TLM-103 - Sell it off or modify it?

[NeilH011]

The recent TLM-103 thread started me wondering, so here it is:
I have a TLM-103, and I think it's "okay". Nothing special, but it doesn't
really suck, either; so my questions are:

1.) Are there any currently-known mods available for this mic? Different
diaphragm, or different electronics, or turning it into a "t0oB mic", etc? : )
2.) If, so are any of those modifications capable of transforming this mic from
something I might think is "okay" to something I might think is ultra-cool &
has some degree of unique character (realizing, of course that both
'ultra-cool' and 'unique character' might have different meanings for different
people.
3.) If so, is it even worth modding at it's price point, or not really?

I'm open to uses - IOW if you know of a mod that would make this thing killer
on piano, for example, then let's hear about it... vocals, same thing... banjo,
keep it to yourself : )

NeilH

[Scott Dorsey]

NeilH011 <neilh011@cs.com> wrote:
>The recent TLM-103 thread started me wondering, so here it is:
>I have a TLM-103, and I think it's "okay". Nothing special, but it doesn't
>really suck, either; so my questions are:
>
>1.) Are there any currently-known mods available for this mic? Different
>diaphragm, or different electronics, or turning it into a "t0oB mic", etc? : )

Not really. It's a good enough mike that there isn't much you can do to
clean it up, and it's not an interesting enough mike to bother with
modifications that make it less clean.

>2.) If, so are any of those modifications capable of transforming this mic from
>something I might think is "okay" to something I might think is ultra-cool &
>has some degree of unique character (realizing, of course that both
>'ultra-cool' and 'unique character' might have different meanings for different
>people.

No, BUT a weird-sounding mike preamp might do something you enjoy, and it
might make you like the mike more. Try the Opamp Labs box. You'll need
an external phantom supply, but it sounds very midrange-heavy and very
1970s.

>3.) If so, is it even worth modding at it's price point, or not really?
>
>I'm open to uses - IOW if you know of a mod that would make this thing killer
>on piano, for example, then let's hear about it... vocals, same thing... banjo,
>keep it to yourself : )

I think the whole notion of using a microphone like this on piano is very
misguided.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[NeilH011]

>Not really. It's a good enough mike that there isn't much you can do to
>clean it up, and it's not an interesting enough mike to bother with
>modifications that make it less clean.

Hey Scott... that was kinda my impression based on just the mic & the way it
sounded overall, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask.

>>2.) If, so are any of those modifications capable of transforming this mic
>from
>>something I might think is "okay" to something I might think is ultra-cool &
>>has some degree of unique character (realizing, of course that both
>>'ultra-cool' and 'unique character' might have different meanings for
>different
>>people.
>
>No, BUT a weird-sounding mike preamp might do something you enjoy, and it
>might make you like the mike more. Try the Opamp Labs box. You'll need
>an external phantom supply, but it sounds very midrange-heavy and very
>1970s.

Hmmm.... thanks for the tip, but I don't think I'd like that much. Almost
sounds like I'd be buying that preamp just to compensate for the freq
characteristics of that particular mic - which if it were a $5,000 mic, I
supppose I might be inclined to do, but since it's a $500 mic, I'd probably not
be.

Then again, if it were a $5,000 mic, I'd be pretty pissed if it didn't already
float my boat without a special single-purpose preamp LOL

>>I'm open to uses - IOW if you know of a mod that would make this thing
>killer
>>on piano, for example, then let's hear about it... vocals, same thing...
>banjo,
>>keep it to yourself : )

>I think the whole notion of using a microphone like this on piano is very
>misguided.

Well, that was just an example pulled out of the air at random. I could just
have easily said "mandolin" or "kick drum". Then again, you're a big SDC fan
for that sort of application (piano), yes? I've never tried the -103 on piano,
but I'd be willing to give it a shot under certain circumstances.

Hmmm.... kick drum!

NeilH

[Paul]

Neil,

I know you want to know about mods and such. I wouldn't go there.

