LDCish mic for tenor

[dhmaya]

For location recordings of a tenor with a book ranging from art song through show tunes to ballads, I'm looking for a low-noise, low-color mic. Considering:

TLM193
U89
Milab VIP50
Milab 196 or 96
JZ Black Hole

Mics I've tried with him:

U87 – lost the special quality of his mid-range
AT 40450 – too edgy on top
TLM193 – close but wondering if something else would have a little more life (is it the smaller diaphragm?)

Thanks for any thoughts.....

[hbphotoav]

Might just be that the 193 is just... flat. As in, no hype. Whatever's there is there, with a nice, smooth, reasonably flat, off-axis response as well. I've heard U89s in a vocal role and like them. But, then, it was a live show, tracked, and they were running through Gordons. What's not to like?

If it's some kind of mojo you're looking for... there are a lot of choices. Only your ears, and those of your tenor, can tell you what's "right". I'm considering having a Joly-mod done to one of my three NT1s. I don't hate them, still use them on sources where their HF sizzle either helps, or doesn't matter (not usually vocals), and think the $385-ish cost to mod one of my $179 mics (purchased in 2002) into a Neumann challenger vox mic might be a good gamble to attain a bit of mojo.

Of course, then my transparent, non-mojo-esque Apogee and DAV mic amps might also need a new companion...

[Plush]

Any microphone will work since it's the sound of the singer that is being picked up. The microphone is not making the sound.

[dhmaya]

Harry, what does the U89 bring that's different from the 193 sound-wise? Assuming the 89 is in cardioid.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by Plush

Any microphone will work since it's the sound of the singer that is being picked up. The microphone is not making the sound.

Please forgive me if this was intended as a bit of humor or something, my irony meter is broken from too much exposure to US politics. But are you saying that the microphone makes no difference while in other threads you've insisted that the mic preamp and a/d converter make a vast difference?

Fran

[binarymilton]

I'm liking the AKGC414B XLii on my own (tenor) voice at the moment. In cardioid mode, pretty close (milking the proximity effect).

[Plush]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Please forgive me if this was intended as a bit of humor or something, my irony meter is broken from too much exposure to US politics. But are you saying that the microphone makes no difference while in other threads you've insisted that the mic preamp and a/d converter make a vast difference?

Fran

No, I'm not joking. The quality microphone that accurately picks up the sound of the source is not making the sound. The singer or instrument is making the sound. Think about it and it becomes obvious.

[edva]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Please forgive me if this was intended as a bit of humor or something, my irony meter is broken from too much exposure to US politics. But are you saying that the microphone makes no difference while in other threads you've insisted that the mic preamp and a/d converter make a vast difference?

Fran

The microphone makes a difference. Not as much as the source, obviously, but certainly a difference. I found this comment odd also.

[dhmaya]

Plush, I'm looking for that "quality microphone that accurately picks up the sound of the source." No hype, just the source. Are you saying that any of the ones on my list fit the bill?

And speaking of the list: add the Pearl cc22

Anybody able to compare these Swedish mics with the rectangular transducers to the 193/u89 mics?

Originally Posted by Plush

No, I'm not joking. The quality microphone that accurately picks up the sound of the source is not making the sound. The singer or instrument is making the sound. Think about it and it becomes obvious.

[nkf]

Originally Posted by Plush

No, I'm not joking. The quality microphone that accurately picks up the sound of the source is not making the sound. The singer or instrument is making the sound. Think about it and it becomes obvious.

The problem with all generalizations is the amount of inherent precision and the reference system. Every microphone 'filters' the sound coming from a performer, it depends on how much this coloration is 'seen' as such. It would be naive to think about 'accurately' as something being easily described.
I'm absolutely into transparent, accurate microphones but know the difference in sound they have. For example a DPA 4015 with a clean preamp like Grace Design sounds different than a Neumann d-01 in a wide cardioid setting but both are seen as quite 'accurate' microphones. So ... there is a difference and if these (fine) distinctions make a difference for someones hearing and the final products depends on artistically decisions and the ability to hear those differences.

[hbphotoav]

Originally Posted by dhmaya

Harry, what does the U89 bring that's different from the 193 sound-wise? Assuming the 89 is in cardioid.

