|
|
Post by ragan on May 17, 2019 10:28:13 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 I think there is some misunderstanding. The question only arose because John was thinking I should have been able to get around the hi-fi nature of the TG’s top end by using one of the EQ settings that mellowed it out. I had said I didn’t think there were any settings that mellowed the top and since then we were just trying to get a straight answer to that simple question. Boosting bass is not the same as rolling off top. I don’t even mean it as a critique of the mic, I’m just curious to know. I already returned mine because it was too bright on me but I did like the general tone of the mic as I’ve said. |
|
miklo
Junior Member
Posts: 52
|
Post by miklo on May 17, 2019 11:05:12 GMT -6
As soon as my room is set up I'll post clips of the TG mic vs u87ai vs Sony c800g.
Dry and with effects.
It'll be voice readings so if you guys know of a good dynamic script for me use feel free to share. I'll try to get a singer in as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 11:13:11 GMT -6
The idea of stopping tracking to flip around what tone setting is best, is I think based on some sort of odd take on what an engineer would tend to want when actually having to get a job done.
Both of the Chandler mics seem squarely targeted at home studio / people who don’t have a basis for knowing what is desirable in a working scenario.
What about a pad? What about constantly variable polar select? Or at least a figure 8?
Nah, let’s build a preamp into the mic. Or let’s put tone controls on it.
Funny thing, but when you pay for a preamp, or eq that ISN’T inside the mic, you can run other stuff through them. Lop that stuff out, put some pads on, get the capsules tight enough tolerance wise that you can put variable polar select, get the sound balanced so the top end isn’t insanely dominant...take those unprofessional dip switches off of the bodies and put real mic type switches on there that won’t vibrate...and then maybe they will have something. As is, they strongly come off as the handiwork of a company who is exactly two mics into their experience with making mics.
Doing such radical departures from norm is part of why the mics have created some stir, so I will compliment that aspect. They’re in the business of trying to make a profit, and I can see why they went the way they have.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 17, 2019 11:27:04 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. That mic has caught my interest as of late. Do you have one Jesse? |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 17, 2019 11:33:09 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 That's a good, non confusing description John!!! <thumbsup!!> |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 17, 2019 11:38:35 GMT -6
Catching up on this thread.......
PS - I think it's an interesting choice that there's no real HF cut. That's one of my most used tools in getting things to sit in the mix right. (Note : I'm not really too involved in modern pop though....) But if it's meant to hit the modern market, then I totally get it. Still, with 10 options, it seems it would have scratched a few more itch's if it had a HF cut. Probably one of the reasons I've gravitated to other options in the comparison I've heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by spock on May 17, 2019 11:52:11 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 I think there is some misunderstanding. The question only arose because John was thinking I should have been able to get around the hi-fi nature of the TG’s top end by using one of the EQ settings that mellowed it out. I had said I didn’t think there were any settings that mellowed the top and since then we were just trying to get a straight answer to that simple question. Boosting bass is not the same as rolling off top. I don’t even mean it as a critique of the mic, I’m just curious to know. I already returned mine because it was too bright on me but I did like the general tone of the mic as I’ve said. Hi ragan , Sorry for any confusion, the most straightforward way I can explain this is using Setting 3/FLAT as a baseline in comparison to Setting 1/Bass Emphasis. Setting one has less highs while emphasizing the bottom and in comparison to Setting 3 (our baseline) for example; settings 4 & 5 each have progressively more bottom and top than Setting 3/FLAT. So, Setting 1 is the "mellow" or "dark" Tape EQ position. If someone loved Tape EQ 1's bass emphasis' darkness and wanted to bring more mid & top back into it, then you'd try one of the two Low-Cuts; System A or B would also further define the color you get. The Low-Cuts, do in fact do more than simply cut at 90 or 50, similar to the EMI "Rumble Filter" on the REDD.47 and TG Microphone Cassette, they have an effect on the rest of the curve, modifying it (each differently). I'm a little perplexed that why you didn't experience the dark side of the TG Mic, because in my opinion without using one of the Low-Cuts on Setting 1, it would be too dark on a vocal or Ac Gtr. Now, something U67 interesting for you and quasi relating...I was recording and filming at Abbey Road Studios famed Studio 2 using the TG Microphone on the Beatles' "Mrs. Mills" and "Challen" pianos using historic U67 & U47 mics. Not only did the TG Microphone easily hang with both priceless and pristinely maintained vintage specimens, simply coming down to a subjective preference of what you wanted to use, the TG Microphone — on the setting we gravitated towards for the session on the "Challen" — was darker than both the U67 and U47 while also embodying sonic elements of both tube mics in its sound; of course — owning to it's variability — on a different setting we could have made the mic brighter should we have desired.   |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 17, 2019 12:03:18 GMT -6
The idea of stopping tracking to flip around what tone setting is best, is I think based on some sort of odd take on what an engineer would tend to want when actually having to get a job done. Both of the Chandler mics seem squarely targeted at home studio / people who don’t have a basis for knowing what is desirable in a working scenario. What about a pad? What about constantly variable polar select? Or at least a figure 8? Nah, let’s build a preamp into the mic. Or let’s put tone controls on it. Funny thing, but when you pay for a preamp, or eq that ISN’T inside the mic, you can run other stuff through them. Lop that stuff out, put some pads on, get the capsules tight enough tolerance wise that you can put variable polar select, get the sound balanced so the top end isn’t insanely dominant...take those unprofessional dip switches off of the bodies and put real mic type switches on there that won’t vibrate...and then maybe they will have something. As is, they strongly come off as the handiwork of a company who is exactly two mics into their experience with making mics. Doing such radical departures from norm is part of why the mics have created some stir, so I will compliment that aspect. They’re in the business of trying to make a profit, and I can see why they went the way they have. This strikes me as an overly cynical take. If Chandler were strictly after profits they'd take slightly modified OEM Chinese stuff and stick an 87 or 67 in the name. If they were "squarely targeting home studios" they'd put out something other than a $4k mic with no obvious jumpoff point from the vintage canon. I think it's badass that they're thinking creatively and coming up with unique pieces. I just haven't happened to gel with either of the mics' more modern sonics. I actually really like the sound of the TG when EQ'd (as evidenced by my accidental HW insert the other night) and I'm generally all for their deviation from the same old same old. If there were a less bright version of the TG I'd probably buy it. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 17, 2019 12:11:57 GMT -6
I think there is some misunderstanding. The question only arose because John was thinking I should have been able to get around the hi-fi nature of the TG’s top end by using one of the EQ settings that mellowed it out. I had said I didn’t think there were any settings that mellowed the top and since then we were just trying to get a straight answer to that simple question. Boosting bass is not the same as rolling off top. I don’t even mean it as a critique of the mic, I’m just curious to know. I already returned mine because it was too bright on me but I did like the general tone of the mic as I’ve said. Hi ragan , Sorry for any confusion, the most straightforward way I can explain this is using Setting 3/FLAT as a baseline in comparison to Setting 1/Bass Emphasis. Setting one has less highs while emphasizing the bottom and in comparison to Setting 3 (our baseline) for example; settings 4 & 5 each have progressively more bottom and top than Setting 3/FLAT. So, Setting 1 is the "mellow" or "dark" Tape EQ position. If someone loved Tape EQ 1's bass emphasis' darkness and wanted to bring more mid & top back into it, then you'd try one of the two Low-Cuts; System A or B would also further define the color you get. The Low-Cuts, do in fact do more than simply cut at 90 or 50, similar to the EMI "Rumble Filter" on the REDD.47 and TG Microphone Cassette, they have an effect on the rest of the curve, modifying it (each differently). I'm a little perplexed that why you didn't experience the dark side of the TG Mic, because in my opinion