I think a better move would be to investigate a good mic pre eq compressor
chain. This is a great mic. Like any mic, it needs to be tweeked for a
particular application. If you had something like an avalon 737, you could
roll off some of the ultra low end and put a little limiting on it and have
a wonderful place to start on a vocal. Or run it through a neve pre, same
thing with the roll off. It is a pretty smooth mic. Isn't tweekee in the
upper mids (pre eq'd) like a lot of cheaper mics are. Next best thing to
having a u87, or u67 at a fraction of the price.

I think if you did an a/b comparison with other mics through a great chain,
you'd see the beauty of this thing. Mic pres can dramatically change the
apparent character of a mic.

Paul



> From: neilh011@cs.com (NeilH011)
> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Date: 13 Aug 2003 00:54:11 GMT
> Subject: TLM-103 - Sell it off or modify it?
>
> The recent TLM-103 thread started me wondering, so here it is:
> I have a TLM-103, and I think it's "okay". Nothing special, but it doesn't
> really suck, either; so my questions are:
>
> 1.) Are there any currently-known mods available for this mic? Different
> diaphragm, or different electronics, or turning it into a "t0oB mic", etc? :
> )
> 2.) If, so are any of those modifications capable of transforming this mic
> from
> something I might think is "okay" to something I might think is ultra-cool &
> has some degree of unique character (realizing, of course that both
> 'ultra-cool' and 'unique character' might have different meanings for
> different
> people.
> 3.) If so, is it even worth modding at it's price point, or not really?
>
> I'm open to uses - IOW if you know of a mod that would make this thing killer
> on piano, for example, then let's hear about it... vocals, same thing...
> banjo,
> keep it to yourself : )
>
> NeilH

[Ron Charles]

Funny you should ask about a mod for a TLM103, as I just got off the phone
with Steven Sank and asked him the same question. His answer was a simple
laugh!!!
After that call I just decided to sell my matched pair and send Steve the
funds in exchange for an old RCA BK11.
RON CHARLES
"NeilH011" <neilh011@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030812205411.24610.00001472@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
> The recent TLM-103 thread started me wondering, so here it is:
> I have a TLM-103, and I think it's "okay". Nothing special, but it doesn't
> really suck, either; so my questions are:
>
> 1.) Are there any currently-known mods available for this mic? Different
> diaphragm, or different electronics, or turning it into a "t0oB mic", etc?
: )
> 2.) If, so are any of those modifications capable of transforming this mic
from
> something I might think is "okay" to something I might think is ultra-cool
&
> has some degree of unique character (realizing, of course that both
> 'ultra-cool' and 'unique character' might have different meanings for
different
> people.
> 3.) If so, is it even worth modding at it's price point, or not really?
>
> I'm open to uses - IOW if you know of a mod that would make this thing
killer
> on piano, for example, then let's hear about it... vocals, same thing...
banjo,
> keep it to yourself : )
>
> NeilH

[Mike Rivers]

In article <20030812205411.24610.00001472@mb-m28.news.cs.com> neilh011@cs.com writes:

> The recent TLM-103 thread started me wondering, so here it is:
> I have a TLM-103, and I think it's "okay". Nothing special, but it doesn't
> really suck, either; so my questions are:
>
> 1.) Are there any currently-known mods available for this mic? Different
> diaphragm, or different electronics, or turning it into a "t0oB mic", etc? : )

I don't know, but seems to be neither bad enough or good enough to pay
someone to modify. If you were into doing your own mods, you'd have
already disassembled it and either worked something out or given up.
It's worth making a $100 mic into something that sounds like a $100
mic only quieter and maybe a little smoother, but it's not worth
screwing up a $1000 mic, and it's unlikely that you'll make it into
either a better $1000 mic or a $5000 mic. If you don't find it useful,
sell it to someone who does (or at least wants to try it) and buy
something else.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Luke Kaven]

"Ron Charles" <portugal@3web.net> wrote:

>Funny you should ask about a mod for a TLM103, as I just got off the phone
>with Steven Sank and asked him the same question. His answer was a simple
>laugh!!!
>After that call I just decided to sell my matched pair and send Steve the
>funds in exchange for an old RCA BK11.
>RON CHARLES

