TLM193

[telejustin]

The 193's are a neutral mic, and I'd agree they have a similar vibe to 170's.

Basically I think it comes down to the fact that the rockers hate 'em because they're boring, and the guys doing jazz and classical dates dig 'em because they don't have any character.

I'm a person who used to make most of my living with classical and jazz work, and I used 193's all the time. Now doing mostly rock/pop, I'd be less likely to buy a pair, but would find use for them. Not a good lead vocal mic, but cool for VO's that you want to sound like public radio.

Justin

[Full Clip Audio]

Originally Posted by 666666

Possible!

Honestly, the KM-184s are not my first choice for overheads, I'm digging Schoeps MK-4s these days, but I would not hesitate to use KM-184s on OH if I wanted that 184 character... which could be cool depending on the tune / production. The KMs are probably the most colored SDCs I'd use... but that's just me. Many others would probably consider the KMs as not colored enough. It's all good, just depends on what you want to hear. We all have our preferences.

I've read reviews of the classic KM-84s... and to me, the 184s sound the way the 84s are described in reviews... even though many folks here say the 184s are way worse and sound harsh by comparison, etc. I never heard a classic 84, but if it's noticeably more colored than a newer 184, it must be an extremely colored mic. Perhaps the 184 does have the 84 color but just not as extreme...?... and thus to 84 lovers, it is "harsh" by comparison...??? Just speculating. If this is so, then the 184 is perfect for me because I do not like extreme color in a mic.

It's all good - Cheers!

Yeah, i'm not sure what was up. On overheads they were EXTREMELY harsh and brittle sounding. They had a bit f what you would get if you distorted something through a really cheap desk. I tried many pres and placements and got the same results over and over. They could have been a bad pair but I have also heard other people say similar things so who knows. All I know is that I replaced them with a pair of Earthworks and I couldnt be happier!

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by malice

Then name them. You got my attention now...

Can you tell us about what they tracked with it and on what album ?

Why undigging a four years old thread about the tlm 193 with very little infos and above all, very little interest at the time from other posters, really ?

Instead, you should have started a fresh thread like :

<insert famous Engineer/Producer name> loves tlm193 !

How about that ?

malice

OK - no Idea why this thread came to the top page of unread threads yesterday - I certainly did not "dig it up" and considered it a current thread.

Maybe a glitch in the system, or someone posted a reply and then deleted it.

The top engineers I was referring to are Tony Faulkner and Iestyn Rees, for a couple - they are classical engineers.

I have heard this from others too - just because it does not suit *you* does not mean it's not superb for others.


I think telejustin has hit the nail on the head for this one.

Originally Posted by telejustin

The 193's are a neutral mic, and I'd agree they have a similar vibe to 170's.

Basically I think it comes down to the fact that the rockers hate 'em because they're boring, and the guys doing jazz and classical dates dig 'em because they don't have any character.

I'm a person who used to make most of my living with classical and jazz work, and I used 193's all the time. Now doing mostly rock/pop, I'd be less likely to buy a pair, but would find use for them. Not a good lead vocal mic, but cool for VO's that you want to sound like public radio.

Justin

[jnorman]

well guys - the tlm193 is not exactly designed to be a rock vocal mic, and regualrly disappoints those who purchase it for that kind of application. the 193, OTOH, is an excellent mic for classical instruments and applications. it is very popular among engineers who specialise in chamber music as a ORTF main pair for small ensembles, string quartets, etc, and is a fabulous spot mic for winds, strings, horns, etc. it is good at these applications because it has no high end hype - the very thing that rock/pop folks dont seem to like becasue they think that means the mic has no "character". choose your tools according to your application. fletcher, i am sure, knows everything i just said - he is reacting from his personal application perspective.

[yakko]

summary: tlm193 is a great instrument! microphone.

[Duardo]

Yeah, I think I've seen the TLM193 in front of the brass section on Conan O'Brien from time to time...seems like they switch things around a lot there...

Not long ago I did a shoot-out with KM-184s and a bunch of other top-end SDCs... the KM-184s indeed had their own unique character, great on some things, not as good at other things, but were in NO WAY "dog shit". They're way better than folks around here would have you believe.

I think a lot of that is people who are used to the KM84. I've used both and don't have a problem with either, but they do sound quite different...

[macleodgrant]

i love my KM184 stereo set. i get some amazing stereo acoustic guitar recordings with them. they're ok for overheads but i'm investing in a pair of ribbon mics for overheads instead - a bit smoother

[Miguelo Adorno]

Ok, seems like this is the most "boring" mic ever, but I may have a chance to get one... so...

How does this mic take eq? And how does it take tube pres, for example solo 610, driven to give it some character?

I do mainly rock and and the idea of a harshness taming LDC in front of a guitar cab catched my interest. And I did recently a record with a female vocalist with quite harsh highs, so could this mic be used to get that kind of vocal sound sit better?

[John Willett]

The TLM 193 is like a TLM 170 but cardioid only.

It does not have the upper frequency boost that most vocal mics do.

It's great for instruments or for vocals when you need a "darker" sound without the treble boost.

I hope this helps.

