Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Markus Aalto]

It seems at the Neumann they are more focused to amateur and home studio users and high volume sales rather than top end microphones...

  http://www.neumann.com/TLM102/SmartSweetPowerful_final_E.htm l

It is in the same price category than Audio-Technica and many other asian microphones. It's eaven cheaper than AKG 414. Hopefully it is not made in China.

[Kassonica]

Hopefully it sounds better than the 103 but I doubt it

[Schallfeldnebel]

Klaus, may I speculate one time on your forum? I think this microphone is a close match to the BCM 104. The 0.5% distortion point is about 6 dB higher. So 144 dB instead of 138dB with the BCM 104. Resulting in a bit more noise, 12dB instead of 7dB with the 104, and 6 dB lower output level, 11mV for the 102 instead of 22 mV for the BCM 104. Probably the special pop filter from the 104 is also built in this microphone, at least they mention that a pop filter is built in. The BCM 104 has a perimeter connected capsule, alike the TLM 170 famliy, but there is no backmembrane. Although Neumann writes on their site this capsule is a new design, I expect it to be very close relative to the capsule in the BCM104, and probably also perimeter connected.

[Mike Cleaver]

My feelings about the BCM104 are well-known but broadcast clients who want a Neumann but don't want to pay the price for a U87 want them anyway.
Many are replacing perfectly good SM7's and RE20's with these mics
which I do not consider an upgrade.
I still prefer the sound of a good U87 to the U89 as well.
I don't think Neumann (Sennheiser) has produced any good condensers (at least that match the sound of the older models) in recent years.
(Witness the amazing success of the TLM49 and TLM67. *Sarcasm*)
I'm not referencing the small diaphragm mics as I have no experience with these but I'm certain others will chime in.
If the TLM102 has any of it's parts made in China, I am pretty certain that will be a first for the brand.

[J.J. Blair]

I was at the shootout they did at Avatar against a ... wait for it ... TLM49!

The Sennheiser rep couldn't even tell me what capsule was in the mic.  It had much more low end than the TLM49, which was not surprising.  It wasn't horrible sounding, like an SE or something, but it still wasn't anything I would ever use by choice.  

[Schallfeldnebel]

 J.J., could you imagine you were listening to a small diaphragm capsule? Martin Schneider made a remark on the Neumann forum, that the capsule was smaller than used in the BCM104, and perimeter connected.

[compasspnt]

From the Neumann site:

The harmonious proportions and gleaming grille ring ensure that even at first glance, the TLM 102 attracts attention.

The TLM 102 is impressive in terms of sound: In the interior is a newly developed large-diaphragm capsule (cardioid) with a maximum sound pressure level of 144 dB...

[Mike Cleaver]

Has anyone here actually seen or heard or opened up one of these?

[Schallfeldnebel]

From the Neumann forum:

similar to the U89 capsule, I'd call it a medium sized capsule. It reflects in the noise value, higher than TLM103 / BCM104, but lower than the small mics.


Looks promising.

[studiochap]

Markus Aalto wrote on Sat, 17 October 2009 12:22

It seems at the Neumann they are more focused to amateur and home studio users and high volume sales rather than top end microphones...   http://www.neumann.com/TLM102/SmartSweetPowerful_final_E.htm l It is in the same price category than Audio-Technica and many other asian microphones. It's eaven cheaper than AKG 414. Hopefully it is not made in China.

IMHO there are only two possible choices for a manufacturer of highend gear seeking profitable turnover,  and faced with competition from downmarket manufacturers.

Either you dive down into the pond and attempt to be competitive with them from a pricing perspective...at the tradeoff of build quality and design....or you maintain the highend quality and then  the price  has to be what the price has to be..

There are automotive parallels...

Do we see Ferrari or Lamborghini attempting to compete with the Mazda RX5?

I don't believe so.  ( Please nobody pick me up on my reference to the MX5 - I know there will be more appropriate parallels...)

I was  going to mention that the CEO of Porsche was once asked " Why don't you make an entry-level Porsche?"  and replied  " An entry-level  Porsche is a second-user one" . I googled to  check his name, only to find a stream of results indicating that Porsche is now considering an entry-level model...doh!

