Post by: wildplum on September 24, 2007, 03:41:23 PM
Post by: Markus Aalto on September 24, 2007, 04:20:46 PM
Post by: Steve Hudson on September 24, 2007, 05:28:39 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on September 24, 2007, 07:21:14 PM
| Markus Aalto wrote on Mon, 24 September 2007 13:20 |
TLM49 uses the same capsule but electronics are different. Transformerless... Haven't had possiblity to test it yet. |
There is no resemblance sonically between these two mics. They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath.
It should be noted that the TLM49 is devoid of low end by design. It starts a gradual and steady attenuation below 0dB from 1kHz downward. Hardly the type of thing you'd want to substitute for a FET47 in the kick drum application.
I have been using a iFet7 in this situation, which has been retrofitted with a real K47 capsule. I'm very happy with it.
Post by: J.J. Blair on September 25, 2007, 06:19:02 PM
BTW, I was looking at the spec sheets on the Bock 195. I see that David doesn't make the iFet7 anymore, but the response graph of this mic looks promising for a kick drum.
Post by: schneidm on October 11, 2007, 02:52:13 PM
amazing find, that with the TLM49's gentle roll-off starting at 1kHz, going down to a whopping -3...-4 dB @ 40Hz.
Interestingly, this capsule has always behaved like that, which you can see even in the ~1938 documentation of the M7 capsule.
So, the roll-off's not really new... and the good ol' U47fet behaves just the same, because it has the same good ol' capsule.
And additionally, the U47fet has an *electrical* roll-off of 2dB@40Hz. Which the TLM49 has *not*, as the circuit stays linear well below 20Hz.
--------------------
By the way, our specs are for the *plane* wave field. Measured at 1m distance you find 0dB@40Hz. At 10cm you might have +10dB or more, depending on the sound source. It's called "proximity effect", in the textbooks...
Sorry for the sarcasm, folks. It just had to be.
More info on the Neumann forum.
Best regards,
Martin Schneider, Neumann Mic. Development
Post by: Klaus Heyne on October 11, 2007, 02:59:41 PM
| Quote: |
It should be noted that the TLM49 is devoid of low end by design. It starts a gradual and steady attenuation below 0dB from 1kHz downward. Hardly the type of thing you'd want to substitute for a FET47 in the kick drum application. |
In light of Martin's response: How about it, J.J.?
Post by: mgod on October 12, 2007, 10:29:40 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 25 September 2007 15:19 |
BTW, I was looking at the spec sheets on the Bock 195. I see that David doesn't make the iFet7 anymore, but the response graph of this mic looks promising for a kick drum. |
That was the idea. For bass amp too.
| Klaus Heyne wrote on Thu, 11 October 2007 11:59 | ||
In light of Martin's response: How about it, J.J.? |
Sounds like I want to try one on a bass amp.
DS
Post by: Fifthcircle on October 12, 2007, 11:28:06 AM
Best part is that it costs 1/10 as much. I bought mine used (in new condition) on ebay for all of $300 or so.
I also use it for acoustic bass almost exclusively- another task that I used to reserve for the 47FET. Unfortunately, the 47 Fet that I used to borrow was stolen a few years back and I've been looking for a replacement ever since. The SE mic has filled in quite well- especially for kick drum and bass. And at that price point, I don't mind having a mic that has limited use as long as what it does well, it does really well.
--Ben
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 12, 2007, 10:00:55 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 11 October 2007 11:59 | ||
Klaus Heyne: In light of Martin's response: How about it, J.J.? |
Well, perhaps that is the natural response of the K47, but neither my M49, U47 or any Fet47 I've ever used has been as devoid of low end as the TLM49 I used was. (BTW, it was the one provided to me by Neumann!)
Martin, I know you were involved in the design, but even the Neumann literature states that this is designed specifically as a vocal mic, hence the reponse.
But more to the point, the reason I brought up the frequency response, was because in my experience, the low end of the Fet47 is far superior to the TLM49. I honestly could not imagine using a TLM49 in front of the kick. Why use a mic with no bass on a "bass drum"? I have never thrown up a Fet47 and wondered where the low end was. Can we see the response graph of a Fet47 and a TLM47 to compare please? I can't believe that my ears are lying to me.
And as far as 40hz deficit on the Fet47 goes, I'm much more concerned with 100-200hz with bass drum than 40hz. 40hz doesn't punch me in the chest. If the U47 or Fet47 were down 4db at 100hz, I really doubt people would have been using them in bass-heavy applications all these years.
Also, I have to ask the question: When Neumann builds a new mic, do they even bother A/B'ing it against their old ones? I mean, if you are using a model number and a body design that invokes the company's great history, as well as marketing it as a return to it, wouldn't you want to listen to this mic against its ancestor side by side? Didn't somebody say, "hey, this capsule may have roll-off, but this mic has much less bottom end than the old one"? Didn't that occur to anybody?
I mean, I hate to sound disrespectful, but I have to wonder if the people building these mics are actually using them. Imagine a luthier who never played his guitars!
