|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 24, 2024 17:07:12 GMT -6
For the last couple of years I've been searching for the "one", a mic that will work on most things. I've got plenty, been through plenty ranging from cheap to silly money and I'm listening to all these well produced audio clips ( crillemannen what a voice and thanks for the vids) and it hit me. As I'm searching through all of these mic's I'm thinking too small sounding, too big sounding and that will take up space in a mix, my word that distortion is annoying, that's too bright, that's too dark and will require some extensive EQ.. Hope it works.
Then it just hit me, the U89 was supposed to be Neumann's flagship replacement for the U87 and what struck me about the TLM 193 / 170 / 89 is how un-annoying they are. They don't obfuscate like one or two vintage classics and if you're intentionally after muddy then there's tons of ways to do that in a mix. The U89 at least works well in less than stellar rooms (due to it's diffuse-field response), it's quiet, infinitely shapable (you can distort, warp, reduce, inflate etc. as you like), takes a lot of SPL etc. So, why am I bypassing it again? Probably the same reason most do, it's more effort and it doesn't sound like thunder out the box.
Before we get into lead balloon territory, yes it's all subjective and look I've been there. I have my classic favourites like the M269C or 67, C800 and ELAM 251 but they don't work on everything IME and for example let's say I use a 67 on vocals which does tend to obfuscate the voice itself (love 'em on instruments and that will never change). I had to ask why? Is it just more comfortable as a singer to use this? Is it because I like the sound? Am I just used to it? At one point probably all of them, today what used to be my favourite vocal mic is now probably one of my least. Yes, it's a personal thing but simply put I've moved on and I spent all of this money on equipment not to blur anything but to allow the sonic's to do the song in question justice.
Also yes, there's tens of thousands (if not even more) world class awesome songs we all love recorded with these classics. I'm not questioning the legacy it's just Neumann moved on, they thought it was better and for years even if I didn't get it. Recently though, I've come around to their way of thinking..
This is far from the best recording I've ever heard of a TLM-193 (there's not much to choose from because they get overlooked) but I still appreciate how it relayed the point of the singer clearly and also how it didn't annoy me for a single second.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098 
|
Post by ericn on Feb 24, 2024 17:52:05 GMT -6
If you love the sound of that lineage of Neumann, give the Beyer medium Diaphragms a look, a bit less expensive but very Similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 24, 2024 18:55:40 GMT -6
If you love the sound of that lineage of Neumann, give the Beyer medium Diaphragms a look, a bit less expensive but very Similar. I've had a look at the MC840 before I believe, that's before they stopped making them. What I do find very interesting is a mic from Neumman's owners, the Sennheiser MK8, not bang on the same in terms of specs (it's 1" dual for a start). However there's not always masses of difference in frequency or polar, well not enough to set the apple cart if I'm reading it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacobamerritt on Feb 24, 2024 19:26:13 GMT -6
If you love the sound of that lineage of Neumann, give the Beyer medium Diaphragms a look, a bit less expensive but very Similar. Any specific models? |
|
|
|
Post by nnajar on Feb 24, 2024 22:55:53 GMT -6
Here’s a U89 on vocal
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Feb 24, 2024 23:29:57 GMT -6
U89 is pretty dark sounding especially for a Neumann.
193 has a lot of the modern Neumann zing to it.
The tlm170 is the best all around mic they made/make. Super neutral and multi pattern. Very versatile and honest.
I've been enjoying our m49v though but for the price it's not worth it for most.
|
|
|
|
Post by crillemannen on Feb 25, 2024 5:56:09 GMT -6
Thanks for the kind words!
I actually never tried the U89 or the TLM 170. Might snag one if they pop up. My tech friend says they are a total sleeper especially the 80s TLMs.
I think I've done the same journey. Some are to bright for sure but for now I'm mostly concerned about the lowmid resolution. Alot of mics aren't that defined when you sing in your lower register to the point it's annoying and you have to do workarounds in post to make the vocals clearer. Last night I used a ZP microphone which was given to me which I haven't used since the initial review and to my surprise it sounded way better then any of my Neumann mics. Very balanced and a bit toward a Neumann 87 but without those cloudy lowmids.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninworks on Feb 25, 2024 7:00:35 GMT -6
I bought a U89 when they first came out back in the 80's. I used it for years on everything at some point. It's a great mic but very very flat and as such sounds dark, but it takes EQ well. I kept buying other mikes over the years and got to a point where I never used it anymore so I traded it for a Lunchbox loaded with nice gear and never looked back. I have other mikes that will do the flat thing so I don't miss it. It was still a great mic if you need that sort of thing it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 25, 2024 7:24:46 GMT -6
Thanks for the kind words! I actually never tried the U89 or the TLM 170. Might snag one if they pop up. My tech friend says they are a total sleeper especially the 80s TLMs. I think I've done the same journey. Some are to bright for sure but for now I'm mostly concerned about the lowmid resolution. Alot of mics aren't that defined when you sing in your lower register to the point it's annoying and you have to do workarounds in post to make the vocals clearer. Last night I used a ZP microphone which was given to me which I haven't used since the initial review and to my surprise it sounded way better then any of my Neumann mics. Very balanced and a bit toward a Neumann 87 but without those cloudy lowmids. Here's one fly in the pot, if we are going for flat, infinitely warpable, natural response microphones why not an SDC? A Schopes CMC6 + MK41 is IMO the ultimate point source microphone dead flat to 20Khz. It's about £200.00 more expensive than a TLM-193 but as accurate as they could ever come. You certainly wouldn't have low mid issues with that.. I'll have a look at the ZP microphone, thanks.