I asked Stephen Paul about this once in the course of a nine-hour
phone call (of the sort that he's known for). I was trying to explore
the hypothesis that one needn't start out with an expensive mic if
Stephen was going to pretty much "start over" with it anyway. A good
basic slug, a good housing, all made a good start. The rest was
Stephen, and the results would depend upon one's ambition. He said
that he would work on a TLM-103. The one Neumann he said he wouldn't
work on was a TLM-170, which surprised me a bit, since he said he
would take a crack at modifying a Chinese hybrid. Anyway, my point is
here that none of us has undertaken such a thing, and that one ought
to toss the question up to Stephen, who has actually done it.

Luke

[Scott Dorsey]

Luke Kaven <luke@smallsrecords.com> wrote:
>
>I asked Stephen Paul about this once in the course of a nine-hour
>phone call (of the sort that he's known for). I was trying to explore
>the hypothesis that one needn't start out with an expensive mic if
>Stephen was going to pretty much "start over" with it anyway. A good
>basic slug, a good housing, all made a good start. The rest was
>Stephen, and the results would depend upon one's ambition. He said
>that he would work on a TLM-103. The one Neumann he said he wouldn't
>work on was a TLM-170, which surprised me a bit, since he said he
>would take a crack at modifying a Chinese hybrid. Anyway, my point is
>here that none of us has undertaken such a thing, and that one ought
>to toss the question up to Stephen, who has actually done it.


Which Chinese hybrids has he worked on?

The TLM103 electronics actually aren't bad at all, but the front end is
a potted module that you can't really work on, you have to replace it
completely.

The TLM103 capsule could probably use some tweaking, but that would mostly
be subjective stuff.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Buster Mudd]

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<bhc4uo$gab$1@panix2.panix.com>...
>
> I think the whole notion of using a microphone like this on piano is very
> misguided.


Do you mean a large diaphragm condensor in general, or a TLM-103
specifically, or the fact that a large diaphragm condensor when used
on a piano would most likely be close miking the hammers or strings?

[Scott Dorsey]

Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<bhc4uo$gab$1@panix2.panix.com>...
>>
>> I think the whole notion of using a microphone like this on piano is very
>> misguided.
>
>Do you mean a large diaphragm condensor in general, or a TLM-103
>specifically,

Both, pretty much. The large diaphram mikes are generally not a good choice
either for area miking, or for spot-miking when there is a lot of the sound
coming from off-axis. The TLM-103 is better than some large diaphram mikes
about off-axis response, but it's worse than others. And it's got that huge
peaky top end that is definitely not a good thing for a piano tone.

>or the fact that a large diaphragm condensor when used
>on a piano would most likely be close miking the hammers or strings?

Close-miking is fine if you want that sound. Or a mix of close and distant
miking for a very popular jazz sound. But if you close-mike the strings,
you still have a huge amount of stuff coming at the mike from all directions
so off-axis response is a big deal. Even if you select a really tight mike,
you still need a tight mike that isn't honky off-axis.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Luke Kaven]

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Luke Kaven <luke@smallsrecords.com> wrote:
>>
>>I asked Stephen Paul about this once in the course of a nine-hour
>>phone call (of the sort that he's known for). I was trying to explore
>>the hypothesis that one needn't start out with an expensive mic if
>>Stephen was going to pretty much "start over" with it anyway. A good
>>basic slug, a good housing, all made a good start. The rest was
>>Stephen, and the results would depend upon one's ambition. He said
>>that he would work on a TLM-103. The one Neumann he said he wouldn't
>>work on was a TLM-170, which surprised me a bit, since he said he
>>would take a crack at modifying a Chinese hybrid. Anyway, my point is
>>here that none of us has undertaken such a thing, and that one ought
>>to toss the question up to Stephen, who has actually done it.
>
>
>Which Chinese hybrids has he worked on?

