|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 16, 2019 13:17:04 GMT -6
It doesn’t have that at all on setting one. Did you try Type A? I noticed you said you used B mostly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 16, 2019 13:23:56 GMT -6
It doesn’t have that at all on setting one. Did you try Type A? I noticed you said you used B mostly. I used all of them on both systems. To me, the EQ settings largely altered the body of the sound and not the top, except for when they boost the top. I was always using the mellowest settings, given how brash I was sounding on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 16, 2019 13:38:35 GMT -6
It doesn’t have that at all on setting one. Did you try Type A? I noticed you said you used B mostly. I used all of them on both systems. To me, the EQ settings largely altered the body of the sound and not the top, except for when they boost the top. I was always using the mellowest settings, given how brash I was sounding on it. I’ll have to double check again, but I though setting 1 completely rolled off the top for me. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 16, 2019 13:47:18 GMT -6
I used all of them on both systems. To me, the EQ settings largely altered the body of the sound and not the top, except for when they boost the top. I was always using the mellowest settings, given how brash I was sounding on it. I’ll have to double check again, but I though setting 1 completely rolled off the top for me. Interesting. It didn’t sound that way for me, seemed like there was just a lack of boost. I’m sure spock has the curves? |
|
|
|
Post by spock on May 16, 2019 13:49:59 GMT -6
It doesn’t have that at all on setting one. Did you try Type A? I noticed you said you used B mostly. I used all of them on both systems. To me, the EQ settings largely altered the body of the sound and not the top, except for when they boost the top. I was always using the mellowest settings, given how brash I was sounding on it. Hi ragan IEC/NAB 7.5 ips aka setting number 1 (fully clockwise looking from the front of the mic,) is bass emphasis only. System B will sound more open/pristine, while A is more compressed, employing either of the low-cuts will modify the entire curve of the original Tape EQ setting you are on at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 16, 2019 13:52:32 GMT -6
I used all of them on both systems. To me, the EQ settings largely altered the body of the sound and not the top, except for when they boost the top. I was always using the mellowest settings, given how brash I was sounding on it. Hi ragan IEC/NAB 7.5 ips aka setting number 1 (fully clockwise looking from the front of the mic,) is bass emphasis only. System B will sound more open/pristine, while A is more compressed, employing either of the low-cuts will modify the entire curve of the original Tape EQ setting you are on at that time. Right ok. But none of the EQ settings actually roll off the top do they? In other words, the mellowest you can get it is to not boost the top, right? |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 16, 2019 13:55:03 GMT -6
I was in the session where I'd compared the TG to the MK67 the other night and I was listening to the TG vocal tracks I did and going, "What the hell? This sounds awesome. I found it so bright and 10k-emphasized at the time but this sounds really good!". I was very confused for a second until I realized I had a hardware insert on the track and a Harrison 32EQ was patched in and left on a setting I'd used to tame an SDC on an acoustic. Significant 10k cut and hi shelving rolloff and a bit of an 800hz boost. All that just to say that the TG takes EQ nicely and has a cool inherent tone. It definitely has an extended top. Strangely - on me - it doesn’t make me any more sibilant. I think my sibilance area is actually a little lower than most. That being said, the last two females I recorded with the 251, they were sibilant as hell...I almost wonder whether I shouldn’t go to Type A setting 1 for females. Or have a heavy hand around the 10khz range during recording. I actually love the mids in this thing. Get your hands on the Manley Silver. That thing is no joke. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 16, 2019 13:55:50 GMT -6
Hi ragan IEC/NAB 7.5 ips aka setting number 1 (fully clockwise looking from the front of the mic,) is bass emphasis only. System B will sound more open/pristine, while A is more compressed, employing either of the low-cuts will modify the entire curve of the original Tape EQ setting you are on at that time. Right ok. But none of the EQ settings actually roll off the top do they? In other words, the mellowest you can get it is to not boost the top, right? Right. |
|
|
|
Post by spock on May 16, 2019 14:21:25 GMT -6
Hi ragan IEC/NAB 7.5 ips aka setting number 1 (fully clockwise looking from the front of the mic,) is bass emphasis only. System B will sound more open/pristine, while A is more compressed, employing either of the low-cuts will modify the entire curve of the original Tape EQ setting you are on at that time. Right ok. But none of the EQ settings actually roll off the top do they? In other words, the mellowest you can get it is to not boost the top, right? Hi ragan Setting 1 is all about that bass, as if the tweeter went out on your monitors. System B, will have more clarity all the way around compared to A regardless of the Tape EQ setting. However, Setting 1 with either low-cut engaged, will tame the bass and bring out some top, and...if you happen to be in System B (more clarity) while doing that, it will appear more detailed as a result - like bringing the top back in. However, System A, setting 1 and a low cut will also bring some top back into the mix, though not with the clarity of System B. P.S. Setting #2 is the polar opposite of Setting #1, and is the "hey, my woofer went out!" zone. P.s.s... we just got a Frenchie puppy and I'm running on fumes while trying to be articulate. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 16, 2019 14:29:01 GMT -6
