Print

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

[guitarbth]

Hi all,
Im wondering what the differences are in mics that have transformers in their path and those that don't. I did a search but didnt really find what I was looking for so sorry if this is repeat material. I'm just wondering, being relatively new to all this, what the major differences are and any limitations that may occur from using one or the other. From what I understand, transformer based products, whether mic, pre, or whatever, are a little more colored and have a certain character. Could you guys expand on this. The reason I ask is because I'm interested in the AT4047 which is a transformer based mic. Does anyone have any experience with it? If so, what are your thoughts? What applications do transformer based mics accel doing? Thanks so much.

Brandon

[guitarbth]

Nevermind.... here's a huge thread on the topic....

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/1127/0/0/1 639/?SQ=29ba72ab451b3f8998027362c8c0bda4

However, if you have any comments on the 4047, I'd love to hear them...

Thanks.

[David Satz]

Hello, Brandon--glad you found that thread. There's also some discussion of transformerless vs. transformer-equipped microphones in a thread from last June on "Omni Mics for Classical Recording" (I hope that link works for you).

This is one of those topics that some people have very strong opinions about--they talk about the "sound of iron" and warmth and roundness and whatever else as if it was a definite and a sure thing. But the relatively few people who know a lot about the subject seem to be more cautious in making general statements about the sonic characteristics of a whole class of equipment. There's a huge range of sound quality among microphones with transformers, and a huge range of sound quality among transformerless microphones. Isn't it obvious that there's more difference within each group than there is between the two groups? Whenever that's the case, any generalizations that you hear should be taken with a grain of salt at least.

Nonetheless, I’ll offer you a generalization: In general, the capsule is far more important to a condenser microphone's sound quality, unless the circuitry is rather messed up. So when I see that a manufacturer today is offering tube circuitry or an output transformer, and that they're claiming to have special sound quality because of those things, I get a little suspicious. Tubes and transformers can both be used either to produce clear, natural sound or to color the sound. And a consumer generally pays extra for those features nowadays--a lot extra, if the tubes and transformers are of good quality. So I worry that the designers will skimp on the parts quality to keep prices down (more or less as usual), meanwhile catering to the users who expect to hear some distinct effect on the sound quality from the microphone's advertised tube, transformer, large diaphragm, or whatever.

A feature like that can be just a marketing distraction (in which case it will have a "sound" defined primarily for marketing purposes)--or the feature can be essential and useful, in which case it will tend to be transparent and well integrated so that it doesn't stand out.

--best regards

[wwittman]

I think there's a more to be learned from comparing say a Neumann with a transformer to Neumann's tranformerless mics, than by comparing a transformer Rode to a transformerless Neumann, certainly (if there even is a Rode with a transformer, i don't know!)

But it's clear to ME that I cannot think of a single instance in which, when the mics are similar, I prefer the transformerless version.

Klaus has said before that it's not the ONLY thing usually different... but it still seems a constant.
They make a mic, people love it.
Then they make a CHEAPER version, without a transformer.

Same thing with mic pres.

[Karl Winkler]

wwittman wrote on Fri, 08 April 2005 05:37

But it's clear to ME that I cannot think of a single instance in which, when the mics are similar, I prefer the transformerless version.

I don't know about "better or worse" but there are subtle differences. And perhaps Neumann has even deliberately never made two mics with exactly the same capsules and housings but one with transformer and one without... Although from their point of view I doubt that avoiding this comparison was ever the only consideration in design.

One example I can think of is the U89 vs. the TLM170, since both mics use the same capsule (K89). I was never a huge fan of the 89 although for some things it is quite good. The TLM170, however, was a mic I liked right away for it's very neutral sound, low noise floor and versatility. In the right circumstances, the 170 does an excellent job of sounding like there is no microphone "signature" in the path. Such could not be said of the 89.

No doubt, mics like the KM84 have helped perpetuate the "transformers are better" opinion. I'm a huge fan, myself. But I do think that transformers *add* something, and there are times when this addition is not ideal. Certainly, there are times when it is just the right sound. So overall I still think it comes down to what you want to hear and what the situation demands.

I also think a factor is that most of us grew up listening to recordings done by mics with transformers in them (just like the previous generation grew up with tubes) and we came to expect *that* sound. In the past 15 years or so, quite a few mics have been developed without transformers and so now there is a new range of sounds available - tubes with transformers, tubes without transformers; FETs with transformers and FETs without transformers.

But also let me echo what David Satz has already pointed out: there are usually more factors involved with the resulting sound than just the output stage, such as grille basket design, electronics, capsule, and overall design goals.