[Karloff70]

Not a good lead vocal mic? Perhaps. I do remember recording some hip hop using it for rapping and soul diva blocks in mid 90's and REALLY liking the results though.........could this be another case of the mad allocation of mics and pres and such to very specific tasks today....when a quality tool actually will do a LOT of things well in the right hands. I don't think I'd feel worried doing vocals with one of these today either........just a thought of perspective, as the differences people speak of when they say "good for lead" etc...are sometimes so small (even IF real) that compared to the operator using the tools the best possible way it pales into utter insignificance.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by John Willett

The TLM 193 is like a TLM 170 but cardioid only.

It does not have the upper frequency boost that most vocal mics do.

It's great for instruments or for vocals when you need a "darker" sound without the treble boost.

I hope this helps.

= to my taste qualifies as a nice vocal mic

Many Verve/Ashcroft vocals were 170....sound extremely boring, don't they? lol

[Miguelo Adorno]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

= to my taste qualifies as a nice vocal mic

Many Verve/Ashcroft vocals were 170....sound extremely boring, don't they? lol

Well, I remember using TLM170 for vocals several times couple of years ago and liking it a lot. Maybe I'll give 193 a shot then.

[Oscar G. Hinde]

This thread is like the Fenix! It rises from it's ashes again and again.

I've used the 193 quite a lot because it was one of the main mics used at the broadcast studios at Radio Nacional de España, where I used to work. I didn't find them offensive as some people here seem to do (although I must say I laughed my ass off with Fletcher's remarks). I did use a number of them on a renaissance chamber music quartet on a couple of ocasions for live broadcast and they worked just fine. I even got kudos on the overall sound from my boss!

[littledog]

Odd that this should show up, as I don't use the 193 all that much, but I just used it yesterday on a session with lots of horns, and sort of ran out of other mics. Ended up putting it on a bass clarinet - and thought it sounded great on that.

With most mic selection questions, it usually comes down to "as compared to what else is available". If one has a huge locker full of Schoeps, vintage Neumanns and Gefells, etc. - then it might be a rare day when one would pull out the 193. But if your choices were more along the lines of a newer 414, a Shure KSM32, or any number of Chinese mics... well, I might end up reaching for the 193 quite a bit.

Bottom line is that I would never lump the 193 into "total garbage" category (like the AKGC1000). But how often I used it would totally depend on how many other choices I had.

[bass man]

WTF is this!?!? Tlm 193 worse LD mic ?! KM 184 piece of shit ?! TLM 170 also not good or what ?!

Are you guys on some new drugs or what ???!!!!

This forum is getting more and more sick every day

[johnnyjellybean]

I don't understand why the 193 gets dissed so much here. It's a great mic on acoustic guitar. In fact I have 2 really good 70s vintage 87's but when it comes to acoustic guitar, I reach for the 193 first. I wouldn't even bother trying it on vocals but for acoustic strings, it works great .

[clearwave]

The top end isn't hyped, the bottom is boring, the mids are rich. I like it on strings and woodwinds. It's a great sax mic.

[666666]

Originally Posted by Miguelo Adorno

I do mainly rock and and the idea of a harshness taming LDC in front of a guitar cab catched my interest....

I would not consider the TLM193 a "harshness-tamer". It's quite "accurate" in general. If there is harshness in the source, the 193 will pick it up.

If you have "harshness" problems, you need to look at your SOURCE (and/or mic placement).

The great part is, if you get your SOURCE to sound great, the TLM193 will pick it up VERY nicely. In my opinion, this is how you make a great recording.

I think a lot of folks do not favor the 193 because it is indeed very HONEST... and a lot of folks out there just aren't making great sounds. A 193 will not flatter a poor sound, but will expose it for what it is.

By comparison, a colored / hyped mic may "flatter" a less than excellent source sound, but in my opinion, this is somewhat of a "lazy-man's" way of dealing with source problems. This is like cooking up a poor tasting meal, and then sprinkling a lot of salt or spice on it trying to make it taste better.

Finally, everyone has their own methods, but, if you ARE making GREAT source sounds, you will like the TML193. A TLM193 will represent all the greatness of a great source.

[mark007]

If ever some users are thinking of using tlm193 for VO applications - for whatever it's worth (and if i'm not mistaken) all voiceovers for The Family Guy are recorded with it.

[keano]

I had same question Mr. 666666 is the 193 same as 170 in cardioid mode. I always wanted a 170 because I fricking love the vocals on every record the Verve and Richard Ashcroft did. It is upfront and just full. I find a lot of new mics I have tried have a harsh top end or peaky where I would like to add that myself. Just sold a Kiwi. Nice and detailed. But not what I was looking for. I have a Peluso 2247 for most stuff.

Here Chris (engineer)responds about using the 170
Verve & Richard Ashcroft vocal tones..

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by keano

I had same question Mr. 666666 is the 193 same as 170 in cardioid mode.

Yes - same capsule, same frequency response and both TLM.

If you want to be *absolutely* certain, post the question on the Neumann pin-board HERE.

[keano]

Thanks John

Seems responses over there are the same
http://www.neumann.com/forums/view.p...key=1145520525