Fantastic insight into the history of Neumann and their microphones. It would have been interesting for context to speak at least a little of the history and development of dynamic microphones. The Shure SM57 and SM58 are right up there in legendary microphones and still in very wide use today.
@@markw9285I had one briefly; was lower in output compared to a specific aka dynamic I had so returned. Never understood it’s popularity; seems like rumor has most effect on ppls choices. Same as Noymans mics really; confirmation bias mostly
Many audio engineers must like it for some reason (besides rumor). It's good enough to use for many MAJOR vocalists (they wouldn't use just anything for these performers). Also, output is irrelevant. It meets the needs of probably all modern pre-amps... that's all it needs to do. 'Common mode rejection' and good shielding is effective in eliminating interference. @@chinmeysway
@chinmey What you think is other people's confirmation bias is actually just your own conspiracy theory. Neumann and Shure mics are historical and modern classics that were used for decades as well as currently by professionals because they can be counted on to get the job done. Yes, many other good companies have come along since who build decent product sometimes at even better prices but thinking that Neumann and Shure mics are bought simply on rumor is ridiculous. It seems an actual rumor that you have accepted as fact is that a mic is better than an SM58 simply because it has a couple of more decibels of output. It seems you have some rather serious misconceptions about microphones.
Thanks to Kayo for bringing the life developer Martin Schnieder's history of microphones and their life span/ Operations and the new technology... I've learned the trend of microphones from 1916 to 2023
Use anything that captures a sound and then see what music is. Bruce said get thee to a concert hall for an orchestra and listen well - there's the reference of complexity. I would add: get out in nature and listen to a million voices. After a "while" you will grow towards certain tools - and know why you use them.
Interesting that he failed to mention that the TLM102 and 103 do not have balanced outputs. And before you yell at me saying I am wrong, look up the schematics. They're online.
Sorry, you are wrong: They are impedance balanced. Look it up. When implemented correctly, impedance balanced outputs offer excellent CMMR, just like a "regular" balanced outputs with both legs driven. For CMMR, it does not matter if both output legs are driven, all that matters is that they have the same output impedance. When it comes to noise, impedance balancing offers advantages because only one leg is driven.
@@sternradiowest5923 Pin 3 is grounded through an electrolytic capacitor and a resistor. I assume the resistor is what you mean by "impedance balanced." But this is not the same as a balanced signal. Different preamps have different kinds of input balancing. There is transformer-balanced with no ground reference (floating); transformer-balanced with a ground reference (a center-tapped transformer input); and then of course there is the more common transformerless balanced input. Each of these will act differently with a single-ended input, especially if the undriven leg is not grounded directly (for audio). CMRR will vary, input gains will vary, etc. For the most common variety, the transformerless input, the noise will be lower if you ground (for audio) the undriven leg than if you ground it through a resistor. That's because the noise of the preamp is partly dependent on the driving impedance, and the lower, the better. For real, floating transformer-balanced inputs, the signal will be cut in half and the driving impedance doubled by the "impedance balancing" resistor in the mic. This obviously increases noise. For the center-tapped transformer input, the signal does not drop because the centertap becomes the signal return. But this cuts the effective input impedance of the preamp dramatically because the output of the mic must not only drive the preamp, but must also drive that resistor attached to pin 3, which may result in more distortion. In this case, it would be better if pin 3 were left unconnected. I know these are Neumann's least expensive mics, but they are still not cheap. There's no reason they could not have had real balanced outputs. I have a pair of el-cheapo MXL mics that use the Schoeps balancing circuit. These are $50 true condenser (not electret) mics with true balanced outputs. If this "impedance balanced" system was so hot, why do the more expensive TLM's have real balanced outputs?
Neumann (TLM 103?) definitely has a "sound", as does every mic. It actually isn't one I particularly enjoy (apropos of which, please eq out the nasty nearfield bass boost from your guest). I much prefer my Rode NT-1A mics.
This topic is fascinating, the history and evolution of microphone technology! Maybe more on this in the future? Thanks so much!!!
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching!
Such a great video... packed with useful information. Thank you for this one!
Really great account for the histories of 1/3 of all mic technologies
Fantastic insight into the history of Neumann and their microphones. It would have been interesting for context to speak at least a little of the history and development of dynamic microphones. The Shure SM57 and SM58 are right up there in legendary microphones and still in very wide use today.
The SM58 - which was around when I kid (60's) - is ubiquitous. Everyone has heard one and almost everyone has used one.
Very true! All great mics!