In my particular situation (two different years of a live, tracked, annual benefit concert in the same venue, inputs fed both to house PA and recorder) not a lot, to my ears. Both were open, accurate transducers... both/either were much preferred to the SM58s used one year for vocals at the same gig (the U89s were not available, and I didn't yet own my 193s). I don't work with U89s regularly (three times in the past four years, one of those assisting the owner on a live alt bluegrass date) and am satisfied entirely well enough with my 193s that I won't be pricing any in the near future.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by dhmaya

For location recordings of a tenor with a book ranging from art song through show tunes to ballads, I'm looking for a low-noise, low-color mic. Considering:

TLM193
U89
Milab VIP50
Milab 196 or 96
JZ Black Hole

Mics I've tried with him:

U87 – lost the special quality of his mid-range
AT 40450 – too edgy on top
TLM193 – close but wondering if something else would have a little more life (is it the smaller diaphragm?)

Thanks for any thoughts.....

I think all these, maybe except Black Hole is worth trying [all samples I have heard of BH suggested it's a little hard on top, that said I haven't tried it myself]. I have both the Milabs [196+96C] they are great un-hyped microphones in my opinon.

::
Mads

[Baithak]

Dear dhmaya :

CC-22 is an excellent low/no-hype choice.

But since you were dissatisfied with the Neuman's U87 / 193 may I suggest you try a Sanken CU-44 MKII. It is an expensive mic (more so with the rise of the Yen) and seemingly not much used by folks here but I have obtained excellent results with this mic from a variety of "rich" voices.

The other suggestion is a dynamic one : the RE-20. especially given that it is a "location recording" and the CU-44 does tend to pick up the room so if you don't have a good space, it will show in the result.

Best wishes and I hope you will share the result of your discoveries.

Baithak

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Plush

Any microphone will work since it's the sound of the singer that is being picked up. The microphone is not making the sound.

As you know sir, I appreciate your input, but statements like that coming from experienced professionals still puzzle me.

Didn't you on one occasion describe the Sennheiser MKH8020 use for piano in very poetic words - how they bring the "bronze" of the strings out, etc. And that they have nice reach to the back of orchestra, but you chose Neumann M50 after all on one particular occasion, because you wanted more "oomph"... Don't such descriptions and opinion about "what makes a sound" of a recording contradict each other?

I mean the posts that I find useful to get and idea about a certain mic re-action in real life scenarios:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3609715-post5.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1747709-post82.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1751259-post86.html

Of course the microphone is not making the actual sound in space, but it sure does contribute to the sound on a recording -it is capturing the sound. And as we know different mics do that in very different manners as also you so eloquently describe in many posts, why confuse things with arbitrarily saying that any mic will do on this occasion, but going into details why you chose a particular mic on another occasion?
It puzzles me.
I regard mics as lenses - they don't make the actual scene in nature/studio, but they translate/capture it on the photo... And if you ask any photographer he would certainly go into great detail what you can achieve with each particular lens and which are the most appropriate for certain tasks. They wouldn't say - any lens would do to photograph your portrait, it is your face after all, the lens is not making your appearance.

Anyway OP - a pair of (not LDCish though) Schoeps MK41 for Bocelli and Pavarotti seemed to do the trick well.

I don't know Milab mics, but my collegues have a U89 and it is a very fine mic for anything. Also any kind of vocals. So I would try that one first if that's at hand.

[pkautzsch]

If you want un-colored sound, why don't you think about SDC?
Again, matter of taste between Neumann, Schoeps, Sennheiser, DPA, or cheaper brands. Mostly matter of taste. Have done things like that with just a Neumann 185, and some EQ for "show" tunes.
TLM 193, U 89, and TLM 170 use the same capsule (89 and 170 using two back-to-back, basically). U 89 has a transformer which might add a little bit of color to high SPL parts.

[dhmaya]

Thanks for all the thoughtful and helpful responses. Harry, I found a post of Didier's that took me to Neumann's support site message from Martin Schneider, the Neumann tech guy. He said he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an 89 and a tlm170 on a recording. That's good corroboration for what you're saying.

Baithak – thanks for the tips re: Sanken & the RE20. The Sanken looks wonderful but probably a little steep in price for me right now. I'll keep an ear out for a chance to audition one though. The RE20 suggestion is very interesting! I have a bag full of RE15s and have used them on rock'n'roll drum kits and backup singers. I've heard that the 20s are in a different league but of course always associate them with VO and radio. I would guess that they share the 15s near immunity to proximity effect.

I appreciate the SDC suggestions though I've never been crazy about them for vocals. Now that I think about it, I did put a DPA mic up in a session with this guy. I think it was a 4011. It was nice but was a little dry emotionally – probably missing the room and it might be better for vocals in a good hall with a long reverb.

Anyway, thanks to all for the comments – keep them coming!