But this goes back to my central problem with Neumann these days:
What recording engineers are being consulted when these new mics are made?
I know a lot of the big name engineers, and I know they have had input into various microphones over the last fifteen years, but Neumann is not one of the brands they've ever mentioned.
In Neumann's heyday, they were trying to answer the needs of the engineers at German broadcasting. I have a hard time believing that when the TLM193 was developed, Neumann was answering to anybody other than its own marketing and accounting departments. Why is it that whenever I visit a big session in a studio, I never see a TLM103, 193, or 127? I only know one big engineer who uses the M149, and he only uses it on piano, and nothing else.
You know, we engineers who actually make a living with these tools ... those of us making records, we're still buying the old stuff and not embracing the new stuff. We say to Neumann, "This new stuff you are making- it's not what we want!
Look at companies like Brauner, Gefell and Bock. They are using discrete components and transformers. We like those sounds."
But, no. We end users are the ones who are wrong, apparently? Those of us saying, "I can't get the sounds that make me as happy as the old mics did," must be crazy?
So, by all means, please tell the Sennheiser folks that they are doing a bang up job selling thousands of mics to neophyte engineers at Guitar Center. Guys who love their new Neumanns for their hobby recordings. I'm glad they are more important than the professional engineers who used Neumanns for 50+ years, those engineers who say, "I don't like these new mics as much as the old ones."
Continue visiting our discussions to tell us that the TLM49 is somehow an improvement over its predecessors!
Post by: rphilbeck on October 12, 2007, 11:45:18 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 12 October 2007 22:00 |
Look at companies like Brauner, Gefell and Bock. They are using discrete components and transformers. |
Gefell has transformerless microphones too, so Neumann is not the only company that sees value in this design. Coincidentally, the U87 has a transformer, and can be modified 6 ways from Sunday, and is only the most ubiquitous microphone on the face of the earth. If you can't do something with this microphone, then God help you. But, if you really can't, you just mentioned three fine alternatives.
| Quote: |
So, by all means, please tell the Sennheiser folks that they are doing a bang up job selling thousands of mics to neophyte engineers at Guitar Center. Guys who love their new Neumanns for their hobby recordings. |
I think it's impressive that Neumann accommodates studios of all budgets.
Post by: Barry Hufker on October 13, 2007, 12:17:59 AM
I don't use that to justify or counter anything being said here. I think it's an important aspect to consider when one talks microphone design.
Again, I am not taking sides.
Barry
Post by: Klaus Heyne on October 13, 2007, 12:42:55 AM
Flagship models, sold at little or no profit, but offered strictly for long-term brand development?
Neumann at this point seems to put its major development efforts in the digital mic revolution its sees on the horizon (their idea of an NSX), rather than picking up on its flagship models of the past.
However, the company does not seem shy to also try to participate in the vintage vocal mic craze with its marketing of the new TLM49.
But it may be misplaced anger and frustration to fault them for this, or to even assume this model is meant by Neumann as a serious successor to the M49, when it is in reality just a low-cost vocal mic for the project studio and broadcast market, smack in the market segment that is meant to reach those who really cannot even afford a used U87. But a winner, probably: relatively cheap to make yet high enough in profit margin to bring in the dough.
Post by: kats on October 13, 2007, 01:00:08 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on October 13, 2007, 01:02:49 PM
Post by: compasspnt on October 13, 2007, 01:19:19 PM
| Klaus Heyne wrote on Sat, 13 October 2007 00:42 |
However, the company does not seem shy to also try to participate in the vintage vocal mic craze with its marketing of the new TLM49. |
Exactly!
The have a tremendous brand name with which to attract new buyers...probably the best brand name in microphone history...and they are using their well-known vintage look, tied to that brand name, to go for the "vintage vocal craze" market.
Eventually, if the newer microphone designs do not maintain a classic status for a long period of time, that brand name will suffer.
Already such large companies as Audio Technica, Rode, and others, plus many smaller, boutique manufacturers such as Brauner, Soundelux/Bock and others, have made serious inroads.
The way to offset this intrusion into their market would be to do just as Klaus says above...have a flagship professional model, sold even at little to no profit to discriminating professionals, to maintain the brand aura.
Easy for me to say.
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 13, 2007, 02:48:28 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Fri, 12 October 2007 20:45 | ||
Gefell has transformerless microphones too, so Neumann is not the only company that sees value in this design. Coincidentally, the U87 has a transformer, and can be modified 6 ways from Sunday, and is only the most ubiquitous microphone on the face of the earth. If you can't do something with this microphone, then God help you. But, if you really can't, you just mentioned three fine alternatives. |
The U87 is a 40 year old mic, and that is the only reason the transformer is held over. I can't think of a single new Neumann mic using a transformer. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.)
We keep saying to them, "But we LIKE the sound of transformers," and they keep saying that we don't need them. As a consumer, I find have to conclude one of two things: They are either arrogant and paternalistic, or they have bean counters involved in the mic's design, and it's just cheaper for them to take automanufactured PCBs, and slap a capsule and body on them. in the meantime, they'll tell us that we're a bunch of luddites who can't appreciate the better specs.