-Karl

[David Satz]

Bill, I think you're exactly right to suggest comparing apples with apples. And I think you were also right to say "similar" rather than "identical." It can be tricky even when you compare "a Neumann with a transformer to Neumann's transformerless mics" as you said. The most common/obvious comparison is the KM 84 versus the KM 140 or KM 184, but Neumann pooched up the high end acoustically on the capsule side a little bit when they came out with the transformerless versions.

So that's like comparing a Fuji apple versus a McIntosh--many (most?) people prefer one of those two types of taste over the other to begin with. I can't imagine someone tasting them both and saying that they're both "just apples." And say you were trying to weigh the possible benefits of some new type of refrigeration on the taste of apples, and you gave someone a Fuji that your process had been used with, versus a McIntosh that had been refrigerated in the conventional manner. The difference in the genre of apple might well overwhelm any difference that was due to the particular method of keeping the apple cool in storage.

Hmmm--do you think I can shout loudly enough to be heard in another thread? HEY, you folks who're talking about how to test for audible differences among cables--do you actually enjoy re-inventing the wheel? If so, you have some distance to go yet before it will roll. Unless you limit yourself to one variable at a time, you'll get results that anyone and everyone can interpret differently--supposedly the situation that you wanted to improve on in the first place.

The comparison would be much closer with a KM 130 versus a KM 83--at least they didn't play games with the high frequency response there. But those mikes aren't nearly as well known. Diffuse-field omnis as a class have become almost obsolete since the introduction of stereo recording; the high end is too "hot" for typical A/B placement. And the response of the KM 83 was specified only down to 40 Hz. But part of what's critical with transformers is their performance at the lowest audible frequencies, especially at high sound pressure levels.

It's similar with larger Neumanns--the TLM 170 or TLM 193 versus the U 89, all of which use the same capsule but have different capsule heads and circuitry. I've used pairs of all three; they always sounded about the same to me unless there was extreme low frequency energy. At that point their amplifiers diverge in their amplitude response, so they can't be compared unless you equalize that out somehow--which I never did, because when you're just trying to make the best sounding recording why would you?

David Josephson makes both transformerless and transformer-equipped amplifiers for one series of his modular microphones, no? Otherwise I can't think of any other examples where the same capsule can simply be swapped back and forth. Is there any pair of AKG models like that, in the later 400 series for example? That seems like the ideal way to make comparisons like this, since capsules of the same series can differ by 1 - 2 dB sometimes--even more if they're older. Those differences produce subjective impressions of their own which muddy up any comparison in a major way.

--best regards

[Klaus Heyne]

Quote:

Hmmm--do you think I can shout loudly enough to be heard in another thread? HEY, you folks who're talking about how to test for audible differences among cables--...Unless you limit yourself to one variable at a time, you'll get results that anyone and everyone can interpret differently--supposedly the situation that you wanted to improve on in the first place.

I appreciate the thought, David. Be assured that I would not accept a comparison test for audio equipment any other way: audible impressions, especially those of lesser players like cables or capacitors, are so fragile that any additional "noise" on the brain from more than one variable at a time kills the ability to discriminate altogether.  
Please continue to add your insights to the exciting cable thread (over 2000 happy customers in a week!)

To the subject at hand:
Congratulations, David, for an excellent sales job for transformerless mics without any (overt, at least) appearance of bias on your side!

But, your seemingly logical deductions are not convincing me:

Quote:

Isn't it obvious that there's more difference within each group (TL or T) than there is between the two groups? Whenever that's the case, any generalizations that you hear should be taken with a grain of salt at least.

You give no data or evidence for the obviousness of your subjective observation, therefore I treat (and identify) it as your personal, subjective, opinion.

You then elegantly conclude from the "obviousness" of your opinion to a generalization, which, objectively, is based, again, solely on your unproven and undemonstrated opinion.

If you are not an aficionado of transformer-coupled mics, (which I what I suspect) then shouldn't you state that up front, rather than give seemingly equiponderated, objective sounding advice, while subtly leading the questioner down the path to your personal preference?

For the record, once more:
I have never heard a really heartwarming, musical microphone without transformers (other than the elegant Schoeps Colette designs which wisely avoid solid state processor overkill by relegating the "transformerless", i.e. transistorized, portion of the circuitry to the very tail end and then to just two solid state devices run very conservatively, leaving the actual audio processing relatively clean.)

The same cannot be said about most other TL designs which, in my opinion, often sacrifice audio excellence for the sake of cost savings and then buff the remains with "cool" looking, but for most applications irrelevant, head room specs.

