Originally Posted by kennybro

maybe unpopular, but one thing I've learned over decades of recording is that it is what it is. I keep liking the $29 iSK Pearl for some sources. And that's after A/B with gear like U87, 4050, 451 and such, and in blind listening opinions of others. Sometimes the character of a thing just lays in right, and it's wise to be unmoved by price tag preconceptions.

Originally Posted by u87allen

I found this out about the KM184 a few months ago. I re-recorded a KM184(another one people love to hate on GS) track that was an acoustic guitar that was used for fill and rhythm with my "better" microphones(TLM170, R84) and found it just sat in the mix better with the 184, with no eq at all.

Originally Posted by chessparov2.0

Kenny, you have a terrific voice, and I thought that track sounded great!
Chris

Originally Posted by gravyface

I have their 9999 headphones that I like for A/Bing my mixes on, kind of scoopy/consumer-ish, but really comfortable.

I don't like that they don't post frequency response charts at all though on their microphones. Kinda putting me off trying any.

Originally Posted by u87allen

I found this out about the KM184 a few months ago. I re-recorded a KM184(another one people love to hate on GS) track that was an acoustic guitar that was used for fill and rhythm with my "better" microphones(TLM170, R84) and found it just sat in the mix better with the 184, with no eq at all.

Originally Posted by kennybro

I don't currently have any 84's or 184's, and I miss them. I love them on snare drum, pointed parallel to the head right over the rim. They sound a bit raw to me solo, but yeah, they sit beautifully in a mix or cut through nicely if you turn em up a touch. Older pair of 84's is top of my shopping list right now.

Originally Posted by deedeeyeah

...could it be that it reveals/exhibits too many flaws in your studio?!

i'm having no problem using it (actually lots of them!) on most any instrument when recording classical music: except for the exaggerated hf boost (which plagues so many modern condenser mics), there is nothing to complain about it (as previously mentioned)! - can't really take the constant bashing seriously...

Originally Posted by kennybro

Resang the song...

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Heck yeah, you did. Nice.

OT, both versions are loud but not squashed-sounding. What are you doing?

Originally Posted by TS-12

Neumann TLM103 is a terrible mic for vocals and acoustic guitars.
But a pair of TLM103s sound decent as a drum room or overhead mics.

I had it, sold it.

There was a time when a singer preferred the sound of the rough recorded vocals which were recorded with Sennheiser e835.

Originally Posted by TS-12

Neumann TLM103 is a terrible mic for vocals and acoustic guitars.

Originally Posted by pencilextremist

I disagree, it works well on soft voices and works very well on acoustic guitar through a neve flavoured preamp. I use mine mainly on classical acoustic guitar when it's a naturally darker sound usually with mahogany back and sides, them guitars benefit from a slight HF boost.

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Sure, some things are a matter of personal taste. But listen to this:

Penn State TV spot

The VO starts out with, "You come here thinking..."

You hear that big snap on the beginning of "come?" That sound didn't come out of the young lady's mouth. The microphone made it, all on its own. That's what the TLM 103 does. And what you're hearing there is after my best efforts to soften it and/or chop it out. This one is a blatant and obvious example, but the 103 does it all the time. And once your ear gets attuned to it, you'll never be able to not hear it.

On the other hand, since you may not have the same taste as me, you might dig it.

Originally Posted by CheloDona

In the case in question, maybe you can go a few steps to the mic locker and look for another tool, or you can tell the talent to study for a few months how to emit the voice, or to move away a few cm. Whatever is most practical for you. I would opt for the third.

Originally Posted by ttattwa

Well, I've been visiting different PRO studios lately, and I've found that, even though they have expensive Telefunkens, Bocks, and Fleas, they like to use the TLM103 sometimes they want a condenser mic, even for expensive productions, specially on vocals and acoustic guitars.

I actually listened to some recordings made with it, and I actually felt a bit stupid to see that a 1000€ mic could perform as good as other mics double or four times the price, specially after readying here in GS so many people saying that the TLM 103 is a "regular" or "entry level" microphone.

I asked the people in these studios why they were using it instead of the more expensive mics they also had, and they told me that the sound was as good as the others, simple as that.

Then they also added that they would color or not the sound with a 1073 or a LA-2A (or other preamps) depending o the source and song, but that the mic itself was good, with low noise, enough quality highs, and enough warmth.

So my question to you gearheads, is something wrong with it? Isn't it relevant that so many pro studios use a TLM103 as a good choice, even when they have some of the best of the best available as well, in order to consider the TLM103 a top quality mic for acoustic sources?

I could consider buying a TLM103 for my home studio, as I have been long debating on which microphone to buy, but have not settled yet (looking at mics double the price up to now), and this could complement the ones I have, specially for acoustic guitars.

Thanks.

P.S. I would appreciate that this thread doesn't become a pro-tlm103 vs anti-tlm103. I am not even really considering buying it as my main workhorse mic, that's not what I ask, I just ask because it surprised me seing it out in a few studios with better mics around, after reading so much bad stuff about them.