Regards,

Gwyn

[Schallfeldnebel]

If the TLM102 is alike KK89, what Martin Schneider mentioned on the Neumann board, I would not call the new TLM102 a cheap piece of gear designed for the hobby-market. The TLM102 is not derived from the BCM104 as I speculated before, but both have non-middle connected capsule.  


23-10-2003 I wrote on the Neumann Pinboard.

Dear Mr. Peus,
As a fan of non middle connected capsules (perimeter?)the TLM 170, TLM 193 and U 89 always were my favourites. When I started to look at the diagrams of the BC 104 I must conclude the capsule has one menbrane, and it has no middle connection, and belongs to the group K89 of 'not too large diaphragma' microphones. Is the BC 104 capsule derived from the good old K89 capsule? I expect the BC 104 to be a very interesting microphone,not only for broadcast.

From Stephan Peus I received this reply.

Dear Mr.Sikkema, The K89 capsule (U89, TLM170, TLM193)is connected inside at the insulated back electrode, i.e.not at the membrane's perimeter. The membrane is connected to the capsule housing. That means the complete ouside of the capsule is ground. Therefore the capsule is totally shielded and insensitive to any kind of dirt and pollution. The same is right for the 'K104' we are using for our latest baby BCM104 broadcast microphone. This capsule has not been 'derived from the good old K89' but from 'the good new D-01' !
With best regards Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin Stephan Peus  

If the TLM102 is a medium seized membrane a la KK89, without backmembrane, I must say I am looking forward hearing this microphone.

SFN

[Jim Williams]

Mike Cleaver wrote on Sat, 17 October 2009 09:58

If the TLM102 has any of it's parts made in China, I am pretty certain that will be a first for the brand.

Lots of electronic components now come from China. Many of the monolythic ceramic caps are made there. There is a good chance Chinese electronic components have been used in Neumann mics for a few years now.

That means nothing. What's the difference if a capacitor machine is operated in China or Indonesia? Electronic components come from all over the world. It's not a problem unless you are excessivly nationalistic.

I expect the new mic to be made with all surface mount components, the cheaper stuff like ceramic caps and metal oxide resistors. That will not help.

[Mike Cleaver]

Exactly.
The quality of the parts was my point, not where they come from.
So much of what we buy and use is made in China, some of it good quality, a lot of it not.

[Klaus Heyne]

Mike Cleaver wrote on Wed, 28 October 2009 13:40

So much of what we buy and use is made in China, some of it good quality....

Can you cite an example or two from the world of microphones, where a specific mic or part for a mic is at last as good in its quality as the comparable product that is manufactured in Europe or the U.S. or Japan?

[Mike Cleaver]

No.
Not microphones.
I meant some other stuff.
A lot of pro audio gear is being made in China.
Some of it is sold under brand names here in North America.
For example, no name lcd tv's sold at Wal-mart are half the price per size of the brand name sets and they're made in China.
We've had one for about four years and it's had no problems and the picture looks as good as the brand name sets.
The only tv that I had that ever caught fire was an American made RCA set back in the late '60's.
Just take a look through any store these days and see how much of the merchandise is made in China or Malaysia or any other country in what we used to call the far east.
Some of it is good quality but there is a lot of junk.

[Jim Williams]

Klaus Heyne wrote on Wed, 28 October 2009 22:32

Mike Cleaver wrote on Wed, 28 October 2009 13:40 So much of what we buy and use is made in China, some of it good quality.... Can you cite an example or two from the world of microphones, where a specific mic or part for a mic is at last as good in its quality as the comparable product that is manufactured in Europe or the U.S. or Japan?

Not yet, but probably in a couple of years, you know, about the same time Chinese Hummers and Volvo's come off the line.
It's a new world. Machines can be set up anywhere, techs can be trained anywhere and the bottom line will be the bottom line.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if Sennheiser moved production there. Cost of manufacturing plus the regulations in Germany are becoming prohibitive.

[Oliver Archut]

There are a several Chinese 797 capsules that are as good as AKG maybe even Neumann if compared to the TLM 103 capsule

Better than MT Gefell? Definitely.

Best

[ryan streber]

Ouch!  Has Gefell really slipped that far in your opinion?  