BTW, the U87 is a fine mic, but it is, in my opinion, not even in the same class as its tube predecessors. If the U87 is the best that Neumann has to offer these days, then something is seriously wrong. Imagine if you went into a big studio, and the best mic in their locker was a U87. It would be laughable.
As far as Gefell goes, while they offer transformerless mics, they still offer mics with transformers, for those of us who prefer them. they have not eschewed them completely, as Neumann seems to have.
And I'm sorry if I'm venting frustration out on Neumann, but after talking with reps at AKG, who say things like "We have no interest in revisiting the past," while they haven't made a new high end mic other than the overpriced C12VR (see that thread for opinions), and having Neumann offer us nothing lately but what really amount to marketing gimmicks: the M147 and TLM49, I find it irksome to have their designers come in here to insist that the spec of these new novelty mics are better than the ones we know and love.
And really, let's face the facts: the M149 is "ok" and usable, but nothing close to previous Neumann tube mics, in terms of majesty. I think a number of us would have embraced them, if we found that to be the case. Maybe they should have done a M149-KHE?
Post by: rphilbeck on October 13, 2007, 07:07:43 PM
From an R&D perspective they do seem to be focused on low cost tx-less mics. Who can blame them? They've already got the upper end of the market covered with the mics I mention above. Why not focus more on the hobby end market? I appreciate their willingness to bring decent microphones to studios on tighter budgets. And for the money, the TLM line is nothing to scoff at!
I would never find a U87 laughable. That mic has recorded some of the most fantastic rock n roll guitars and voices ever recorded! If you can't make the source sound anything less than stellar with a U87 then something is wrong.
Post by: Klaus Heyne on October 13, 2007, 08:47:55 PM
As for the mics which are still being made by Neumann with transformers today- the three models you mentioned are all that's left. And none of these models is newer than 20 years.
Post by: Arf! Mastering on October 13, 2007, 09:37:55 PM
I agree that it would do a lot to continue the cachet of the Neumann brand if they were to do so, in the face of so many low cost mics on the market - the market in which they are now competing. BTW, the Wunder CM7-GT is another winner, IMO.
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 14, 2007, 12:57:35 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Sat, 13 October 2007 16:07 |
I am not confusing anything. The number of years the U87 has been in production has nothing to do with your comment about transformers, which incorrectly suggests that Neumann does not use transformers in any of their new mics. Whether it is a hold over or not is irrelevant. They make transformer based mics! The U87, U89, and the SM-69 being three of them. They make them brand new. They are currently in production. There you go. |
Klaus answered this. In the last 20 years, they have not designed a mic with a transformer. This was specifically my point. They don't want to build them.
| Quote: |
From an R&D perspective they do seem to be focused on low cost tx-less mics. Who can blame them? They've already got the upper end of the market covered with the mics I mention above. Why not focus more on the hobby end market? I appreciate their willingness to bring decent microphones to studios on tighter budgets. And for the money, the TLM line is nothing to scoff at! |
Who can blame them? Well, try listening to their new mics against their old ones. And they DON'T have the upper end covered. If they did, people would be buying TLM49s and not spending upwards of $6,000 on vintage U47s. And the "for the money" argument doesn't work. If I'm making a record, and I'm renting a studio for $1,200 and up, I don't want to hear "This is a good mic for the money." Which they aren't, btw. There are much better mics for the money. Langevin CR3As were going for $400 when people starting buying TLM193 like crazy. The CR3A sounded five times as good as the TLM193, at less than half the cost. And I never had to say to a client, "This is a good mic for the money." I'd say "This is a great mic in this application." They'd throw it on and say I was right.
| Quote: |
I would never find a U87 laughable. I think your statement is a little harsh. That mic has recorded some of the most fantastic rock n roll guitars and voices ever recorded! If you can't make the source sound anything less than stellar with a U87 than something is wrong. |
Oh, please. If you went into an expensive studio and that's the best mic they have, it IS laughable. A U87 has recorded some good vocals. Fantastic? No way. You want a fantastic vocal sound? Listen to Joni Mitchell on Court and Sparl. It shimmers. No way that's a U87. Most likely a 251.
I have a lot of mics. I have owned three early U87s, and sold each one of them. I have access to an U87 any time I want. Let me put it this way: anytime I put a U87 in the line up on a singer against other mics, nobody EVER says, "That's the best sounding mic." Never.
It's a serviceable mic. It was a relief to all the studios who found it difficult to maintain tube mics. It's a little honky at 1kHz. It's a tad dark on top. It responds well to EQ, though, which makes it usable on everything. But so does a U67, which sounds even better. Besides, I prefer mics that I don't have to EQ to get a great sound.
Now, take your U87, and get a Brauner AE, a Blue Kiwi and a UM70 (with or without transformer), do a shoot out, as I have done, and tell me the U87 is the best sounding of the group. It's not. It never will be.
It's not a horrible mic. It doesn't suck. The mic itself isn't laughable. But it's not a crown jewel. And the point being that Neumann has no crown jewels right now. Actually, they have tried to tell us that the M149 is, but those of us who have used them don't seem to agree.