He said he would take a crack at it, which left me unsure of whether
he'd actually done it. I was exploring the idea that since SP was
going to do radical surgery anyway, it might not matter so much which
microphone he started with. There is some prestige in having a
"SP-modified U47" to be sure. But I wondered how much of the identity
of a U47 was left when he was finished. I wondered what Stephen could
produce starting with a $500 microphone rather than starting with a
$5000-$6000 microphone.

>The TLM103 electronics actually aren't bad at all, but the front end is
>a potted module that you can't really work on, you have to replace it
>completely.
>
>The TLM103 capsule could probably use some tweaking, but that would mostly
>be subjective stuff.

I think the assumption was that he would build it pretty much from the
ground up. The capsule would be treated pretty much as a slug, and
the electronics would be entirely different.

I'm trying to play havoc with people's notions of whether a "modified
XX microphone" is still in any rational sense an "XX microphone" when
the job is done, like the ship of Theseus. There are at least some
cases where the source microphone is just a housing and a capsule
slug, and the microphone is built up pretty much from scratch, and the
result has no determinate identity. In such cases, it may not matter
very much what you start with (modulo whether the capsule makes a good
enough slug, which isn't a given in Chinese hybrids), and one may as
well start with something relatively inexpensive. This is why the
TLM-103 (or perhaps now the new multipattern cousin) seemed worth
considering as a starting point.

Luke

[Ty Ford]

In Article <20030812205411.24610.00001472@mb-m28.news.cs.com>,
neilh011@cs.com (NeilH011) wrote:
>The recent TLM-103 thread started me wondering, so here it is:
>I have a TLM-103, and I think it's "okay". Nothing special, but it doesn't
>really suck, either; so my questions are:
>
>1.) Are there any currently-known mods available for this mic? Different
>diaphragm, or different electronics, or turning it into a "t0oB mic", etc? : )

My advice; buy your tube mic and sell the 103 if it doesn't float your boat.

>2.) If, so are any of those modifications capable of transforming this mic from
>something I might think is "okay" to something I might think is ultra-cool &
>has some degree of unique character (realizing, of course that both
>'ultra-cool' and 'unique character' might have different meanings for different
>people.

?

>3.) If so, is it even worth modding at it's price point, or not really?
>
>I'm open to uses - IOW if you know of a mod that would make this thing killer
>on piano, for example, then let's hear about it... vocals, same thing... banjo,
>keep it to yourself : )
>
>NeilH

My question is, what do you have it plugged into that it doesn't sound special.

Regards,

Ty Ford


For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Mike Rivers]

In article <j0ukjv0a4l6osvds44q4vgu4mprcj76ilh@4ax.com> luke@smallsrecords.com writes:

> I think the assumption was that he would build it pretty much from the
> ground up. The capsule would be treated pretty much as a slug, and
> the electronics would be entirely different.

Stephen Paul is working with the Studio Projects folks now on building
a microphone from the ground up. It will be based on Stephen's design,
construction, and manufacturing ideas. Last I heard, they're hoping to
have something to show, probably a hand made rather than factory made
prototype, at the AES show in October.

I believe it was Harvey who got Stephen somewhat curious about
reworking a modern Chinese mic from one of today's popular sources,
but I don't think anything ever came of it. He got a better offer (to
be the designer rather than the fixer). It should be interesting.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[NeilH011]

>It is a pretty smooth mic. Isn't tweekee in the
>upper mids (pre eq'd) like a lot of cheaper mics are.

Yeah, I'm not looking for the C-1 sound, so that's not my objection to the mic
- in fact, I don't really have any objections to it other than the fact that
it's a fairly plain-jane mic, IMO. Not that that's a bad thing, and maybe it IS
the pre (right now I only have a couple of Grace101's & a JoeMeek VCQ).

> Next best thing to having a u87, or u67 at a fraction of the price.

See, to me the -87 has a bit more character than the -103... and the only -67
I've used belongs to a friend of mine and it's not stock, it's got some kind of
Stephen Paul mod... it sounds fan-freakin'-tastic, and I wouldn't expect a 103
to get to that level even if modded, but like I said, I thought it wouldn't
hurt to ask.

Neil

[NeilH011]

>My question is, what do you have it plugged into that it doesn't sound
>special.