[Oliver Archut]

From all the capsules Microtech Gefell sold me since 2005, 50% just cracked and the rest started wrinkling up. The sound varies from good to not usable.

Does not belong to the TLM, but you asked...

[Fletcher]

Interesting observation Oliver... perhaps they're selling you "B stock"?  

I have encountered no such problem with Gefell, then again I was mostly dealing with finished product.

Peace.

[Oliver Archut]

Gefell approached me to use their M7s in Vintage restorations, Did they send me B- stock? I do not know, the first capsules I got from them where stellar (and still work fine), the Berlin repairs (M7, K54, etc.) were nearly as good as NOS Berlin capsules. Then something happened- when is quite hard to tell, but pretty much the time Mr. Rowehl (MG's sales manager through the 1990s) had left the company.

But the problem was not just with spare capsules; even the UM92s I bought from them/referred to customer of mine have the same failure ratio.

After talking to MG's head of capsule manufacturing, he hinted that at one point in the last 2 to 4 years (he was very hesitant to answer my questions directly) MG changed the PVC material, as well as the diaphragm glue.
The current general manger insisted later that I must have misunderstood the head of capsule manufacturing- maybe it was because we spoke in German...
It seems that they first changed the PVC material and the type of glue later.

They offered me to repair those capsules, but even the repairs started failing, first they loose bass and high end, then they crack.

The last repaired M7s I got sounded absolutely unusable. I sent them to several good friends of mine to check it, as well as to Klaus. But MG insists they meet specifications.

The verdict was the same, unusable.

In the end I went back to Sennheiser/Neumann capsules when I needed replacement during vintage mic repairs.


Best regards,

[Fletcher]

I would have to assume that these are the same capsules that are in their current product, and while I have not had exposure to their current product for the last 6-7 months I had continual exposure to their product over the 2-4 years previous.

While I do not doubt the PVC might have changed and that the glue might have changed I still don't quite understand the connection to Mr. Rowehl... the marketing guy.

While the materials may have changed, I dare say I have not encountered your problems or experience with PVC based capsule in current MT Gefell product.  I don't doubt for a minute you have, but I have not shared your experience.

[Oliver Archut]

Hello Fletcher,

As you know from your dealings with Gefell, they do not live off studio mics.
For years there have been talks at Gefell to discontinue the PVC M7 because it is more difficult to make, and because the rate of rejection is higher than with Mylar capsules.

Jerry (Graham, co-owner of G-Prime, MG's first U.S. importer, an a part-owner of the company at the time -K.H.) gave me that information first hand, when G-Prime wanted a modern tube mic, the UM92 came alive and he rejected the Mylar based M7 Gefell suggested, in favor for the PVC M7.

After G-Prime lost the Gefell distribution in the US, Mr. Rowehl was the last one at MG who tried to keep PVC M7 in production.

Sharing the experience?
I can send you the last batch of Gefell ones for you to try.

Best regards,

[Fletcher]

Interesting relation of a 20 year old conversation... I wonder if that was before or after Steve [Jerry's partner and Gefell importer post "G Prime"] stitched them up for about $50k worth of product [as relayed by Mr. Rowehl, hence 2nd hand information but from what I think we both consider a credible source].

I don't fully doubt your experience, but do take it with a grain of salt as you are a manufacturer of microphones who may have an ulterior motive [not saying you do, but the possibility does exist].  I am simply saying that I have not shared that experience.

I have nothing to gain or lose with my observation, just relaying my observation... my personal experience.

I guess the next question would be how you're finding (Chinese) '797' capsules in quality relation to other Neumann capsules other than the TLM-103 capsule... interesting you find them better than AKG capsules.  Guys like Stayne McLean have done some VERY impressive work using the "modern" CK-12 capsule.

Peace.

[Klaus Heyne]

Fletcher wrote on Wed, 04 November 2009 07:07

(...) Guys like Stayne McLean have done some VERY impressive work using the "modern" CK-12 capsule.

Please elaborate, as probably only very few people who read this may know your reference: Who is Stayne McLean, and what has he done with CK-12-style capsules that impressed you (I had not heard about him before myself)?