without using one of the Low-Cuts on Setting 1, it would be too dark on a vocal or Ac Gtr. Now, something U67 interesting for you and quasi relating...I was recording and filming at Abbey Road Studios famed Studio 2 using the TG Microphone on the Beatles' "Mrs. Mills" and "Challen" pianos using historic U67 & U47 mics. Not only did the TG Microphone easily hang with both priceless and pristinely maintained vintage specimens, simply coming down to a subjective preference of what you wanted to use, the TG Microphone — on the setting we gravitated towards for the session on the "Challen" — was darker than both the U67 and U47 while also embodying sonic elements of both tube mics in its sound; of course — owning to it's variability — on a different setting we could have made the mic brighter should we have desired. That's very interesting. I have always wondered if there's a chance the TG I had had an issue. No way to know that but that surprises me that it (in any setting) would be darker than any stock U67. So you're saying that position 1 should have attenuated highs compared to position 3? Also, we may be dancing around each other semantically. When you say "...in my opinion without using one of the Low-Cuts on Setting 1, it would be too dark on a vocal or Ac Gtr" it makes me think we're thinking of 'bright' and 'dark' in totally different ways. Yes, without low cuts some settings have too much low end for a close mic'd acoustic guitar or vocal. But that says nothing of what's going on from 8-12k. You can be too strident and too boomy at the same time. A mic having too much subby low end has little to do with it being 'dark' or 'bright' in the way I think about those terms. As I've said, the EQ settings on the TG seemed to do a lot to the body of the sound - everything from mids on down - and are definitely capable of some big boosts in the high end but no setting seemed to soften the high end. |
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 12:18:37 GMT -6
Is the body work NOT Chinese? Hmm.
I don’t really mean this as a criticism either. Most is nowadays.
I think a big key to grabbing attention is to have a different take, and for it to be a strong one. So I don’t really mean it as a diss at all. My point is more that there is a yin/yang to everything, and the counter to the strong take that these mics have, is that they potentially alienate people looking for traditional features that are MIA on these mics.
I can imagine working with the TG and going “ok, here I want to dime back the frequency response with the IPS knob”...but it is a pretty different mindset than working with a client and wanting something you know will reliably be able to stack tracks with no frequency ranges starting to get out of hand. Or practical matters like “I want to put this on kick, gee sure would be nice for a pad”.
I could totally see myself grabbing either one of the chandler mics at some point, so my comments aren’t meant as a knock as much as they are a matter of fact take. And I DO have concerns with that style dip switch on a mic when tracking loud bass guitar or drum overhead potentially. You really don’t want a piece of metal in that kind of configuration that can potentially cause resonance. This is WHY different switches are normally used by mic makers who have been through a lot of product iterations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 12:32:10 GMT -6
The idea of stopping tracking to flip around what tone setting is best, is I think based on some sort of odd take on what an engineer would tend to want when actually having to get a job done. Both of the Chandler mics seem squarely targeted at home studio / people who don’t have a basis for knowing what is desirable in a working scenario. What about a pad? What about constantly variable polar select? Or at least a figure 8? Nah, let’s build a preamp into the mic. Or let’s put tone controls on it. Funny thing, but when you pay for a preamp, or eq that ISN’T inside the mic, you can run other stuff through them. Lop that stuff out, put some pads on, get the capsules tight enough tolerance wise that you can put variable polar select, get the sound balanced so the top end isn’t insanely dominant...take those unprofessional dip switches off of the bodies and put real mic type switches on there that won’t vibrate...and then maybe they will have something. As is, they strongly come off as the handiwork of a company who is exactly two mics into their experience with making mics. Doing such radical departures from norm is part of why the mics have created some stir, so I will compliment that aspect. They’re in the business of trying to make a profit, and I can see why they went the way they have. I see bashing Chandler at GS wasn't enough, so you joined over here to bas some more. First, you've never owned or tried the Chandler mics...and really, after stating that, you have no room to slander them anywhere. I absolutely don't mind if people with first hand knowledge and experience criticize anything around here, but this kind of shit should stay on GS. So - I'm giving you fair warning... |