[hbphotoav]

No worries... just remember that if this is on-stage, the RE20 is one butt-ugly mic so far as sightline and camera visuals are concerned. It is a mic truly made for radio, in that respect. The 193/170/U89 look is just about as obtrusive... but, dang... do they look sexy on a nice suspension system. Even non-audio types seem to know it's a "real" microphone, and not a piece of pipe on a stick. You might, as long as you're checking stuff out, listen to Neumann KMS104/105, Shure KSM9, Audix VX-10 and their ilk. Shoot, you might even look at one of the smoother SDC cards (Gefell M295, Sennheiser MKH 40, Schoeps) with a good foam filter. Lots of choices, for sure.

Let us know how it comes out.

HB

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by hbphotoav

No worries... just remember that if this is on-stage, the RE20 is one butt-ugly mic so far as sightline and camera visuals are concerned.

Weeell... depending on the concept and context. It can look rather cool and sexy, too...

[DVD] Radiohead - From The Basement 2008 [Full Show] - YouTube

And those Coles on the cymbals - ugly or cool? I vote for the latter.

[John Willett]

The Gefell UMT 70S may also be worth trying.

A mic. That often gets forgotten and is also affordable.

[hbphotoav]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Weeell... depending on the concept and context. It can look rather cool and sexy, too...

[DVD] Radiohead - From The Basement 2008 [Full Show] - YouTube

And those Coles on the cymbals - ugly or cool? I vote for the latter.

Definitely sounded better when he took his hand off it... kinda strangled with both paws wrapped around all that porting. And it IS a basement... retro-industrial fits the scene. As to the Coles... always cool...

[jnorman]

i was just in the market for a new neutral spot mic like this. i came very close to picking up a tlm193, which i think is a fantastic mic for almost any acoustic source, but wound up going with an AKG C414B-ULS due to its multi-pattern capability. i really like this mic - very flat response, with a big open sound - just what i wanted.

[rumleymusic]

The Gefell UMT 70S may also be worth trying.

I was going to say that myself. Or the M1030 perhaps.

[Baithak]

Originally Posted by dhmaya

Baithak – thanks for the tips re: Sanken & the RE20. ... I'll keep an ear out for a chance to audition one though. The RE20 suggestion is very interesting! I have a bag full of RE15s and have used them on rock'n'roll drum kits and backup singers. ...

You are welcome.

Now that EV no longer makes the RE-15 (or for that matter the RE-10) as you know, so I have had to make do with the RE-16 ...

I think the critical issue is here is not so much the on-Axis response but the off-axis response of the mic. Most LDCs have off-axis coloration which I find unpleasant especially if the singer is moving around. I have liked Fig-8 mics especially ribbons because they have great off-axis responses.

So coming to your particular issue, the Schoeps MK41 capsule idea is actually a pretty good one; the bass will need eq - almost exactly like if you used the RE-15/16 instead of the RE20 - but it has stellar off-axis response. It does have a pronounced proximity effect but if you can get your singer to be about 18 inches or so out, the results will be ultra-realistic. Among the LDCs that I have heard, I have yet to hear anything like the CU-44 for realism.

I haven't dug into the Gefel mics as much - only their MDC cardiod - suffice it to say that the sequence of use is MK41 -> CU-44 -> Senn MD 441 -> Pearl CC-22 -> Gefell. I have the DPA 4011 and except for occasional percussion duties, it hardly ever comes out of the box.

Best wishes once again
Baithak

[MichaelPatrick]

I just recorded a countertenor with Schoeps MK22 / MK8 in MS. Worked great! There's no ugly off-axis coloration.

I think it would be hard for even a world-class LDC to improve on the natural sounding detail and air this combo captures so effortlessly.

[dhmaya]

Baithak, thanks for continuing the discussion. I just re-read your first post and before following up on the MK41, let me ask about your thinking when you wrote:


"CC-22 is an excellent low/no-hype choice.

But since you were dissatisfied with the Neuman's U87 / 193 may I suggest you try a Sanken CU-44 MKII"

You seem to be saying that the CC-22 is close to the 193/U89/170 & that if I don't care for the 193, then the CC-22 wouldn't be the answer I'm looking for. I might be over-reading you there & would appreciate your feedback.

Re: the MK41 – I have always thought of this as a dialogue mic and don't think I have ever tried a supercard with a singer but I can imagine how the clarity of the midrange would be something special. How do you position it – 18" out at what level/angle? Or is it entirely room/singer dependent?

It certainly is closer to my wallet than the Sanken!

Re: the Gefells, I've always put them in the colored mic category – maybe not so with the transformerless mic amps?

Thanks all!

Originally Posted by Baithak

You are welcome.

Now that EV no longer makes the RE-15 (or for that matter the RE-10) as you know, so I have had to make do with the RE-16 ...