Thanks,

[Jeff Roberts]

Fletcher is referring to the owner of InnerTube Audio, and their MM2000 Microphone, often called the MagMic.

[J.J. Blair]

A couple things:
I can confirm the cracks and wrinkling in the reskinned Berlin capsule.  I would not say "unusable," about the sound, but I did not care for it.  If that fact that I would not use it in my make makes it unusable, then so be it.  But to me, unusable means that it's completely unlistenable.  

I also think the implication that Oliver is badmouthing Gefell because he is making mics now, is a bit silly.  Not only because I agree with his assessment of the capsule, but also because Lucas mics are not competing with Gefell's market share.  Besides, you don't presell over 300 mics, without people hearing them, because you've said Gefell capsules are crap.  It makes no sense.

Also, I would be careful perpetuating that idea, because I keep hearing this story, with your name attached to it.  Your name carries weight, and I've had two people tell me a similar story, preceded by, "Fletcher told me."

Anyway, since when did Stayne start using a CK12 type capsule?  I am only familiar with him using center terminated capsules, both single and dual backplate.  I would also take issue with referring to his work as "VERY impressive."  I have yet to hear a Mag Mic that has made me want to use one on a session, particularly the dual backplate one.  The one I heard was very "spitty," and prone to proximity effect in a way that made me question the implementation of that capsule on that amplifier.  

[Stephen Andrew Bright]

Stayne does a C12VR mod where he replaces the VR tube circuit with his Mag Mic electronics, while keeping the stock CK12 capsule. He had a bunch of these mods lined up back when I needed to get my C12VR modded, but I elected to send mine to Oliver with Tim's brass CK12 reskin.

Stephen

[Klaus Heyne]

Stephen Andrew Bright wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 18:07

(...) while keeping the stock CK12 capsule.

You must have meant the "Teflon" new-style CK12 TL capsule, because that is the capsule that is stock in all C12VR.

It's certainly hard to have an intelligent discussion about AKG's CK12 capsule, when they gave two rather different capsules the same name.

[Oliver Archut]

I don't fully doubt your experience, but do take it with a grain of salt as you are a manufacturer of microphones who may have an ulterior motive [not saying you do, but the possibility does exist].

A friend of mine told me once that if a company has to point out that it is a professional microphone, it probably is not.
I am applying that wisdom to your statement.

Microphone manufacturer? Thank you for that compliment.

Interesting relation of a 20 year old conversation... I wonder if that was before or after Steve [Jerry's partner and Gefell importer post "G Prime"] stitched them up for about $50k worth of product [as relayed by Mr. Rowehl, hence 2nd hand information but from what I think we both consider a credible source].

I do not understand what that has to do with good or bad capsules?

I guess the next question would be how you're finding (Chinese) '797' capsules in quality relation to other Neumann capsules other than the TLM-103 capsule... interesting you find them better than AKG capsules.

Sennheiser/Neumann is still the manufacturer of the world's best capsule, the K47/49, and sure the Chinese won't compare to it. But there are several '797' capsules that are pretty good compared to the K870.

Better than AKG? Your wording "Modern CK12" is pretty much misleading, if you refer to the Nylon CK12 or better know as the Teflon CK12, it is an O.K. capsule, but there are several 797 as well as Alcatons that do a better job.

To put it in a different context, there is not a bad microphone or capsule, there is only the wrong or improper application.
Or to use your wording, your mileage may vary!

At the same time I find the capsules of the RFT Series of microphones better than AKGs or Gefell, even though they are globally sourced, but for 'Made in China' capsules they kick butt!

In the end this is still the TLM102 domain, as I said if you want to check out the last Gefell M7 PVC to share my experience, let me know.

Best regards,

[Oliver Archut]

Hello J.J.,

my definition is that if it is labeled as an 'M7' it should do the job of an M7, if not, it is useless.

I also think the implication that Oliver is badmouthing Gefell because he is making mics now, is a bit silly.

Badmouthing? I was dealing with Gefell on that subject for over a year, I told them that the capsules are not usable and that something changed...

Best regards,

[J.J. Blair]

Oliver, I don't feel you are badmouthing them, but I felt as though that was the implication of what you were doing.  For the reasons I stated, I disagree, of course.

