Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   High End (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/)
-   -   TLM Appreciation Thread (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/73217-tlm-appreciation-thread.html)

AmekGuy 5th June 2006 06:30 PM

TLM Appreciation Thread
 
I would love to hear comments from those you who record with these mics and who like them. Hence, this is an appreciation thread. If you have nothing positive to say, fine, then please move along.

Many thanks.

NathanEldred 5th June 2006 06:40 PM

I like them on toms a lot...other than that I think there is better for the money in most cases.

Shaman 5th June 2006 06:46 PM

i don´t understand people bashing this mic.
Shure there´s better to get for more €€€ like a brauner VM-1, a U47 etc.

but for the money it´s a nice bright quality mic.

Like it on snare and everything else too jkthtyrt

rwhitney 5th June 2006 07:50 PM

I don't have experience with vintage mics, but I do like the TLM170 as an un-hyped all-purpose microphone. It has low sensitivity but lots of detail. It can can handle high SPLs, like kick drum, and works great when you need to avoid bleed from nearby sources. It's very low Z (50 Ohms) and has nice bass response. It has a curious dip around 5k that works well when close-miking bright sources. It doesn't suit most pop vocalists at all, but it works well for classical. It has 5 or 6 polar patterns, and can be remote controlled with an optional controller.

I had a TLM103 for a short time and thought it would be useful, but I exchanged it for the multi-pattern U87, which I like much better. I try to get multi pattern mics whenever possible because maybe 40% of the time I use something other than standard cardioid.

chrysb93065 5th June 2006 10:45 PM

TLM
 
I really like the TLM 127 for boomy male voices, especially through a tube pre, and maybe a dbx for compression. It also 'smooths' brassy tenor tone (nasaly?). I think the 103 is perfect on sweet female sopranos, too.

guitar_boy5 5th June 2006 11:20 PM

I use my TLM103 for voice over at work and it does fine.
Very crisp and cuts thru for motion picture advertising...
As far as music production, I dunno... I have more pizazzy mics for that stuff.
Blue Kiwi, Groove Tubes MD1, Peluso 22 51, Blue Dragonfly, etc. etc...



my .02


kfhkh

HiRaX 5th June 2006 11:41 PM

I use the TLM103 on a daily basis and can easily say most of the time it more than accomplishes what I need it to do. I just tracked vocals with it for a song thats airing on a large television network morning show for about the next month.
Quite a workhorse for a condensor.
cooge

lefthando 5th June 2006 11:47 PM

The TLM 103 is an excellent LD for many purposes.

I use it for Drum overheads and toms as well other assorted percussion instruments.

I use it as room mics for accoustic ensembles.

It's is bright and clear on VO tracks.

Not my favorite vocal mic but it has been VERY good on certain singers.

ABBA 6th June 2006 08:07 AM

TLM 103 = Great Mics!
thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
I've had a bunch of Neumanns, the 103s are my favourites.

Also an owner of Schoeps, DPA etc. I'm not easy to please.

in the red 6th June 2006 08:15 AM

tlm 103´s are wonderful tom mics. big big toms thumbsup other then that i almost always find better solutions. but if i would have to i could imagine using them on a lot of sources.

Will Box 6th June 2006 01:48 PM

Maybe if Neumann paid a few people to post on this forum, the TLM series would get better reviews. Audio Technica seem to be doing alright.

DeepSpace 6th June 2006 03:32 PM

We purchased a TLM 103 in 1998 and it has been used in the studio here as part of a collection of mics which includes other Neumann, AKG, Schoeps, Beyerdynamic, AEA, Audio Technica, Senheiser and Shure. It has shown itself to be a very useable and versatile mic - and on some sources is quite stunning. It has a surprising range from 'delicate' to 'robust'. Upright bass, strings, female vocal, percussion etc. The TLM captures nuance with clarity and transparency - with very little or no eq.

We've been sufficiently impressed by what this mic can do, that last year we purchased an additional one so that we can use them as a stereo pair. Despite the age difference, we've found the two to be a good match and as a pair they have now also found favour as room mics, and as stereo mics on nylon string acoustic guitar, Hammond/Lesley cabs set ups and various other applications.