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 12:37:01 GMT -6
The idea of stopping tracking to flip around what tone setting is best, is I think based on some sort of odd take on what an engineer would tend to want when actually having to get a job done. Both of the Chandler mics seem squarely targeted at home studio / people who don’t have a basis for knowing what is desirable in a working scenario. What about a pad? What about constantly variable polar select? Or at least a figure 8? Nah, let’s build a preamp into the mic. Or let’s put tone controls on it. Funny thing, but when you pay for a preamp, or eq that ISN’T inside the mic, you can run other stuff through them. Lop that stuff out, put some pads on, get the capsules tight enough tolerance wise that you can put variable polar select, get the sound balanced so the top end isn’t insanely dominant...take those unprofessional dip switches off of the bodies and put real mic type switches on there that won’t vibrate...and then maybe they will have something. As is, they strongly come off as the handiwork of a company who is exactly two mics into their experience with making mics. Doing such radical departures from norm is part of why the mics have created some stir, so I will compliment that aspect. They’re in the business of trying to make a profit, and I can see why they went the way they have. I see bashing Chandler at GS wasn't enough, so you joined over here to bas some more. First, you've never owned or tried the Chandler mics...and really, after stating that, you have no room to slander them anywhere. I absolutely don't mind if people with first hand knowledge and experience criticize anything around here, but this kind of shit should stay on GS. So - I'm giving you fair warning... Excuse me? Is this not a place to talk shop? What is “wrong” with anything I’ve said? Is anything untrue or an invalid take? Everything has pluses and minuses. I’ve used tons of Chandler gear over the years, own plenty of spendy mics and other gear. I owned a studio for over a decade, and have worked with many top tier acts over the years. I really think your reaction to some opinion is way over the top. IMO there is nothing wrong with someone who has had ALOT OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE voicing some thoughts. It’s fine if you want to disregard them, but it wasn’t meant as a flame. How weird. Maybe I am commenting on the dip switch, because I’ve literally had previous experience with them on mics? Hmm? Maybe I’m commenting about what I find handy when working with a band or artist trying to do overdubs, moving from one thing to the next? Hmm? I didn’t realize that it was inappropriate to make comments based on life experiences...about why I’m not rushing out the door to get one of the mics to demo! But I CAN see them being a good solution in certain contexts. So how is that trashing anything? It is sad how on the internet people are so quick to want to be polarized and anything resembling nuance gets steam rollered. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 12:52:19 GMT -6
This is ridiculous And over the top...and TROLLING
"The idea of stopping tracking to flip around what tone setting is best, is I think based on some sort of odd take on what an engineer would tend to want when actually having to get a job done.
Both of the Chandler mics seem squarely targeted at home studio / people who don’t have a basis for knowing what is desirable in a working scenario.
What about a pad? What about constantly variable polar select? Or at least a figure 8?
Nah, let’s build a preamp into the mic. Or let’s put tone controls on it.
Funny thing, but when you pay for a preamp, or eq that ISN’T inside the mic, you can run other stuff through them. Lop that stuff out, put some pads on, get the capsules tight enough tolerance wise that you can put variable polar select, get the sound balanced so the top end isn’t insanely dominant...take those unprofessional dip switches off of the bodies and put real mic type switches on there that won’t vibrate...and then maybe they will have something. As is, they strongly come off as the handiwork of a company who is exactly two mics into their experience with making mics.
Doing such radical departures from norm is part of why the mics have created some stir, so I will compliment that aspect. They’re in the business of trying to make a profit, and I can see why they went the way they have."