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 14, 2007, 12:58:36 PM
| Arf! Mastering wrote on Sat, 13 October 2007 18:37 |
It would seem that Neumann could do short runs of special vintage recreations. They did so with the U67 reissue and it sold out. (Although they had all the parts on hand.) |
My understanding was that they did so using left over parts. I think that makes a difference to this equation.
Post by: mgod on October 14, 2007, 01:59:51 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 13 October 2007 10:02 |
Then I wonder why it's no longer in production... |
Because the company no longer exists. David is starting over on his own.
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 13 October 2007 11:48 |
Imagine if you went into a big studio, and the best mic in their locker was a U87. It would be laughable. |
That's not very uncommon anymore. We're a little spoiled living here, but even here some of the more recent studios, built (or bought) in the last 10 or 15 years, often don't have more than one mic better than an 87. Not naming names, but I bring my mics with me if needed.
DS
Post by: Arf! Mastering on October 14, 2007, 02:40:29 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 14 October 2007 12:58 | ||
My understanding was that they did so using left over parts. I think that makes a difference to this equation. |
Right, and I said so in my post, but look at what Wunder has turned out. If those mics were badged and sold by Neumann, people would be singing from the rafters.
Post by: Barry Hufker on October 14, 2007, 03:03:29 PM
Barry
Post by: Klaus Heyne on October 14, 2007, 05:42:03 PM
| Arf! Mastering wrote on Sun, 14 October 2007 11:40 |
...but look at what Wunder has turned out. If those mics were badged and sold by Neumann, people would be singing from the rafters. |
Alan, In keeping with the policies of this forum, please share your personal experience with this mic. A global praise from 'the rafters' is too vague.
Thanks,
Post by: Arf! Mastering on October 14, 2007, 06:17:24 PM
Post by: rphilbeck on October 15, 2007, 12:17:20 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 14 October 2007 12:57 |
Klaus answered this. In the last 20 years, they have not designed a mic with a transformer. This was specifically my point. |
Thank you for clarifying your earlier incorrect statement, which suggested Neumann doesn't make a transformer based mic.
| Quote: |
Who can blame them? Well, try listening to their new mics against their old ones. And they DON'T have the upper end covered. If they did, people would be buying TLM49s and not spending upwards of $6,000 on vintage U47s. |
Can you confirm the sales figures for the TLM149? I didn't know Neumann released this info to the public. Furthermore, how do you know why people buy U47s? Have you done some kind of mass market research on that topic? I have not, but common sense tells me that people buy U47's for reasons other than finding the current Neumann production line unsatisfying.
| Quote: |
And the "for the money" argument doesn't work. If I'm making a record, and I'm renting a studio for $1,200 and up, |
$1,200 a day does NOT qualify as a studio on a "TIGHT BUDGET" as I indicated would be a fit for something like the TLM-103.
Post by: Eric H. on October 15, 2007, 07:52:45 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 14 October 2007 20:03 |
I understand David's starting (started) a new company. I wonder why he isn't producing this model? First things first or does he not own the design? Barry |
That's what I find the most upsetting about today's mic market.
There is a new brand every week, there is no stability of the models. I haven't even got a chance to try the iFet7 that its already out of production.
The big brands are more stable but their products seem less and less interesting.
Very confusing.
Hope David Bock will still make good mics for all of us.
Post by: Eric H. on October 15, 2007, 08:05:11 AM
The response was that the tube mics were not discontinued because of tube shortages but because sound techs were very pleased with just having to use the phantom power to make their mics work. The practical aspect of things was apparently the explanation of the death of their tube mics.
As for discontinuing the fet mics, I was answered that they were retired of production because they didn't sell anymore.
quite interesting indeed that because these mics didn't sell, people went buying mics other places.
The good thing is that this behaviour permitted a lot of people to live on the mic market, be it remaking vintage mics or selling classic mics or maintaining old mics.
Post by: Eric H. on October 15, 2007, 09:02:42 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 13 October 2007 03:00 |
I only know one big engineer who uses the M149, and he only uses it on piano, and nothing else. |
what about this:
When Bruce Swedien was asked on the Gearslutz forum what new microphone would he buy today (he previously had spoken of his love for his 2 U47 and his old ribbon mics), he wrote:"Hand me my Neumann catalog please!"
I know he uses often the M149 for stereo recording and vocals.
Could he be wrong?
Post by: John Stafford on October 15, 2007, 09:31:46 AM
Post by: kats on October 15, 2007, 11:58:31 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 14 October 2007 20:03 |
I understand David's starting (started) a new company. I wonder why he isn't producing this model? First things first or does he not own the design? Barry |
Lack of popularity I think, as the internet killed the ifet7
A small handfull of those mics were shipped with a faulty switch (IIRC) and eventhough they were all fixed, it wasn't enough to stop the questioning of QC IRT that particular model all over the forums(which is silly IMO, why would a company have QC bias on a particular model to model basis?)