Either a Grace 101 or Joe Meek VCQ, that's all I have at this moment & haven't
had the opportunity yet to try it through anything else.

Neil

[Luke Kaven]

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote
luke@smallsrecords.com writes:
>
> > I think the assumption was that he would build it pretty much from the
> > ground up. The capsule would be treated pretty much as a slug, and
> > the electronics would be entirely different.
>
> Stephen Paul is working with the Studio Projects folks now on building
> a microphone from the ground up. It will be based on Stephen's design,
> construction, and manufacturing ideas. Last I heard, they're hoping to
> have something to show, probably a hand made rather than factory made
> prototype, at the AES show in October.
>
> I believe it was Harvey who got Stephen somewhat curious about
> reworking a modern Chinese mic from one of today's popular sources,
> but I don't think anything ever came of it. He got a better offer (to
> be the designer rather than the fixer). It should be interesting.

Thanks for adding that in. I've been following the progress on this
project in the PMI forum at recording.org, where Stephen always seems
to be just departing or arriving depending upon how you look at it. I
think Harvey Gerst spent an evening on the phone with him just
recently (for anyone who talks to him, you might as well make an
evening of it) and got some information on the latest developments,
though he's probably sworn to secrecy.

If I understand the latest developments, they are getting some blanks
manufactured in China, and perhaps other things like housings and
grillwork. But they seem to have decided that the precision machining
had to be done over here, and that is likely to drive the cost up to
$2000+. So that falls somewhere in the realm of what we've been
talking about. Stephen seems to think this is a "no compromise"
design (in practical terms, I guess), intended to introduce some new
concepts and compete with anything. I'm glad someone finally got him
the capital to pursue a project like this, long overdue. [Thanks Alan
Hyatt, et al.] I know we're all going to want to try this one out.

Luke

[Paul]

> From: neilh011@cs.com (NeilH011)
> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Date: 14 Aug 2003 01:00:29 GMT
> Subject: Re: TLM-103 - Sell it off or modify it?
>
>> It is a pretty smooth mic. Isn't tweekee in the
>> upper mids (pre eq'd) like a lot of cheaper mics are.
>
> Yeah, I'm not looking for the C-1 sound, so that's not my objection to the mic
> - in fact, I don't really have any objections to it other than the fact that
> it's a fairly plain-jane mic, IMO. Not that that's a bad thing, and maybe it
> IS
> the pre (right now I only have a couple of Grace101's & a JoeMeek VCQ).
>
>> Next best thing to having a u87, or u67 at a fraction of the price.
>
> See, to me the -87 has a bit more character than the -103... and the only -67
> I've used belongs to a friend of mine and it's not stock, it's got some kind
> of
> Stephen Paul mod... it sounds fan-freakin'-tastic, and I wouldn't expect a 103
> to get to that level even if modded, but like I said, I thought it wouldn't
> hurt to ask.
>
> Neil

Well, you have good taste then. So you're into the sound of a thinner
capsule. It tends to make the top end shine in a different way. I'm not
familiar with the sound of the grace or the meek, so we have no basis for
comparison. Recently, I did a mic comparison with different mic pres for a
friend who wanted to upgrade his setup. I arrived at the 103 and the avalon.
i thought, hey this isnt bad at all. The class 'a' ness of the avalon and
the tubes really made the thing come to life. It had a really nice airy top
end and lots of body, and that was before adding eq. Easy on the esses too.
Now based on the mic mod stuff you mentioned, you might try a c12, or some
other akg. It is a different character all together.

A substantial mic mod is gonna be the capsule, and not a cheap choice. Other
than that, what do i wish the 103 had? a pad and a roll off.

Paul

[Ty Ford]

In Article <20030813210206.06077.00001553@mb-m03.news.cs.com>,
neilh011@cs.com (NeilH011) wrote:
>>My question is, what do you have it plugged into that it doesn't sound
>>special.
>
>Either a Grace 101 or Joe Meek VCQ, that's all I have at this moment & haven't
>had the opportunity yet to try it through anything else.
>
>Neil


You and I have different expectations. What I'm usually looking for is a
recording that doesn't sound like a recording. The TLM 103 does a very good
job of that.


Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Ty Ford <tford@jagunet.com> wrote:

> In Article <20030813210206.06077.00001553@mb-m03.news.cs.com>,
> neilh011@cs.com (NeilH011) wrote:

> >>My question is, what do you have it plugged into that it doesn't sound
> >>special.

> >Either a Grace 101 or Joe Meek VCQ, that's all I have at this moment &
> >haven't had the opportunity yet to try it through anything else.

> You and I have different expectations. What I'm usually looking for is a
> recording that doesn't sound like a recording. The TLM 103 does a very good
> job of that.

And that Grace with the mic ought to do that well. Neil might appreciate
the cuts Harvey put into one of the RAP CD's that use the TLM103 for
lots of stuff, very effectively.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Harvey Gerst]

walkinay@thegrid.net (LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:

>And that Grace with the mic ought to do that well. Neil might appreciate
>the cuts Harvey put into one of the RAP CD's that use the TLM103 for
>lots of stuff, very effectively.

That was the very first r.a.p. CD set. The track was "Not At Home On The
Range", and I did it because we were getting a ton of questions here at
rec.audio.pro about the new (then) TLM103 about how it sounded. So I used it on
that track to record everything acoustic (guitars, mandolin, fiddle, vocals, and
backup vocals). I thought it turned out pretty damn nice.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:

> That was the very first r.a.p. CD set. The track was "Not At Home On The
> Range", and I did it because we were getting a ton of questions here at
> rec.audio.pro about the new (then) TLM103 about how it sounded. So I used
> it on that track to record everything acoustic (guitars, mandolin, fiddle,
> vocals, and backup vocals). I thought it turned out pretty damn nice.

I agree, even if you do say so myself.

--
ha

[R Krizman]

<< I think a better move would be to investigate a good mic pre eq compressor
chain. >>

I've said this before, and I'm really not a shill for the company, but the
Phoenx Audio DRS-2 turned my 103 into a very useable, and at times wonderful,
tool.

-R

[Harvey Gerst]

walkinay@thegrid.net (LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:

>Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>> That was the very first r.a.p. CD set. The track was "Not At Home On The
>> Range", and I did it because we were getting a ton of questions here at
>> rec.audio.pro about the new (then) TLM103 about how it sounded. So I used
>> it on that track to record everything acoustic (guitars, mandolin, fiddle,
>> vocals, and backup vocals). I thought it turned out pretty damn nice.

>I agree, even if you do say so myself.

Yup, and my "production" pissed off everybody in the band so badly, they
insisted that my son Alex produce their next session (and he did a great job).
But, the album I produced outsold the new one by a very wide margin (something
like 20:1).

That's such a cool feeling; when a band doesn't wanna use you again, and their
next album flops, big time.

Much better than saying "**** you".

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[Keith W Blackwell]

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<bhdlk1$ddn$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> ... The TLM-103 is better than some large diaphram mikes
> about off-axis response, but it's worse than others. And it's got that huge
> peaky top end that is definitely not a good thing for a piano tone.

Did you find the TLM-103 to be "not a good thing"
for the piano tone in my submission to RAP5?
(that's disk 1, track 1, of A Fifth of R.A.P.)
If you dislike the sound, it might be due to any
number of other factors. Just curious.


--
Keith W Blackwell

[Ty Ford]

In Article <69257007.0308142139.15d14df9@posting.google.com>,
keith.blackwell@homemail.com (Keith W Blackwell) wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
news:<bhdlk1$ddn$1@panix2.panix.com>...
>> ... The TLM-103 is better than some large diaphram mikes
>> about off-axis response, but it's worse than others. And it's got that huge
>> peaky top end that is definitely not a good thing for a piano tone.
>
>Did you find the TLM-103 to be "not a good thing"
>for the piano tone in my submission to RAP5?
>(that's disk 1, track 1, of A Fifth of R.A.P.)
>If you dislike the sound, it might be due to any
>number of other factors. Just curious.
>
>
>--
>Keith W Blackwell


On RAP 3 Times (CD#2, cut 10) I used two TLM 103 in coinicident XY to record
a madrigal group in a large church. Coincident XY is often frowned on for LD
capsules in this application. The off-axis sound of the TLM 103 is a lot
smoother than other LD condensers; I think perhaps becuase of the
construction of the headgrille. They worked very nicely.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Jay Kahrs]

>Either a Grace 101 or Joe Meek VCQ, that's all I have at this moment &
>haven't
>had the opportunity yet to try it through anything else.