@@markw9285I had one briefly; was lower in output compared to a specific aka dynamic I had so returned. Never understood it’s popularity; seems like rumor has most effect on ppls choices. Same as Noymans mics really; confirmation bias mostly
Many audio engineers must like it for some reason (besides rumor). It's good enough to use for many MAJOR vocalists (they wouldn't use just anything for these performers). Also, output is irrelevant. It meets the needs of probably all modern pre-amps... that's all it needs to do. 'Common mode rejection' and good shielding is effective in eliminating interference. @@chinmeysway
@chinmey What you think is other people's confirmation bias is actually just your own conspiracy theory. Neumann and Shure mics are historical and modern classics that were used for decades as well as currently by professionals because they can be counted on to get the job done. Yes, many other good companies have come along since who build decent product sometimes at even better prices but thinking that Neumann and Shure mics are bought simply on rumor is ridiculous.
It seems an actual rumor that you have accepted as fact is that a mic is better than an SM58 simply because it has a couple of more decibels of output. It seems you have some rather serious misconceptions about microphones.
Thanks to Kayo for bringing the life developer Martin Schnieder's history of microphones and their life span/ Operations and the new technology... I've learned the trend of microphones from 1916 to 2023
Glad to help! Thanks for watching, Isaac!
He should do an open mic night and talk about the history of microphones
He should do an open mic night and open up a mic and show everyone what's inside
Excellent content
Glad you think so! Thank you!
Excellent.
Use anything that captures a sound and then see what music is. Bruce said get thee to a concert hall for an orchestra and listen well - there's the reference of complexity. I would add: get out in nature and listen to a million voices. After a "while" you will grow towards certain tools - and know why you use them.
Brilliant.
So, are/were the BLUE Brand Bottle mics based on the original Neumann M7? They look extremely like a direct copy!
Cheers.
Thanks for watching! Cheers!
Good 👍👍👍
Glad you like it! Thank you.
Hello
Hello! Thanks for watching!
Hi
Hi! Thanks for watching.
Interesting that he failed to mention that the TLM102 and 103 do not have balanced outputs. And before you yell at me saying I am wrong, look up the schematics. They're online.
Sorry, you are wrong: They are impedance balanced. Look it up. When implemented correctly, impedance balanced outputs offer excellent CMMR, just like a "regular" balanced outputs with both legs driven. For CMMR, it does not matter if both output legs are driven, all that matters is that they have the same output impedance. When it comes to noise, impedance balancing offers advantages because only one leg is driven.
Here’s a video on the subject of balanced for those interested: th-cam.com/video/rgfZb1pEIrU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DtiDhFdBJ-xioDmQ
@@sternradiowest5923 Pin 3 is grounded through an electrolytic capacitor and a resistor. I assume the resistor is what you mean by "impedance balanced." But this is not the same as a balanced signal.
Different preamps have different kinds of input balancing. There is transformer-balanced with no ground reference (floating); transformer-balanced with a ground reference (a center-tapped transformer input); and then of course there is the more common transformerless balanced input. Each of these will act differently with a single-ended input, especially if the undriven leg is not grounded directly (for audio). CMRR will vary, input gains will vary, etc.
For the most common variety, the transformerless input, the noise will be lower if you ground (for audio) the undriven leg than if you ground it through a resistor. That's because the noise of the preamp is partly dependent on the driving impedance, and the lower, the better.
For real, floating transformer-balanced inputs, the signal will be cut in half and the driving impedance doubled by the "impedance balancing" resistor in the mic. This obviously increases noise.
For the center-tapped transformer input, the signal does not drop because the centertap becomes the signal return. But this cuts the effective input impedance of the preamp dramatically because the output of the mic must not only drive the preamp, but must also drive that resistor attached to pin 3, which may result in more distortion. In this case, it would be better if pin 3 were left unconnected.
I know these are Neumann's least expensive mics, but they are still not cheap. There's no reason they could not have had real balanced outputs. I have a pair of el-cheapo MXL mics that use the Schoeps balancing circuit. These are $50 true condenser (not electret) mics with true balanced outputs.
If this "impedance balanced" system was so hot, why do the more expensive TLM's have real balanced outputs?
Was the microphone invented to give women a chance to be heard as well as men? 🤔
Neumann (TLM 103?) definitely has a "sound", as does every mic. It actually isn't one I particularly enjoy (apropos of which, please eq out the nasty nearfield bass boost from your guest). I much prefer my Rode NT-1A mics.
This is a Neumann TLM 102. Thanks for watching!
I actualy realy like the sound on this interview.