On a similar note, I've recently bought a KM184 and I've had a Beyer MC930 for a while but I was surprised at how good the ISK little gem sounded. It cost like $60.00, it lacks a bit in terms of quality and it can sound a bit urr cheap compared to a $2 - $5K LDC but it's perfectly useable, natural etc. and sounds great on a vocal. Far better than some other mic's I have.. I need to buy another Schoeps, issue is when you're only tracking yourself and have 40+ mic's you don't use most of them so I sold quite a few of them off. Instead of considering what sounds best I just hoarded my most expensive mic's, in retrospect potentially not the best idea although If I sell my Vintage 67 I could buy six Schoeps mic's so it's not a problem.
I agree though, that Schoep's in retrospect was probably the best sounding mic I owned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 25, 2024 8:15:30 GMT -6
Nah, you know I've heard the same stuff on the purple site. In the clip I posted the TLM-193 rocks and I could do so much more with it, if we're talking "zing" here try an original 2000's SE 5600, now that was difficult to do much with. I've got thousands in tracking HW meant to deal with mic's getting a bit pinchy or zingy, said HW will happily control FET, TLM or Dynamics etc. and impart their own sound for a bit of Mojo. I already have a U89 and for me it's a bit soft so at the moment I'm liking the TLM, don't get me wrong if I didn't have this stuff I'd probably avoid it.
The only question in my mind is how the TLM would stack up to a Schoeps, looks like KMR is getting a phone call on Monday.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubledog on Feb 25, 2024 9:09:59 GMT -6
If you can demo a Chandler TG Type L, do it. I'm still very impressed with how this mic can do just about anything (at least it has for me). Sounds great on everyone and everything, and it's relatively inexpensive (compared to anything with the Neumann name on it).
(just in case it matters I've been using an AML 5003D [1073 style] pre mostly)
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Feb 25, 2024 9:51:13 GMT -6
Nah, you know I've heard the same stuff on the purple site. In the clip I posted the TLM-193 rocks and I could do so much more with it, if we're talking "zing" here try an original 2000's SE 5600, now that was difficult to do much with. I've got thousands in tracking HW meant to deal with mic's getting a bit pinchy or zingy, said HW will happily control FET, TLM or Dynamics etc. and impart their own sound for a bit of Mojo. I already have a U89 and for me it's a bit soft so at the moment I'm liking the TLM, don't get me wrong if I didn't have this stuff I'd probably avoid it. The only question in my mind is how the TLM would stack up to a Schoeps, looks like KMR is getting a phone call on Monday. Sometimes the zing is good. We used them as cello and bass principle spots because the timbre they capture has that edge to give them definition in the orchestra mix. The 170 is just the best all around mic Neumann makes is all. As for the schoeps comparison, depends on the situation. But you can almost always get a good result out of any schoeps with decent placement. I also use them all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 25, 2024 9:58:14 GMT -6
Sometimes the zing is good. We used them as cello and bass principle spots because the timbre they capture has that edge to give them definition in the orchestra mix. The 170 is just the best all around mic Neumann makes is all. As for the schoeps comparison, depends on the situation. But you can almost always get a good result out of any schoeps with decent placement. I also use them all the time. The only thing I don't understand is the TLM-170 & 193 are exactly the same in terms of polar & frequency response (The 193 is cardioid only obviously). So why is one better than the other besides the extra options of course? Neumann stopped selling them for a bit and now they're back both mic's are even made the same. The U89 I get as it has a transformer and as I said I believe it makes it a bit softer (whether you like that or not), however the U89 also has the same frequency reponse as the other two as well soo..?! |
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 25, 2024 10:51:15 GMT -6
TLM stuff is great. Definitely would like 89s. I have a first year pair of 170s and they'll be the last thing I sell if I go broke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Feb 25, 2024 10:54:53 GMT -6
Sometimes the zing is good. We used them as cello and bass principle spots because the timbre they capture has that edge to give them definition in the orchestra mix. The 170 is just the best all around mic Neumann makes is all. As for the schoeps comparison, depends on the situation. But you can almost always get a good result out of any schoeps with decent placement. I also use them all the time. The only thing I don't understand is the TLM-170 & 193 are exactly the same in terms of polar & frequency response (The 193 is cardioid only obviously). So why is one better than the other besides the extra options of course? Neumann stopped selling them for a bit and now they're back both mic's are even made the same. The U89 I get as it has a transformer and as I said I believe it makes it a bit softer (whether you like that or not), however the U89 also has the same frequency reponse as the other two as well soo..?! I don't have an answer for this other than my experience using them and listening to them. I don't have hundreds of hours with any of them, but I do have some time with all of the mentioned ones and that's just been my experience. They all use the same capsule but clearly the electronics are different. YMMV. |
|