[Oliver Archut]

Hello J.J.,

sorry I know what your  are saying. My pointing out that I already talked to Gefell several times and tried to make them aware did not come out easy to understand.

Best

[Fletcher]

Oliver Archut wrote on Thu, 05 November 2009 22:53

I don't fully doubt your experience, but do take it with a grain of salt as you are a manufacturer of microphones who may have an ulterior motive [not saying you do, but the possibility does exist]. A friend of mine told me once that if a company has to point out that it is a professional microphone, it probably is not.

No disrespect intended, and I hope none was taken.  My point was, that while I don't doubt your experience with the product, I take everything with a grain of salt these days unless I have experienced the same phenomenon... which in this case I have not.  Could be do to my lack of "day to day" working experience with the product, but again, I have not had the problem you have had.  Nothing more, nothing less, sorry if my words came out wrong and I inadvertently shot an "implication".

As to Stayne's "Innertube" product.  The "Mag Mic" I have has a new style Nylon / Teflon CK-12 esque capsule.  I also had a few of these capsules in my inventory of capsules for a while and traded them to Stayne for some damn thing I can't remember at the moment as he said he needed them for building more "Mag Mics" [and as I thought they were pretty much worthless, thought it was a good trade at the time though I don't remember what the hell we traded for].

[J.J. Blair]

Getting anything of value for those capsules is a good trade!

[Schallfeldnebel]

Klaus wrote:"It's certainly hard to have an intelligent discussion about AKG's CK12 capsule, when they gave two rather different capsules the same name."

Klaus, I wonder if the Teflon CK12 in the C414 ULS and the Teflon CK12 in the TLII are "different" capsules. While searching for a good C422, looking through many charts of C422's and C426's, I saw 6 dB in tolerances. To me it looks like Teflon CK12 capsules that have a large presence peak are sold as TLII's and the ones within more norrow tolerances are sold as the more linear ones. Off course this is speculation, but the charts I have seen proof the wide tolerences.

BTW, we are very off topic.

Erik Sikkema

[Klaus Heyne]

Schallfeldnebel wrote on Sat, 07 November 2009 12:07

Klaus, I wonder if the Teflon CK12 in the C414 ULS and the Teflon CK12 in the TLII are "different" capsules.

Off topic or not, it's an important distinction that readers need to know:

These are two different Teflon capsules. The original CK12 Teflon was rather gray in sound, and neutral in its midrange response.

In the late 1980s, AKG tried to regain market share for the 414 series of solid state mics by re-shaping the backplate of that capsule, using (should I be proud?) a couple of my fine tuned original CK12 brass capsules from Peter Wolf's (Austrian producer for Foreigner, and others) C12 collection as template. They then added the"TLII" suffix to the otherwise unchanged 414 ULS.. They also used that same capsule in the re-vamped "The Tube" mic, which was consequently renamed "C12 VR".

So, quite different from, let's say, Shure, which used the unavoidable capsule manufacturing tolerances to segregate SM56, 57, and 58 capsules, there where actual design differences between the two CK12 Teflon capsules.

Why you would experience such a large spread in high frequency response among otherwise identical designs, I cannot understand, as tolerances for capsules (and whole mics) are normally limited to a max of

[Schallfeldnebel]

To be more precise I saw differences from -2 to +4 dB, hence the 6dB. Within the 422/426 stereo microphopne itself I saw differences of 2 dB. Used to the narrow tolerances of DPA microphones, I find these differences rather high.

Erik Sikkema  

[J.J. Blair]

Klaus, I thought the TLII was transformerless, no?

[Klaus Heyne]

I was referring to the capsule, not the mic. And, yes, the TLII was a transformer-less version of the original 414 ULS, which itself was a successor to the C414 EB.

[Schallfeldnebel]

Back on topic, the frequency curve of the TLM102 is now available on the Neumann site. It looks very alike the curve of the SM69fet switched at cardioid. We may expect a slightly sharp high-end. Comparing the 102 with the 103, the presence peak starts a bit later with the 102, but gets a bit steeper at the maximum, and rolls off a little bit more early. Both peak at +4.

I really wonder what the design thought behind this microphones was. Just a cheap large membrane, or customised for a certain user group.