Complete throwaway topic, but the TLM103 is definitely harsh sounding.

[dfira]

I want to apologise to the forum member to whom I cited it as an example of clarity without harshness. Boy was I wrong. It was my go-to mic many years ago, and being a Neumann, it kicked the ass of everything else I would be able to use/afford at the time.

I also just assumed that Neumann know what they are doing, so would never produce anything that anyone in their right minds could ever criticise. Also, the bright sizzling high-end suited the kind of punchy music I was making at the time anyway, and without much else to compare it too, all of this = magic to me.

I've been listening to mics a lot recently under new demands, namely solo speech/dialogue, and I've come to hear that while the mic does have a lot of good points, the harshness is indeed also present, and so to anyone who remembers reading my rant detail/clarity without harshness, and on whether harshness is a subjective matter, I was completely wrong to use the TLM103 as an example of brightness done right!

[Hugh Robjohns]

I used to have a pair of early tlm103s. I sold them on a few years ago as I found I rarely needed their bright, cutting type of sound, but I wouldn't have described them as 'harsh' mics.

Bright, certainly, and often unflattering on some sources (especially female vocals) -- and they were 'good' at revealing harshness and distortion in the source. But I found them very good for male vocals and spoken word applications.

[CS70]

I want to apologise to the forum member to whom I cited it as an example of clarity without harshness. Boy was I wrong. It was my go-to mic many years ago, and being a Neumann, it kicked the ass of everything else I would be able to use/afford at the time.

I also just assumed that Neumann know what they are doing, so would never produce anything that anyone in their right minds could ever criticise. Also, the bright sizzling high-end suited the kind of punchy music I was making at the time anyway, and without much else to compare it too, all of this = magic to me.

I've been listening to mics a lot recently under new demands, namely solo speech/dialogue, and I've come to hear that while the mic does have a lot of good points, the harshness is indeed also present, and so to anyone who remembers reading my rant detail/clarity without harshness, and on whether harshness is a subjective matter, I was completely wrong to use the TLM103 as an example of brightness done right!

Well you were wrong then, what makes you think you're right now?

Thing is, if you expect magic, you will always be either fooled or disappointed. The whole idea of "this mic is XXXX" - where XXXX is a matter of timbre, it's just nonsensical.

For voice, it's always a matter of voice + mic, never the one or the other alone.

The 103 has built in that hi-shelf boost that almost always goes on the vocals of a busy, modern mic. And in a mix the brightness of the vocals is usually the response of it being filtered by other elements - typically reverb or delay but also guitars etc. But unless it really fits the voice, is likely not a great choice for spoken word, because there's nothing to stand out from. Plus, in a spoken voice situation the room is critical, and any unwanted reverberation will stand out much more with a bright mic. If you used a C800G you'd probably have the same feel...

No microphone - even the cheap Chinese knockoffs of the early 2000s - is inherently good or bad as timbre goes (excluding stuff like noise, distortion etc of course). Some just tend to be good in more contexts than others.

But in the end they simply either fit the source and the task, or they don't.

[Arpangel]

Every mic has its place, as you know, and yes, the 103 is "on the bright side" also, this is a matter of taste, like a lot of things in this business, for instance, I wouldn’t normally use an AKG414 for anything here, IMO it’s so bright it’s almost a laugh, but loads of people like them, but that’s just my opinion, the 103 is preferable to a 414 any day of the week to my ears.

[Mike Stranks]

Every mic has its place, as you know, and yes, the 103 is "on the bright side" also, this is a matter of taste, like a lot of things in this business, for instance, I wouldn’t normally use an AKG414 for anything here, IMO it’s so bright it’s almost a laugh, but loads of people like them, but that’s just my opinion, the 103 is preferable to a 414 any day of the week to my ears.

... but there are variants of the 414... you can't just say 'a 414'. Which model do you mean?

It's true that some versions are brighter than others... do you mean all versions of the 414 are bright? If so, I'd disagree.

[Arpangel]

Every mic has its place, as you know, and yes, the 103 is "on the bright side" also, this is a matter of taste, like a lot of things in this business, for instance, I wouldn’t normally use an AKG414 for anything here, IMO it’s so bright it’s almost a laugh, but loads of people like them, but that’s just my opinion, the 103 is preferable to a 414 any day of the week to my ears.

... but there are variants of the 414... you can't just say 'a 414'. Which model do you mean?

It's true that some versions are brighter than others... do you mean all versions of the 414 are bright? If so, I'd disagree.

I used a couple of 414’s quite a bit in the late 80’s, and I can’t remember what model they were, I used to use them on piano, not too bad, and female voice, not good! they seemed to have a bright sheen to them, I know we didn’t like it at the time, and I’ve never used them since.
Kate Bush's favourite mic though, I believe.

[Mike Stranks]

For those who are interested, there are numerous articles on C414 variants and their characteristics easily accessible on t'Internet.

... and there have been revisions of the models over the years - including in the 'noughties'.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I imagine Tony is waffling about experiences with the TLII variant which was intentionally bright.

I use 90s era C414B-ULS mics all the time and consider them almost as neutral as my beloved MKHs.

[Mike Stranks]

Quite so... a B-ULS has always been one of my 'if only...' mics.

[Drew Stephenson]

On a related note, if anyone has any TLM103s or 414s that they find too bright to be useable, I'll happily look after them for you for as long as you want.
I won't even charge storage.

[Arpangel]

I imagine Tony is waffling about experiences with the TLII variant which was intentionally bright.

I use 90s era C414B-ULS mics all the time and consider them almost as neutral as my beloved MKHs.