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 12:54:09 GMT -6
This is ridiculous And over the top...and TROLLING "The idea of stopping tracking to flip around what tone setting is best, is I think based on some sort of odd take on what an engineer would tend to want when actually having to get a job done. Both of the Chandler mics seem squarely targeted at home studio / people who don’t have a basis for knowing what is desirable in a working scenario. What about a pad? What about constantly variable polar select? Or at least a figure 8? Nah, let’s build a preamp into the mic. Or let’s put tone controls on it. Funny thing, but when you pay for a preamp, or eq that ISN’T inside the mic, you can run other stuff through them. Lop that stuff out, put some pads on, get the capsules tight enough tolerance wise that you can put variable polar select, get the sound balanced so the top end isn’t insanely dominant...take those unprofessional dip switches off of the bodies and put real mic type switches on there that won’t vibrate...and then maybe they will have something. As is, they strongly come off as the handiwork of a company who is exactly two mics into their experience with making mics. Doing such radical departures from norm is part of why the mics have created some stir, so I will compliment that aspect. They’re in the business of trying to make a profit, and I can see why they went the way they have." I don’t see it that way in the least. It’s constructive criticism and good advice to Chandler. There is no need to get nasty like you’re getting with me. If this is your board and you don’t like something I’ve written, you can just shoot a PM. The public flame stuff is pretty juvenile and unprofessional. |
|
|
|
Post by aremos on May 17, 2019 12:56:19 GMT -6
georgetoledo,
I guess, from your feedback & critique, that you HAVE used, & have first hand knowledge with, the REDD & TG mics? |
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 12:58:49 GMT -6
Why would I be rushing to try out a mic with a dipswitch like that on it?
I KNOW that you don’t put those on mics because they cause resonance.
I was unaware that is unacceptable to have an experience based opinion about. Apologies all! Yeah, guess I’m wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 12:59:47 GMT -6
You've stated on other boards that you've never actually used either Chandler mic...yet here you've criticized the concepts of both mics and accused Chandler of screwing the end user by being "in the business of making a profit." And then you intimate the body work is Chinese. It's not. Pretty shitty takes...juvenile and unprofessional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 13:01:20 GMT -6
To everyone else: I don't give a rats ass whether you buy a Chandler product or whatever...I just don't want this place to be filled with hot takes from people that don't know. There's a different website for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 13:04:14 GMT -6
You've stated on other boards that you've never actually used either Chandler mic...yet here you've criticized the concepts of both mics and accused Chandler of screwing the end user by being "in the business of making a profit." And then you intimate the body work is Chinese. It's not. Pretty shitty takes...juvenile and unprofessional. They’re a business! Yes, they need to make a profit. Wow. Ugh... Look, sorry I offended. And it’s such a dumb red herring to say that I need to use those mics to see things that you just don’t do on a mic without potential problems. That’s like saying I need to experience the herpes, and can’t take some pause from the big herpes sore I see. Be well. It’s not worth getting so aggro about. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 13:06:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 13:08:11 GMT -6
You've stated on other boards that you've never actually used either Chandler mic...yet here you've criticized the concepts of both mics and accused Chandler of screwing the end user by being "in the business of making a profit." And then you intimate the body work is Chinese. It's not. Pretty shitty takes...juvenile and unprofessional. They’re a business! Yes, they need to make a profit. Wow. Ugh... Look, sorry I offended. And it’s such a dumb red herring to say that I need to use those mics to see things that you just don’t do on a mic without potential problems. That’s like saying I need to experience the herpes, and can’t take some pause from the big herpes sore I see. Be well. It’s not worth getting so aggro about. It's a red herring to say you should have first hand experience before slandering something. Ok. You've been warned. |
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 13:08:12 GMT -6
Let me explain something to you.
Any object on a mic that is mounted in such a way as those toggles - which are not usually employed on mics - from a pivot point like that, can and will create a resonance at specific frequencies.
This is the exact reason why you do not see those type of switches employed on mic designers that are really dyed in the wool...your Neumann, AKG, Shure, etc. Even high end companies like Bock, Brauner, Josephson, etc. Those companies understand these kind of engineering principles and wouldn’t go that route to begin with.
Before chastising me more, maybe you can seek some off the record commentary / second takes on this point from anyone who has experience in these matters, and who you value the opinion of. Sorry this got contentious, it didn’t need to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 13:09:53 GMT -6
You're talking about fucking 3 millimeter switches, dude. Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetoledo on May 17, 2019 13:11:43 GMT -6
Did you have a bad day or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 13:28:37 GMT -6
Did you have a bad day or something? Nope...but you just did. |
|
