 0.02

Alan
 
Ah yes, some day it will be my turn to lay hands on a nice ribbon mic...
 
Mic vs Voice

Took me a while to get back on here, since I was tied up all yesterday tracking fiddles and BG's for a project.

You know, this is exactly what it's about - different mics for different applications. Someone mentioned the photo lens/filter analogy. That's a good one, since Mic's responses are rarely FLAT in response, and singers vary hugely in tone and shrillness, softness, etc, and different mics will either flatter or work against a particular strength of a voice.

There is a particular song in the project I recorded vocals with a different mic. I wish I hadn't used it now - It wasn't good for the voice - a little murky.

Generally speaking, a great performance records decent with most any mic, and a the right mic for the source will make a great performance sound stellar.

Cheers,

SH
 
Re: Mic vs Voice

Seventh said:
Generally speaking, a great performance records decent with most any mic
Click to expand...

This is also a very good point - maybe you should look to the source itself a bit more than many people seem to do. When I'm saying those negative things about the TLM103, I doubt any normal music consumer (= non sound geek) would be bothered by the things that bother me. But they DO hear the performance itself, always.

Cheers
/Henrik
 
FWIW, many of Paul Rodgers' vocals (lead singer for Free and Bad company)
were made in the "control room" with a Shure SM57 while he sang with
the monitors-instead of using headphones!
 
Chessparov-That really lends credibility to this whole discussion. The right mic on the right source is what its all about. I've done tons of demo vocals in the past with a 57 and it worked really well. We can't draw simplistic conclusions such as the U87 is the best vocal mic. etc. In many cases, it could be--but certainly not in every case. After my recent microphone buying binge, I have learned that no matyter how much praise a certain mic gets, you need to try one and see what works for your own applications.

I also agree with the notion of the great performance. The few times I've had the chance to record a really great vocalist, they make everything sound expensive and right!
 
Chessparov-That really lends credibility to this whole discussion. The right mic on the right source is what its all about. I've done tons of demo vocals in the past with a 57 and it worked really well. We can't draw simplistic conclusions such as the U87 is the best vocal mic. etc. In many cases, it could be--but certainly not in every case. After my recent microphone buying binge, I have learned that no matyter how much praise a certain mic gets, you need to try one and see what works for your own applications.

I also agree with the notion of the great performance. The few times I've had the chance to record a really great vocalist, they make everything sound expensive and right!
 
Good Thread...

This is a good discussion.

I know, for example one of my favourite singers has recorded a few albums, each one with a different vocal mic.

Because the singer is fantastic, each mic sounds a little "different" from each other, but the performance almost MAKES you NOT listen to the mic quality - the voice is just good - full stop.

Good singers always sound like good singers, regardless of mic.

I had a neat combination yesterday micing a mandolin. I stereo mic'd it, with one side the SP-C1, and the other and Audio Technica SD condensor. Worked really nicely.

Again, the player would have made anything sound decent.

SH
 
(This is where some idiot comes in and tells us all the good old story of how The Beatles made their records on four tracks).

:D
 
Well you know, the Beatles and Led Zepelen recorded all their stuff . . . :)

Henrik and Deaconblues,

It surprizes me that the TLM's and the Marshalls sound "bright" to you. I have noticed just a tad of a bump in the bright range on the Marshalls, but for the most part, the V93/2003 has quite a flat response and doesn't sound harsh to me at all. As for the Neumann, my experience with very good mics is even if they are a tad hyped in the highs, it's never what I would call harsh, and only helps the voice to sit in a mix better. Anything recorded on such a mic will also tend to be much easier to eq, as it tends to respond better even to cheap eq.
 
Good point chessrock regarding the "highs". On the C1 the shimmer it
gives actually helps balance out the use of vocal compression, as that
process darkens the top end somewhat.

There's a story (think it was in "Behind the Glass" by Howard Massey)
where they recorded John Lennon with an expensive mike (U47?) and
his beaten up SM57, the 57 at Lennon's insistence to make a point.
Anyway, upon playback the 57's vocal came out better than the other!
It amazed the engineer and give further evidence to Lennon's
incredible musical instincts as to what worked better on a specific
song to get a specific sound he had in mind.
 
Hello Chessrock and Chessparov (are you guys related?),
I don't think the Neumann is in any way harsh, I just find the top end a tad too much - for the female singers I've heard it with. But maybe it's just me who is too much into the so called retro sound (i.e. less top end). :D I just like to reserve the top end for cymbals and other high pitched instruments. But of course, in songs where there isn't much of that, it may be a different story.

Hmm, good point about vocal compression. I have never thought of that. If you like to compress the vocals heavily (as I tend to do) a brighter mic may be better. Gotta try that out.

Cheers
/Henrik
 
Re: "are you guys related?"

Henrick, not as far as I know-unless he puts me in the will!
Maybe he's a fellow chessplayer too though-I'm a strong master (brag, brag).
 
Chessrock-

I agree with Henrik about the 103. I feel that it has a broadly and smoothly elevated treble that is amenable to eq. And is certainly an aid to sources that need help to sit up in a mix.

On the other hand, the Marshall 67/2003, while each generally good-sounding each in their own way, to my ear have a peak in the high treble (maybe "10K-ish" in the case of the 67, "13K-ish" in the case of the 2003), not obnoxious, but may be problematic for sibilant voices (or bowed stringed instruments which I deal with a lot). ymmv..

I guess I'm now up to 0.04 now.

regards,
Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top