Right ok. But none of the EQ settings actually roll off the top do they? In other words, the mellowest you can get it is to not boost the top, right? Hi ragan Setting 1 is all about that bass, as if the tweeter went out on your monitors. System B, will have more clarity all the way around compared to A regardless of the Tape EQ setting. However, Setting 1 with either low-cut engaged, will tame the bass and bring out some top, and...if you happen to be in System B (more clarity) while doing that, it will appear more detailed as a result - like bringing the top back in. However, System A, setting 1 and a low cut will also bring some top back into the mix, though not with the clarity of System B. P.S. Setting #2 is the polar opposite of Setting #1, and is the "hey, my woofer went out!" zone. P.s.s... we just got a Frenchie puppy and I'm running on fumes while trying to be articulate. Congrats on the new pup. <thumbsup> I'm asking a really straightforward question but it's not coming across or something. Do any of the settings actually attenuate the high end? |
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on May 16, 2019 17:11:17 GMT -6
Hi ragan Setting 1 is all about that bass, as if the tweeter went out on your monitors. System B, will have more clarity all the way around compared to A regardless of the Tape EQ setting. However, Setting 1 with either low-cut engaged, will tame the bass and bring out some top, and...if you happen to be in System B (more clarity) while doing that, it will appear more detailed as a result - like bringing the top back in. However, System A, setting 1 and a low cut will also bring some top back into the mix, though not with the clarity of System B. P.S. Setting #2 is the polar opposite of Setting #1, and is the "hey, my woofer went out!" zone. P.s.s... we just got a Frenchie puppy and I'm running on fumes while trying to be articulate. Congrats on the new pup. <thumbsup> I'm asking a really straightforward question but it's not coming across or something. Do any of the settings actually attenuate the high end? Yeah, I have to say I'm finding all the options of "System A," "System B," various lo-cuts, positions 1-5 (which as far as I can tell aren't labeled on the mic) to be really confusing. I say this as a non-owner who's looked at the mic online and read this whole thread since the day John posted it. Some people may find all these options to be a reason for purchase, but it sure sounds like it could use better labeling. And published frequency plots for each of the position options. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 16, 2019 18:21:22 GMT -6
IMHO "that push" around 10KHz, might mean "the need" of a Sony 800G might be mitigated... By using a TG for that "modern" Pop/R&B sound.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 16, 2019 18:28:30 GMT -6
It definitely has an extended top. Strangely - on me - it doesn’t make me any more sibilant. I think my sibilance area is actually a little lower than most. That being said, the last two females I recorded with the 251, they were sibilant as hell...I almost wonder whether I shouldn’t go to Type A setting 1 for females. Or have a heavy hand around the 10khz range during recording. I actually love the mids in this thing. Get your hands on the Manley Silver. That thing is no joke. Part of my LDC "fantasy collection" would include the Manley Silver (or Tonelux JC37), along with REDD/TG/U99/Boutique U47 style tube mic... Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 16, 2019 20:11:34 GMT -6
I thought he basically addressed that. No apparently there’s no rolloff. spock Only bottom boost. As for it being hard to figure out...it’s not that complicated. 1-2-3-4 from left to right on both A and B: 1 - Darkest, 2 - Brightest 3 - no eq curve added 4 - some boost on each end 5 - more boost each end |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 16, 2019 20:40:35 GMT -6
Hi ragan Setting 1 is all about that bass, as if the tweeter went out on your monitors. System B, will have more clarity all the way around compared to A regardless of the Tape EQ setting. However, Setting 1 with either low-cut engaged, will tame the bass and bring out some top, and...if you happen to be in System B (more clarity) while doing that, it will appear more detailed as a result - like bringing the top back in. However, System A, setting 1 and a low cut will also bring some top back into the mix, though not with the clarity of System B. P.S. Setting #2 is the polar opposite of Setting #1, and is the "hey, my woofer went out!" zone. P.s.s... we just got a Frenchie puppy and I'm running on fumes while trying to be articulate. Congrats on the new pup. <thumbsup> I'm asking a really straightforward question but it's not coming across or something. Do any of the settings actually attenuate the high end? Nothing cuts the highs. |