There is no doubt that the things the 103 does well (open transparency and faithful detail) are not presently fashionable in some quarters, where tube color and dark and flattering tones are 'soup du jour'. It's also true that to get the best out of the 103, it makes sense to play to its strengths throughout the whole signal chain - eg favoring subtlety, clarity and detail. Perhaps for these reasons, some folks have found themselves struggling to get good results with the 103. Their loss IMO. Its secrets are not that hard to unlock. kfhkh

krs 6th June 2006 04:00 PM

There has been some initial positivity about the TLM49...anyone else gotten a hold of this thing?

DeepSpace 6th June 2006 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krs
There has been some initial positivity about the TLM49...anyone else gotten a hold of this thing?

Not yet. Not for want of trying, though. None of my usual suppliers (either in the US or down here in Australia) have stocks of it yet. mezed

Jan Folkson 6th June 2006 08:19 PM

+1 TLM 170

AmekGuy 10th June 2006 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkSky
We purchased a TLM 103 in 1998 and it has been used in the studio here as part of a collection of mics which includes other Neumann, AKG, Schoeps, Beyerdynamic, AEA, Audio Technica, Senheiser and Shure. It has shown itself to be a very useable and versatile mic - and on some sources is quite stunning. It has a surprising range from 'delicate' to 'robust'. Upright bass, strings, female vocal, percussion etc. The TLM captures nuance with clarity and transparency - with very little or no eq.

We've been sufficiently impressed by what this mic can do, that last year we purchased an additional one so that we can use them as a stereo pair. Despite the age difference, we've found the two to be a good match and as a pair they have now also found favour as room mics, and as stereo mics on nylon string acoustic guitar, Hammond/Lesley cabs set ups and various other applications.

There is no doubt that the things the 103 does well (open transparency and faithful detail) are not presently fashionable in some quarters, where tube color and dark and flattering tones are 'soup de jour'. It's also true that to get the best out of the 103, it makes sense to play to its strengths throughout the whole signal chain - eg favoring subtlety, clarity and detail. Perhaps for these reasons, some folks have found themselves struggling to get good results with the 103. Their loss IMO. It's secrets are not that hard to unlock. kfhkh

Thank you for a rather insightful post.

Plush 10th June 2006 06:49 PM

We have huge appreciation for the TLM170 and TLM193.

K100 series tlm 140 and the like have been assigned to the bright category.
That means they get less usage.

Omicron_9 11th June 2006 02:16 AM

+1 on the TLM103. For instrumental use, they're very clean and virtually no self-noise.

-O.9

Johns 11th June 2006 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmekGuy
Thank you for a rather insightful post. I am leaning toward a TLM 49, but would like to first hear actual samples of the mic without any hype. It appears to be in my pricerange.

Some of you also favour the TLM193, though it seems somewhat flat and takes a dip in the higher range. What are your experiences with this mic on nylon string gtr sources, vocals, OHs? Also, what are some of the differences between the 193 and 170?

I appreciate the responses.

On Nylon string guitar, for me, the 193 was excellent. very nice warm sound, not too much fingernail, and not boomy. It also took eq well. On vocals, it adds no air. If the singer is bright, and you want to tame it a little, the 193 works well. It would not be my first choice for most any vocals but it can work. I had never tried it on overheads.

Joel Hamilton 11th June 2006 04:09 AM

I love the 170. that is the only TLM I have liked, also the only "real" neumann TLM microphone.... whatever that means... ;)
I have a gotham chrome TLM170 (#45 of 100 made) that I love.
I wouldnt buy a TLM 103, though I have liked them on certain things... The 127 seems incredibly overpriced for what it is... They are all decent mics, but the 170 really shines in the TLM family IMHO.

iode131 11th June 2006 09:24 AM

I've used a 103 for quite some time now and I must admit I really started to understand the way it works after reading Michael Paul Stavrou's "Mixing with your Mind".

His "hardness/softness-factor-mic matching method" really rang a bell for me and since then I found myself spending much less time finding the right mic.

I've always felt my 103 was a little harsh in some way. Vocals kept sounding a bit agressive even with lots of eq. (Some bump around 3-4kHz?) So I tried Mr Stavrou's method and used the 103 on softer, fatter sources: elec bass thru SVT amp, double bass, kiuck, ... And it worked great! The 103's hardness pretty much added the edge needed to let the sound cut through. It kindda compensated for the softness of the sources. Without eqing.