I don’t know which one I was "waffling" about, all I know is that they were my friends 414’s bought from "The Music Laboratory" in Eversholt Street in about 1988/89 he thought they were fine, but I just didn’t like them, we went from those to using a U87 for this woman’s vocals at the time, and then all were happy.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Trouble is, Tony, for a comparative anecdote to have any value, it needs to be fact-based...

As Mike pointed out earlier, there are an awful lot of different C414 variants, and some sound very different to others.

Saying you don't like 'the C414' is like me saying I don't like 'the BMW'... Utterly meaningless and pointless to anyone interested in buying a new car!

[Tomás Mulcahy]

I dunno, I can always tell it's a 414 B-ULS. They're kinda metallic. Kinda sibilant on voices. It's subtle but it's there.

Admittedly it's not a blind test so I could well be biassed... but the Audio Test Kitchen site is very illuminating on this. A lot (but certainly not all) of LD condensers sound to me like they're adding a whisper/ shadow to the voice. Except the AT-4033a.

As to the TLM 103, I prefer the brightness of the AT-4033a. That mic sounds like it has more body too, even though they both appear to be about the same around 200Hz according to on-axis frequency response in an anechoic chamber

[Hugh Robjohns]

A lot (but certainly not all) of LD condensers sound to me like they're adding a whisper/ shadow to the voice.

I know what you mean. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's all related to the diaphragm resonance which is usually at the top of the audio band. With small diaphragm mics the resonances are much higher and have much less audible effect.

[ManFromGlass]

Now isn’t this an interesting observation. I’ve not had a wide range of mic experiences so any further comments appreciated about this.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Capacitor (and electret) mics employ a highly-tensioned diaphragm. That will have a natural resonance frequency related to its diameter. The larger the diaphragm, the lower the resonant frequency, and the more audible any interaction between the wanted audio and the resonances will be. Edge terminated diaphragms are more likely to exhibit these potential issues than centre-terminated ones for obvious reasons. Some manufacturers use rectangular or even triangular diaphragms in their capsules to avoid single resonant frequencies, and the vast majority of very high-quality and neutral mics use small diaphragms, partly to keep resonances well out of the way of the wanted audio.

In contrast, the diaphragm in a ribbon mic is under very low tension and has a very low resonant frequency, typically between somewhere 8-16Hz. This may play a significant part in the smooth high-end characteristics that ribbons are famous for (it's definitely more than just the early roll-off!).

[Aural Reject]

Quite so... a B-ULS has always been one of my 'if only...' mics.

They’re very nice...and there’s the lovely S/H market....

[MOF]

Mike Stranks wrote:
Quite so... a B-ULS has always been one of my 'if only...' mics.

They’re very nice...and there’s the lovely S/H market....

I was fortunate in getting one a few years ago in very good condition.
You could look at the Austrian Audio OC18.

[Mike Stranks]

Thanks guys... but I'm really not in the market... gear is bought strictly on a 'needs must' basis these days... and I have no 'need'' at all!

I really liked the Blue Baby Bottle someone kindly loaned me back in the summer, but buying one for m'self simply couldn't be justified... it's the shallow-end for me...

[Sam Spoons]

So, since the subject has been raised, if I was to ask for suggestions for a single LDC to use for a baritone male voice that doesn't have much body (mine) what would you suggest, budget up to, maybe, £1200? I currently have a SE 2200 and a Blue Reactor and dodgy hearing above 10kHz.

[Mike Stranks]

Interesting that the Austrian Audio OC18 was mentioned above...

In my YouTube wanderings among my few subscriptions this afternoon I noticed that Podcastage was talking about his gear of the year. This guy reviews many, many mics each year at all price points. His 'mic of the year'? The Austrian Audio OC18...

SoS Review is here: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/austrian-audio-oc818-oc18

So probably worth checking-out...

[CS70]

So, since the subject has been raised, if I was to ask for suggestions for a single LDC to use for a baritone male voice that doesn't have much body (mine) what would you suggest, budget up to, maybe, £1200? I currently have a SE 2200 and a Blue Reactor and dodgy hearing above 10kHz.

Someone said Mojave MA-200 ?

[Arpangel]

I dunno, I can always tell it's a 414 B-ULS. They're kinda metallic. Kinda sibilant on voices. It's subtle but it's there.

That exactly describes how I heard it at the time, but back then my hearing was a lot better than it is now. I’m finding a lot of stuff I didn’t like because of high frequency issues sounds great to me now.

[Random Guitarist]

So, since the subject has been raised, if I was to ask for suggestions for a single LDC to use for a baritone male voice that doesn't have much body (mine) what would you suggest, budget up to, maybe, £1200? I currently have a SE 2200 and a Blue Reactor and dodgy hearing above 10kHz.

Soundelux U195 maybe? I have one from when they were made/sold as Bock. Has a big smooth sound.

[Len]

I have both the TLM 103 and the 414 B-ULS. The 103 is definitely not something I would use on everything. I have a baritone-ish voice and it gives a nice "radio friendly" sound to my singing voice. I pretty much apply no EQ at all other than a roll off at 80hz. But I pretty much never use the 103 on say acoustic guitar, where the 414 is much nicer to my ears.

Here is a recent video of me using the TLM 103 and the 414 B-ULS (the SDC is a Telefunken M-60): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqoTnV9OVIU

Listen to the vocal - hardly any EQ, just light compression. The main guitar sounded great with just the M-60 alone, but unfortunately there was quite a lot of bleed into the TLM103, which affected the sound negatively since it was a very off-axis 103 sound mixed with the M-60.

The second guitar and nylon were both recorded with the 414 B-ULS. Note that the second guitar and the nylon guitars are pretty cheap guitars (compared to the main guitar which is a Larrivee L-09) but the 414 made them sound great!

Anyway, my two pennies worth. Happy Christmas!