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on May 16, 2019 20:56:10 GMT -6
I thought he basically addressed that. No apparently there’s no rolloff. spock Only bottom boost. As for it being hard to figure out...it’s not that complicated. 1-2-3-4 from left to right on both A and B: 1 - Darkest, 2 - Brightest 3 - no eq curve added 4 - some boost on each end 5 - more boost each end Fair enough. But then spock has also said the lo-cut filters do more than just cut the lows, so there are clearly a lot of interacting parts to the mic. I still think if "1-5" becomes the way everyone speaks about the different positions, Chandler ought to think about putting those labels on the mic. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 16, 2019 21:40:44 GMT -6
Congrats on the new pup. <thumbsup> I'm asking a really straightforward question but it's not coming across or something. Do any of the settings actually attenuate the high end? Nothing cuts the highs. You're probably right and that's how it sounded to me but the folks at Chandler talk a lot about how complex the interactions/responses/curves are and I was after a definitive, straight answer. Still don't have one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 0:05:37 GMT -6
Have they published the actual curves for this mic? And if not, why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 17, 2019 4:07:38 GMT -6
You're probably right and that's how it sounded to me but the folks at Chandler talk a lot about how complex the interactions/responses/curves are and I was after a definitive, straight answer. Still don't have one. From DM's with Spock... Does the bass emphasis setting also roll off some top or just push the bottom? I assume that overall, this mic is less toppy than the Redd? |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 17, 2019 9:02:46 GMT -6
The evasiveness is odd to me. It’s not like the fact that you can’t attenuate the top is bad or something to hide, right? Lots of people like bright mics. I don’t get the reluctance to just answer directly.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 17, 2019 9:18:15 GMT -6
I don't think there's any intentional avoidance. Rather that this is a learning experience for Chandler, in explaining the relatively complex TG tonal options.
Objectively, IMHO it would be best-as Mark also mentioned-if it had more reference details.
My U195 is child's play in comparison.
But the TG covers more bases=trade offs.
It would have cut in a LOT of U87 sales, back in the day, if it came out then...
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 17, 2019 9:22:40 GMT -6
I just mean if you’re asked multiple times “do any of the settings attenuate the top end?” and you reply with a whole bunch of things about which settings have mega-bass and which settings give a Killer Vocal Sound and all this and that but never answer the question it’s kind of strange.
|
|
|
|
Post by drsax on May 17, 2019 9:51:18 GMT -6
I had a chance to test the TG a little bit at NAMM and as I switched through the settings I had definite preferences for certain settings on my voice. I sometimes think we get lost in what a mic or piece of gear is doing technically and sometimes we forget to just see what moves us emotionally. In many of the greatest recordings ever done that we all aspire to, engineers chose sounds that moved us emotionally. Overthinking has killed results here many times. Although I like to understand what is happening technically, when I buy a TG, Mic, and I hope that is soon, I think flipping the switch until it sounds right for the Session is the best way to get the most out of it. And regarding boosts vs cuts, especially with high quality components like those in Chandlers gear, I think it’s less critical whether it’s a low boost or a high cut, it effectively shapes the sound in the same way. With plugins or cheap components, that would be a concern to me, but not with quality analog components. I want a TG bad. Love Chandlers mics... the REDD sees a ton of use here
|
|
|
|
Post by drsax on May 17, 2019 9:58:25 GMT -6
P.S. - when you look at what Wade has accomplished inside of one mic body, I think we have to consider that fitting more components inside to “cut’ and also “boost” may not have been viable in terms of physical space, or perhaps in terms of keeping price as reasonable as possible. I’m sure he went through different options when building and testing, and settled on the options he thought sounded best. For cats looking for a rolled off sound, and not wanting to do it with EQ, I think there are several classic Neumann mics and newer Neumann clones that do that sound pretty well. I have the Max Mod 67 and love it, but it sees way less use than my Chandler REDD. The Chandler almost always sits in a mix effortlessly before any mix processing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 17, 2019 10:04:01 GMT -6
I was originally excited by the TG but my interest has begun to wane the more I think about dealing with yet another set of variables. The reports of it having a "modern" sound are also not what I generally prefer in mics either.
To each their own, but I think I'd maybe prefer to stick with traditional mics and do my tweaking with comps and eqs.
That said, I do love the idea of a dedicated PSU and wish more makers of condensors would go that route. Adequate power makes all the difference.
|
|