Anyhow, a bit of a shame. While I'm not a big SD fan (horses for courses and all that) the ifet7 is a great utility mic. It can handle hi SPL elegantly, never sounds bad, and can be used on any source. I think it's the perfect mic for a project studio that could also find it's way in many uses in a more pro enviroment.
Personally I have a good collection of mics, but the ifet7 is always used on bass amps, gtr amps (if I'm using an LDC), and kick drum. If I had a "screamo" vocalist where I would opt for an SM7 type mic, the ifet7 can handle that role very well. It's just one of those mics, that while it might not be the "magic" sound, always works in a crunch.
Post by: compasspnt on October 15, 2007, 12:29:32 PM
I did all vocals for Mavis and the other Staples on such things as "I'll Take You There" and "Respect Yourself" with an 87.
Vocals on "If Loving' You Is Wrong (I Don't Wanna Be Right)" were on an 87.
Billy Gibbons sang on one many times.
I recorded Billy Eckstine on an 87, and he sounded pretty darned good.
Do I use it for lead vocals as a matter of course today? No.
If I were to buy new microphones today (stop me, please), would I purchase an 87? No.
But thank goodness Neumann still make at least a semblance of that microphone, something with a transformer, even if a holdover from the past that they can't quite kill yet, at least.
Post by: Andy Simpson on October 15, 2007, 01:04:27 PM
Andy
Post by: rphilbeck on October 15, 2007, 01:40:48 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 15 October 2007 12:29 |
Do I use it for lead vocals as a matter of course today? No. If I were to buy new microphones today (stop me, please), would I purchase an 87? No. |
Terry,
Thank you for the constructive feedback. What do you prefer and why?
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 15, 2007, 02:20:45 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Sun, 14 October 2007 21:17 | ||
Thank you for clarifying your earlier statement |
| Quote: | ||
Can you confirm the sales figures for the TLM49? My common sense tells me that people buy U47's for reasons other than finding the current Neumann production line unsatisfying. |
Robert, I can only tell what I know from people who own or run professional studios. Since the release of the TLM49, I've been in a bunch of LA's top studios, and nobody has bought the TLM49. I do happen to know from talking to Neumann reps that the TLM49 are selling like gangbusters at Guitar Center. In fact, it took forever to get one to review, because they were on back order. Furthermore, anybody I know who is familiar with the "good" Neumann mics has not cared for the TLM49.
| Quote: | ||
$1,200 a day does NOT qualify as a studio on a "TIGHT BUDGET" as I indicated would be a fit for something like the TLM-103. |
And as I indicated, there are mics half the price of the TLM103 or TLM193 that sound five times better. But the 103 is just that, a budget mic, that you won't see in a serious session. AFAIC, it's overpriced for what you get.
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 15, 2007, 02:44:24 PM
I also think that as far as FET designs go, there are better sounding mics. And most importantly, GIVEN THE HISTORY OF NEUMANN AND THE MICS THAT THEY HAVE BUILT OVER THE LAST 70 YEARS, THEY SHOULD BE OFFERING SOMETHING BETTER THAN THE U87 AND THE M149. For god's sake. It's Neumann!
Yes, a lot of great records have been made using U87s. They were a god send to people sick of fixing tube mics. And because the engineers were great, they managed to get listenable sounds out of these mics. Karen Carpenter might have sounded good on a U87, but imagine how she would have sounded on a good 251!.
The point about Swedien actually makes my case. The question was if he couldn't have his first choice mics, which are OLDER NEUMANNS, not new ones. Take a M149, and put it up against a properly working U47 or M49 on vocals, piano, drums, upright bass, saxophone, guitar amps, and anything else you can think of. Then tell me that U47 or M49 doesn't win on almost every single category. They are simply a better mic.
If Bruce is using M149s for stereo recordings, I would hazard a guess that it's easier to get a matched pair of M149s than vintage mics. But ask him if he prefers the M149 over a U47 or M49. I've used the mic. It's usable. Hell, I can even use a C12VR to great effect. That doesn't make that a great mic. And the M149 isn't either. It's a good mic. It's better than a lot of new mics, even. But after all this time, Neumann could have done better. And part of what my beef is, that you would see if you would stop defending the U87 as the best mic ever <hyperbole>, is that the designers have their hands tied by the accountants. Essentially, they are giving us mics that look like this:
Neumann is capable of making better mics. Most of the experienced, working engineers whom I know would like them to make better mics. The U87 and M149 should not be the two best mics that a company like this offers. They should be the middle tier mics.
I conclude that they are not listening to, or soliciting feedback from people who make records when designing new mics. (I take it they no longer consult German broadcasting, either?) I also conclude they are only consulting their marketing and accounting departments.
Post by: schneidm on October 15, 2007, 03:47:01 PM
Transformer mics: you might also mention KMR81 & 82, shotguns.
Exotic upper class: ever tried KU100 dummy head, or M150Tube and TLM50 omnidirectional, KM120 single-diaphragm figure-8, KM131 flat omni, KM143 subcardioid, GFM132 boundary layer, RSM191 stereo shotgun? If we only did mics like those, we'd never survive. But we do keep making them, for some specialists amongst the sound engineers.