I usually have my TLM 103's going to either a PV VMP-2 or an OSA MP-1a. On
overheads it's Telefunken V672's. Anything else doesn't sound "right" for lack
of a better term. They sound downright bad with 1272's IMHO. YMMV on that
pairing.

---
-Jay Kahrs
Owner - Chief Engineer
Mad Moose Recording Inc.
Morris Plains, NJ
http://www.madmooserecording.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Come visit me here --> http://www.gear****z.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith W Blackwell <keith.blackwell@homemail.com> wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<bhdlk1$ddn$1@panix2.panix.com>...
>> ... The TLM-103 is better than some large diaphram mikes
>> about off-axis response, but it's worse than others. And it's got that huge
>> peaky top end that is definitely not a good thing for a piano tone.
>
>Did you find the TLM-103 to be "not a good thing"
>for the piano tone in my submission to RAP5?
>(that's disk 1, track 1, of A Fifth of R.A.P.)

It's a really scooped-out sort of sound... very tinkly and without much
upper midrange at all, also very close. In the beginning of the cut, it
doesn't sound right at all, but then when the harmonica comes in, it works
well because it doesn't interfere much with the sound of the harmonica.

But alone, it doesn't sound like a real piano.

>If you dislike the sound, it might be due to any
>number of other factors. Just curious.

The sound works in the cut, but if it were a solo piano piece, or one
where the piano was central to everything, it might not. Then again,
though, I am very picky about pianos.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith W Blackwell]

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<bimano$a5h$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> Keith W Blackwell <keith.blackwell@homemail.com> wrote:
> >Did you find the TLM-103 to be "not a good thing"
> >for the piano tone in my submission to RAP5?
>
> It's a really scooped-out sort of sound... very tinkly and without much
> upper midrange at all, also very close. In the beginning of the cut, it
> doesn't sound right at all, but then when the harmonica comes in, it works
> well because it doesn't interfere much with the sound of the harmonica.
>
> But alone, it doesn't sound like a real piano.

Thanks for that feedback. When you say "upper midrange", do you
mean something around 1kHz, or more like 3kHz? I'm sure I did
raise the upper high-end on the piano to give it more definition.
As for EQ to help fit the tracks together, I do remember using what
I thought was very slight EQ to help, but I am no longer sure
if that was just the bando and violin, or if it also
included the piano. Hmmm... maybe a drop by about 1 dB or so
with Q of about 2 or slightly less, just guessing from very
scrambled memory. But I would think I did that in the 600Hz
range to make room for warming up the violin rather than in
the 3KHz range to make room for the ice-picks of the bando.

> >If you dislike the sound, it might be due to any
> >number of other factors. Just curious.
>
> The sound works in the cut, but if it were a solo piano piece, or one
> where the piano was central to everything, it might not. Then again,
> though, I am very picky about pianos.
> --scott

Whew! I'm sure I would've done this very differently
if it had different instruments or a solo cut (even just
if had not had the bando, which had such an impact on
everything). The facility now has some additional mics
in the closet, including Royer R121's and SF12 along
with Earthworks QTC's, not to mention much better mic pres,
all of which change the possibilities in future recordings.
Unfortunately, I haven't yet had an opportunity to mix any
of the tracks I've helped record there with the newer gear.

In any case, I'll listen to the Milonga del Angel mix again
and listen for what you're talking about here. It will
probably jump out and seem obvious now that you've told me
about it. :-)


Thanks again,
--
Keith W Blackwell