P.S.: I found some faulty logic, expressed somewhere else in this thread, (not by you, David) To paraphrase:
"There are lousy T- mics and excellent TL mics, so we should not generalize..."

The buying public depends on generalized identifiers for its purchasing decisions.
So, generalize, I'd say, but do it fairy:
Compare the 'best' (defined as most desirable, by historic standards) TL designs to the best T designs, rather than throwing in some dogs of mics to prove a pointless point.

Kind regards,

[Gone]

I haven't researched the details, but my understanding is that the new AKG 414 B-XLS hasn't been tweaked too much from the 414 B-ULS, other than the fact that it's transformerless. (I don't think they messed with the capsule - perhaps someone knows for sure?).

Perhaps this mic could be a good test case for T vs TL ?

I haven't been able to compare the two side by side, but I put the 414 XLS next to my 4050 (which is TL). I quite preferred the sound of the 414, detecting a stronger, beefier low end, and less of the slight, strange high end bump in the 4050 (hard to describe, but on an acoustic guitar, it over-accentuates the sound of the pick...)

I'm going to try to borrow a 414 XLS again, to compare to my two 414s (just bought one back from a friend in LA, and bought another on ebay...)

[guitarbth]

I'd really like to hear some comments on the AT 4047, which does have a transfer in it... What do you think? Thanks so much.

Brandon

[wwittman]

Quote:

For the record, once more: I have never heard a really heartwarming, musical microphone without transformers other than...

Wow, Klaus, you're even more adamant than I was.
But I agree with the thought, if I wasn't already clear!

I use the Gefell UMT-70 and MT 71 quite a bit and I must admit I don't hate them... but I also don't think they're AS good or musical as their transformer predecessors.

But I've said before I haven't tried a single transformerless Neumann I can find a use for, and certainly, from the people who brought us some real greatness in the past, it's disappointing to say the least that this is the best they chose to do.

[Gone]

guitarbth wrote on Fri, 08 April 2005 19:37

I'd really like to hear some comments on the AT 4047, which does have a transformer in it... What do you think? Thanks so much.

Brandon,
have you heard the 4047 at all? Have you used any of the popular AT mics (4033, 4050)? I haven't heard the 4047, but the 4050 and 4033 have definite similarities, tonally speaking. I wouldn't expect a night and day difference just by adding a transformer. Can you borrow, demo or get a 30 day 'satisfaction guarantee' on one?

Mr. Wittman mentions the Gefell mics - I own a UM70S (transformer), and have worked with a number of UMT70s, and while I like my original better, I find the transformerless update to have pretty similar tone and be generally as useful (and still a quality mic, better IMO than some costing twice as much).

[J.J. Blair]

I think the problem with Neumman/Sennheiser is that they are whoring themselves out to the prosumer market trying to push the reputation of the brand name on people who don't know how crappy a TLM103 actually sounds.  

Shouldn't there be some discussion about the quality and character of transformers?  Where's Oliver in this discussion?

[New Orleans Steve]

Hi Brandon,
 if it was not for the tranny vs. nontranny side, this thread would likely be moved elseware!
   Some of the 'high end' guys here would rather go over this (again) than help you. A. T. just does not count at all to some of our colleagues. I must admit that that was once my impression as well.
 The A.T. 4047 indeed changed that. While I do not like any other A.T. mic, I find the 4047 quite useable. It definitely has a good sound, plays well with others and provides a good contrast to other mics in its class.
  I'm really going to go out on a limb here and risk getting us both thrown out of here, but I also like the Shure KMS 32 and it provides a nice contrast to the 4047.
 Steve

[wwittman]

[quote title=Nick Eipers wrote on Fri, 08 April 2005 23:33]

guitarbth wrote on Fri, 08 April 2005 19:37

...Mr. Wittman mentions the Gefell mics - I own a UM70S (transformer), and have worked with a number of UMT70s, and while I like my original better, I find the transformerless update to have pretty similar tone and be generally as useful (and still a quality mic, better IMO than some costing twice as much).

I wholeheartedly agree... both about the quality of theGefells in general and their value for money AND about the transformer version still sounding better.

[Klaus Heyne]

New Orleans Steve wrote on Sun, 10 April 2005 13:05

Hi Brandon,  if it was not for the tranny vs. nontranny side, this thread would likely be moved elseware!    Some of the 'high end' guys here would rather go over this (again) than help you. A. T. just does not count at all to some of our colleagues...

Yes and no.

Yes, discussion of the AT line of mics would probably fit better into Harv's forum, because there are more users (and advice) available over there.

No, I am not above mentioning the merits of that brand here: I think that AT's products are unrivaled in their price class, and that, at least, is worth noting here.