TLM49 as "vocal mic": we do know that this mic has more applications than just vocal. Basically, you can use most of our mics for everything, you just gotta put them in the right place. My prefered question is: "what's your BEST grand piano microphone"? Gimme 10 hours, and I'll go into the details of our 25 mics for that application...
On the other hand, you got to give a name to the baby. And the main intended application WAS vocals. BTW, the U47fet was never designed as a kick drum or double bass mic, it was the sound engineers who found out that it's a fine mic for that application. When people will tell us that the TLM49 excels as a dobro mic we might even put that in the documentation.
Freq.Response: (see the attached file, showing some responses, at 1m distance from a coaxial speaker system, in OUR measurement chamber, etc etc etc) I double checked (yes, I did!), comparing the last 10 U47fet we had in service with the curves of the first batch of TLM49, and.... U47fet response was 0...1 dB lower, from 100Hz on down. What does that tell us?
A. Your specific U47fet(s) might be bass-heavy.
B. Kick drum, in your specific positioning, might saturate the U47fet electronics/transformer (depends also on the setting of attenuation switches, pre-amp load, 50ohm or 200 ohm output setting etc. etc.) Have an oscilloscope, an analyzer and the exact levels while you're recording, and one can tell on which part of the amplifier's curve you're working.
The old manuals of U47fet (all available on our website...) show the gradual roll-off. But do keep in mind that the shown curve was the "intended median curve" at the time of printing. What was shown in the 70s as a small step in the mid lows is now more correctly shown as a gradual slope. BTW, to my knowledge the U47fet wasn't very popular at the time it was manufactured....
Evaluation: Yes, we even test digital electronics in U47 housings, and compare that to old U47s, and old U47s in modern housings, and so on. So the engineer and artist do NOT know what they're working with. BTW, the old U47 does not always fare best.
Self-testing: Actually, I do like the sound of TLM49. I also do have a U47fet at home.
TLM193 and sound preferences: there are actually people who like that microphone, believe it or not. They might be working in voice over studios, or use it for strings, or high pitched female voices, or brass. It might not be your prefered mic. But that's why we do make quite a lot of different (!) microphones, and not just one model. And every once in a while you might find one of the new ones to your liking. Perhaps even one of the "cheap" ones. Shall we leave it at that?
I'm off for 3 weeks now, in a no-mail & no-microphone area (!), so I won't be able to answer further questions during that time.
Best regards,
Martin Schneider / Neumann Mic. Development
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 15, 2007, 04:44:37 PM
However, this is a good time to point out that most people use the Fet47 in conjuction with another mic, at a different distance to the kick, so there is a good deal of constructive interference between the two in the low end, which could be a lot of why some of us think of it has having more bottom end. I was using a U47 in that position, until I got tired of people kicking it, or knocking into it, so I decided a FET mic was a safer bet in that situation.
If you recall from my review, I tended to prefer the TLM49 over the U87 for vocals. It was just on everything else where I wasn't the most excited about it. And it most certainly had less low end than the U87!
But honestly, if you had your druthers, would you rather produce a tube mic with a transformer or a TLM mic with a PCB amplifier? Doesn't it bother you in the least that almost everybody says they prefer the KM84 to the 184? And we're not even talking about exotic or specialty mics.
The U47, M49 and U67 were great mics that did so many things well, and could be used in so many applications. They were the mics that, when you put them up against other mics, would be the ones you pick. Doesn't Neumann want to make a new mic that people choose as "the best sounding mic" once again?
The only reason I'm holding Neumann's feet to the fire is because I have used so many mics that I have loved with the Neumann label on them. I keep hoping that I'm going to plug in a new Neumann mic and get that same sense of excitement I got when I listened to a U47 or a M49 for the first time. I'm looking for that magic, and I'm not getting it. And I don't know if specs and response graphs are telling the whole story.
I think Klaus was on to something when he suggested "specs vs. sex appeal." There is a sex appeal to my older tube Neumanns that I'm not hearing in the current crop. And I'm not sure that relying on empirical evidence can explain that, or counter the assertion properly. I know what I'm hearing. I just wish that we could use less esoteric terms than "sexiness."
Post by: Klaus Heyne on October 15, 2007, 05:54:13 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 15 October 2007 13:44 |
...I think Klaus was on to something when he suggested "specs vs. sex appeal." ...I know what I'm hearing. I just wish that we could use less esoteric terms than "sexiness." |
"How Sex Trumps Specs" -the title for our AES Master Class in New York- does NOT imply that approaching the design for a good sounding mic through the judicious application of specifications is principally wrong.
It is indisputable that a decent mic has to have a relatively distortion-free performance, a low noise floor, and a frequency response wide enough to not be an obstacle in a recording session.
However, my contention has been all along that we have not found out yet what specifications are meaningful in the design for a good sounding microphone.
And if Neumann/Sennheiser or other large companies knew what specifications were meaningful, we would have a lot more better sounding mics rather than just mics which perform adequately, or even superbly, along the specification parameters we currently use and know.