Later on I also tried it on acoustic guitar and it worked great as well. Just enough pick and edge sound while retaining the air and the low medium. Great. On harder sources though I use it less nowadays. For those, I must admit it showed me how much I needed a softer mic... so I got maybe THE very opposite to a 103: an e47 from Soundelux.

My 2 cents (borrowed from M. Stavrou. Thx man!)

dach 12th June 2006 04:36 AM

I only scrolled through most of the replies so I'm not sure what was said, but I LOVE the 170 which is one hell of a mic although people consider it "bland"... and really like the 103 of which I have 2. I also have a KH modded U67 which gets a lot of work but the TLM's are great mics and do not deserve the bad rap some people give them!

Someone mentioned nylon string... it really depends on the player and style... and since we're talking Neumanns... sometimes a single 170 is all you need and sometimes I mix a SDC above and behind the bridge with an RE20 & 67 at the ~10th fret. ... for classical recording & flamenco/rasgueado playing it's totally different but for contemporary type music in the studio it's usually one of the above... works equally as well for nails as passages done with a pick/plectrum...

ajfarber 12th June 2006 04:49 AM

TLM 170 in my experience has been good on just about everything. Strings, woodwinds, room mics. Transparent but not brittle. Classical guys like this mic for it's lack of colour.

I did an orchestra date once where the engineer used a TLM something-or-other in the "tree" in leu of the usual M50/M150. It sounded great.

I happen to prefer a mic with a bit of colour. I like tube and ribbons and would rather have a U67 or M49 or to keep in the TLM 170 price range a Soundelux or Lawson.

With that said, my experience tells me the TLM 170 is a reliable go-to mic like the U87 or AKG414, only better. (at least better than the 414).

I remember a session 15 years ago when Brandford Marsalis mentioned the TLM 170 as his favourite mic for saxophone. I'd still rather have a U67/U47/M49.

dach 12th June 2006 04:55 AM

hey man... I've got 67 and 170... and the 170 is really an under-rated mic!

ajfarber 12th June 2006 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dach
hey man... I've got 67 and 170... and the 170 is really an under-rated mic!

No kidding, it's top shelf. But you'd rather use the 67 on horns and voice and the 170 on the string quartet right?

Just guessing. Please explain.

HalftoneFrank 12th June 2006 06:36 AM

i love the 170, especially on acoustic bass, and ocassionally on darker acoustic guitars.

Greg Wells 12th June 2006 06:42 AM

The TLM 170 is an awesome mic. I've used it many times on vocals, piano and drums and never been disappointed. Run quickly from the 193. Thumbs up on the 170.

dach 12th June 2006 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajfarber
No kidding, it's top shelf. But you'd rather use the 67 on horns and voice and the 170 on the string quartet right?

Just guessing. Please explain.

Really no explanation needed... I love them both.... and I really don't track much outside work anymore... But yes, what you said would probably be true.

People never talk about the 170 whereas the 47 and 67 have been discussed to death.

ajfarber 12th June 2006 05:01 PM

I guess everyone digs the TLM170 beceause it captures an accurate sond from any source without colouration. It doesn't add anything, I just does what it is suppose to do. We like tube and ribbon mics because in some cases it improves the sound of adds a pleasant element to what is already there. That of course is not always desireable. I suppose that is why we still use analogue tape or tube gear or compression or EQ or the many toys we add to our DAWs or digital recorders to fatten the sound.

If you have a bassist with a good tone and a nice instrument, the TLM170 is a good choice. If the bass player sounds like ass, nothing is going to help. If, on the other hand, your recording bass in the same room as drums, piano and horns, without gobos or any other form of isolation, the TLM170 might pick up too much other stuff and the resulting leakage will become a problem. That is why we sometimes look for a mic with more off-axis rejection and reduced proximity effect. The right tool for the right job. It all depends on the room, the intruments, the players and...well... you all know what I'm talking about.

mrhappyballoon 13th June 2006 08:14 AM

TLM
 
TLM 103 works really well on Saxophone, and Toms. and in my opinion is a very versitile mic. I like it on many sources.

TLM 193 on Trombone