I think the critical issue is here is not so much the on-Axis response but the off-axis response of the mic. Most LDCs have off-axis coloration which I find unpleasant especially if the singer is moving around. I have liked Fig-8 mics especially ribbons because they have great off-axis responses.

So coming to your particular issue, the Schoeps MK41 capsule idea is actually a pretty good one; the bass will need eq - almost exactly like if you used the RE-15/16 instead of the RE20 - but it has stellar off-axis response. It does have a pronounced proximity effect but if you can get your singer to be about 18 inches or so out, the results will be ultra-realistic. Among the LDCs that I have heard, I have yet to hear anything like the CU-44 for realism.

I haven't dug into the Gefel mics as much - only their MDC cardiod - suffice it to say that the sequence of use is MK41 -> CU-44 -> Senn MD 441 -> Pearl CC-22 -> Gefell. I have the DPA 4011 and except for occasional percussion duties, it hardly ever comes out of the box.

Best wishes once again
Baithak

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by dhmaya

Re: the MK41 – I have always thought of this as a dialogue mic and don't think I have ever tried a supercard with a singer but I can imagine how the clarity of the midrange would be something special. How do you position it – 18" out at what level/angle? Or is it entirely room/singer dependent?

MK41 is a dry directional mic that would make sense, IMO, only if you have to limit bleed from other sources. I tried it once with a soprano and did not like the sound because there wasn't enough ambiance.

[Baithak]

Originally Posted by dhmaya

You seem to be saying that the CC-22 is close to the 193/U89/170 & that if I don't care for the 193, then the CC-22 wouldn't be the answer I'm looking for. I might be over-reading you there & would appreciate your feedback.

They were both meant to be separate statements. So, I meant to say that the Pearl CC-22 is a good choice as an unhyped mic. If that is what you are after, do try the mic. The following comments were related to the Neumann mics and since you stated that you were not happy with them, I suggested the Sanken.

Originally Posted by dhmaya

Re: the MK41 – I have always thought of this as a dialogue mic and don't think I have ever tried a supercard with a singer but I can imagine how the clarity of the midrange would be something special. How do you position it – 18" out at what level/angle? Or is it entirely room/singer dependent?

For me the MK-41 is an invaluable tool either by itself as a spot mic where I need "focus" or as the M mic in an MS setup with MK-8. To Michael's comments re the 41 being dry and not picking up enough ambience, I would respectfully suggest that the appropriate amount of the S mic will provide more than enough ambience. Plus, you could position the mic a bit further out if you want more ambience. The MK41's excellent off-axis pickup characteristics really help here.

Truth be told though, I prefer my M mic to be as flat and unhyped as possible. I can always EQ the result if I have to. And I guess the best part is that you should be easily able to rent a MK41/22/MK8 setup and try them before buying ? I don't have any experience with the MK22 capsule.

Finally regarding positioning, it really depends on how much chest voice, head voice etc you want to pick up and what else is going on in the room. I have had good results with the mic about shoulder height angled slightly up AND about temple height angled slightly down depending on how the singer angles their head for most of the time and what kind of sound I am looking to capture. 18-24 inches is the distance I have used though in one particularly dead space, I was able to go a bit further back and get a terrific sound. There are so many factors here ...

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Baithak

[Jim Williams]

1980's TLM170.

AKG 414 TL.

Both will work great.

[dhmaya]

Baithak – thanks very much for all the details & for clarifying the earlier post. Very helpful, all of it.


Jim – you have a couple posts with good things to say about the MiLab VIP50. How does it stack up against the 170 & the 414TL?

[Elof]

Originally Posted by dhmaya

Plush, I'm looking for that "quality microphone that accurately picks up the sound of the source." No hype, just the source. Are you saying that any of the ones on my list fit the bill?

And speaking of the list: add the Pearl cc22

Anybody able to compare these Swedish mics with the rectangular transducers to the 193/u89 mics?

I have a pair of U89s and one DC96b (used to be a pair aswell).
I´d say they both capture sound very smooth and accurate.
The 89 is a bit more forgiving and has something more "buttery" in the top, never ever harsh, but still far away from being what people call a colored mic...

DC96b (b = transformer version) is extremely detailed and sounds like it has bottom end for ages. The top is also one of the most clear and undistorted top ends I´ve heard, you can hear it even more when you compress the signal, it stays very clean and detalied.

I wouldn´t use an 87 for what you´re describing. But I´m not a big fan of that mic, new or vintage.

If you really want to capture everything, every little squeak, go for any of the rectangular milabs (196, 96, 96b, VIP-50). They won´t miss a thing...