The KM184 is a good example: its specs "outperform" the KM84 in every respect: better head room, better noise floor, etc.
And yet, because it is widely regarded as sounding hard and strident in comparison to its predecessor, the buying public rewards the predecessor with a 2:1 price ratio in the market place over the KM184.
I assume, Neumann knows this, and their designer(s) are not ignorant of how to at least attempt a simulation of the old magic in their current designs: the M149 uses its tube strictly as a "flavoring agent" in front of a massive op amp processor that could do just fine by itself, even without the tube. And the TLM49 introduces enough of a phase hash in the mids to make it appear to have some definition and texture there.
But simulations and flavoring agents only go so far in microphone design, and the bottom line is: most discriminating ears will not choose these mics over their name sakes from the past
Why was the fet47 discontinued? Even at the time of its highest popularity when in production, this model was a dud, because it was constantly compared to its tube namesake.
Never mind what became of it since, (an insanely priced kick drum mic!) Neumann will not put any R/D dollars in reviving the complicated, high cost fet47 discreet circuitry op-amp with oodles of components, high-cost big-boy transformer, funky switches and so on..
Finally, I can only speculate why we have not improved the field of measurements and more meaningful specifications in microphone design in light of their obvious shortcomings: The people who by and large are in charge of microphone development in larg(er) companies or divisions of companies are recruited from the left-brain crowd: engineering schools. The ear training that is required there is about as rudimentary as is psychological training for MDs.
Post by: Markus Aalto on October 15, 2007, 06:06:19 PM
I've used old "battery" U87's, M147, KM184 and i like them. Sure there are many uses for mics like TLM103, etc... Anyway the first "own" Neumann i have is old real tube U47. I've focused all the resources for getting one. It is not in the working condition yet and i have still long way to go... I don't have any other Neumann microphone (yet). Much easier if there was some as fine microphone available from the Neumann dealer. New microphone in reliable working order with warranty.
Maybe there are empty space for one or some different microphones in Neumann selection that need to be filled but i hope also something less expensive than M150!
TLM49 is interesting microphone in TLM series but it is just one perspective to large diaphgram studio microphones. Hopefully it is not going to be only perspective at Neumann in the future. I really hope that i don't see TLM103 anniversary model when Neumann celebrates 100 years!
Respectfully, Markus A
Post by: compasspnt on October 15, 2007, 06:13:30 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Mon, 15 October 2007 13:40 | ||
Terry, Thank you for the constructive feedback. What do you prefer and why? |
That's hard to say specifically, because it would depend upon what the purpose was for which a new microphone purchase was to be made.
I haven't bought a *new* Neumann since 1985 or 86. Probably won't ever again, unless they make something I want. And I already have 10 old 87's, so why would I ever want a new one? I have 84's, 86's, 48's, 49's, several fet 47's, so why would I ever want a TLM sim-version?
New condenser microphone purchases since '86 have been from Soundelux, AKG (the dreaded C12VR, also my last of that one), R
Post by: James Lugo on October 16, 2007, 04:42:34 AM
U87ai>LTD-1>La2a
I've been lurking around here for years and just want to say this place is awesome! Thanks Klause.
Post by: Fibes on October 16, 2007, 11:23:33 PM
For the money I have in it and the variety of sources I use it on, I can see the desert island reference being a solid one but I can't say that for all of the other U87s I've heard.
Post by: Barry Hufker on October 17, 2007, 12:43:57 AM
Barry
Post by: Barry Hufker on October 17, 2007, 11:17:50 AM
Barry
I don't know if it's a U47FET substitute but I've been using the Shure SM86 with good results. It's an electret condenser. Personally I would never subject a 47FET to the blasts from a kick drum. But that's just me of course.
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 17, 2007, 01:27:43 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 17 October 2007 08:17 |
Personally I would never subject a 47FET to the blasts from a kick drum. But that's just me of course. |
Why not?
First off, let me point out that in most circumstances where I see the Fet47 used on kick, it's not near the hole. So wind would not be an issue. Not that it would hurt a healthy K47 anyway, IMHO.
Post by: Barry Hufker on October 17, 2007, 02:03:20 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 17, 2007, 03:40:38 PM
Post by: compasspnt on October 17, 2007, 05:55:59 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 17, 2007, 06:53:11 PM
Post by: Schallfeldnebel on October 18, 2007, 08:56:05 AM
Erik Sikkema
Post by: compasspnt on October 18, 2007, 09:11:27 AM
Post by: Andy Simpson on October 18, 2007, 10:07:16 AM
| Klaus Heyne wrote on Mon, 15 October 2007 23:54 |
.... I can only speculate why we have not improved the field of measurements and more meaningful specifications in microphone design in light of their obvious shortcomings: The people who by and large are in charge of microphone development in larg(er) companies or divisions of companies are recruited from the left-brain crowd: engineering schools. The ear training that is required there is about as rudimentary as is psychological training for MDs. |
I have said it before - there is a very big grey area over time-domain measurements for microphones.
Worse than this, most microphone companies want to keep it this way. It's better for them if it remains 'subjective'.....
For me, I am quite certain that 'sex appeal' & 'magic' are basic time-domain properties and measureable.
It is easy to shrug our shoulders and again perpetuate the idea that microphones are mystical/magical/unmeasureable but not helpful or true.
Andy
Post by: Fibes on October 18, 2007, 10:38:25 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 17 October 2007 00:43 |
People are looking for a U47FET substitute -- for what purpose? Kick drum? |
THNX Barry.
And so I ask.
For Bass drum?
Post by: Markus Aalto on October 18, 2007, 11:57:19 AM
Information from Lawson website: " The L47FET uses all discrete components including one percent low noise metal film resistors. No integrated circuits or surface mount parts are used." Made in Nashville, USA
Post by: ricknroll on October 18, 2007, 12:41:40 PM
Rick Hedges
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 19, 2007, 01:09:38 AM
Post by: Ryan Slowey on October 19, 2007, 10:33:15 AM
Is that particular thickness more susceptible to SPL damage over time? if so, what is the "safer" alternative?
thanks,
Ryan Slowey
Albany, NY
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 19, 2007, 01:14:25 PM
The symptom is to due with the thinner membranes not having sufficient resistance to keep the diaphragm from collapsing onto the backplate under high SPLs or plosives. My understanding is that this is something that occurs over time. I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this. Maybe somebody here has some experience with which they can enlighten us.
Post by: nob turner on October 20, 2007, 02:09:16 PM
I remember first hearing about this usage from Dan Alexander when I worked in a studio he co-owned. In my experience, it does not have the same magic that a 47fet does in this application, but acquits itself pretty well.
Post by: Markus Aalto on October 23, 2007, 08:43:57 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 08:09 |
The Lawson 47Fet looks interesting, but this is a situation where I question the wisdom of putting it in a kick drum, because of the 3 micron diaphragm. Somebody with long term 3 micron experience in these situations may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. |
Copied from L47fet description on Lawson's website:
"The L47FET's rugged design, lighter weight, and small profile make it easy to fit into tight spaces such as bass drum."
Lawson fet microphones look very interesting. Especially because they are in the same price category as AKG C414 and Neumann TLM103. It seems they are really made in USA, Nashville. Not just assembled together using chinese parts. There is also another model: L251FET.
Has anybody tried them? I wonder why so few people talk about Lawson. It's not a new factory. They have been in the business quite long time...?
Post by: J.J. Blair on October 23, 2007, 06:53:34 PM
BTW, part of my concern about the 3 micron in a kick drum is just the effects over time of that type of abuse. But you can always get the capsule replaced if there's any issue, I suppose.
Post by: Markus Aalto on October 24, 2007, 07:57:39 AM
I didn't believed that L47 is exact copy of U47 but still feel interests to try for some other purposes. Because I live here in Northern Europe it is impossible to test and compare different microphones and professional equipments before buying. It's a problem. Must read and learn what experiences other people have.
Post by: J.J. Blair on November 24, 2007, 02:11:30 PM
There you have it! I'm actually kind of surprised that the mic sounds as good as it does, even though I'm sure many things could be improved upon.
Post by: compasspnt on November 24, 2007, 03:28:26 PM
This cardioid mic captures the "air"
Part of the M 147's appeal comes from its extreme sensitivity - 20mV/Pa - that allows it to capture the ambience of a sound. It's spatial characteristics are so refined, you'll wonder if you hung a stereo mic by mistake!
Do other microphones NOT capture "the air?"
Is "the air" a separate and distinct thing in regard to the sound?
I am getting tired of hearing about "the air."
How does this one microphone sound "more stereo" than many others?
Do these quoted words originate with Neumann?
Post by: Klaus Heyne on November 25, 2007, 12:10:25 AM
(*I may probably have to eat crow one of these years with such a statement, but still find Neumann's approach to promotion to be within the limits of credulity.)
Post by: Tomas Danko on November 26, 2007, 05:18:59 AM
For the rest of us not recording there, Rupert Neve tried emulating this sound of "the air" by adding a button on some of the equipment. It is labeled AIR.
It was only a matter of time until it started showing up in microphones.
The closer to the source of "the air" you get, the better, obviously. And the microphone is closer than the mic preamp or equalizer.
Unless you place the mic preamp closer to the geographical point of where the AIR studio was built, of course.
Post by: MagnetoSound on November 26, 2007, 05:40:03 AM
You just put the mic up a bit higher, and open the window ....
Or crank the 10k a bit.
Post by: compasspnt on November 26, 2007, 09:05:28 AM
Post by: kats on November 27, 2007, 06:26:44 PM
| Quote: |
Part of the M 147's appeal comes from its extreme sensitivity - 20mV/Pa - that allows it to capture the ambience of a sound. It's spatial characteristics are so refined, you'll wonder if you hung a stereo mic by mistake! |
I find myself slighly -><- envious of someone who could say or write such complete nonsense while keeping a straight face. I'm positive there's some kind of talent in that.