they ALL sound great. I have invested in a Lauten Atlantis. Moved over from Neaumann and oh, MY god. It sounds SO good. Not only does it sound amazing but it's 3 mics in one, it can be gentle, neutral (like an 87) or forward like that modern sound we're used to and it's not EQ! It's an analog switch that changes the way the capsule operates in terms of ohms. I'm genuinely flabbergasted about how good the Lauten Atlantis is compared to Neumann. I'd implore ya' to have a look into it. It's designed with our day and ages interfaces in mind, and it shows. This is NOT a blast post at Neumann, Neumann is amazing! I'm just ... like, kinda' taken aback by what lauten is doing.
Surprisingly, I had them all wrong. In this case I liked the 102 and 193 the best. (not that any of them were bad). Jay, for your voice, and your booth, I consistently prefer the 102 across your multiple neumann comparison videos.
I love my TLM103 and loved it in your video too. I didn't hear a lot of difference between them tbh, only slight variations in the warmth. Being Neumanns, they're all lovely. :)
Hi guys, I have to add my opinion. Your speaking tests are very good Jay, you are very good at your work in front of the microphone, clean, slightly compressed without pressure and therefore pleasant for your microphones. The biggest problem is probably the bass parts in the frequency, more on that later. My listening situation is NDH 20 headphones from Neumann, and ME Geithain ME 160 hi-fi speakers, the way I would listen in a living room. I listened back and forth a few times and can say the following for myself: After 3 seconds, the recordings sound pleasant to the ear, no one can judge whether that is good or bad. Because I am listening to your voice and not the microphone, or the plug-in, or the $5000 preamp, the cable. No! Then more the room, but primarily you. The tlm 103 sounds best to me, soft and close and very good resolution of the s sounds. The U 87 sounds thinner because it records your voice more realistically, it seems that way because there is less bass to be heard, but it only seems that way. You think: such a great microphone, it must sound much fatter. The 193 sounds warmer or more mid-bass, has a nice soft finish, the s sounds are pulled further down in its frequency curve. The 102 sounds a little more treble-emphasized right away, but also a little more indifferent in the overall range. Please don't misunderstand, it still sounds good, you can take the result and send it straight away. It doesn't bother you. It's good for small rooms and forgives mistakes. The U 87ai is good for promotional items with a lot of compression at this short distance, you can tweak it a lot if you want. A 102 fits better at 10-12 cm, doesn't pick up everything, because Neumann also advertises it as a home studio microphone! If I were to do an audiobook I would use a U87ai, then I make sure I'm at least 50cm away and have perfect room acoustics, there's nothing better, except of course a U67 hahaha. But Jay, your comparison is flawed, it's a studio microphone with a transformer and 3-pole characteristic. In addition, noise up to 14 db. The 102 is a home studio microphone! The 103 is a super low noise microphone with presence gain that is also good for close meetings. But I've dubbed both the 103 and the u87 in dubbing studios at about 60cm away, it works equally well, and you don't notice when watching the film that it was an 87ai or a 103. All the others, such as the U 89, TLM 170 or 107 or your tlm 193, have a frequency reduction and are therefore not honestly comparable, just compare the Neumann page, frequency response and so on... The others like the TLM 67 or TLM 49 have to be mastered. The manufacturer itself writes: that you can only expand your tube simulation in the overdrive range. That means that if I only control them slightly, nothing happens and they sound thin. A sound engineer studies for 5 years and learns how to use microphones as tools and not as beauty queens. But again, your comparison sounds good, each of your tests sounds nice, including your sm7b. As I said, if I listen for 3 seconds, my brain has changed. You should pay attention to your voice and the application and above all to the distance in relation to the room. Difficult undertaking, close recording a lot of proximity, far distance a lot of room. A U87 ai in such a small cabin is like a sailing ship on a pond. And I can think of something else nice: A TLM 102 in a perfect studio is like a nutshell in the sea, if you're lucky you won't drown. But of course that doesn't bother a professional.
Well, I finally got them all correct. Which is good, since I have the 87ai, 103, and 102 in my booth and should recognize the differences at this point. Like you, recently I was looking for something a bit more neutral and considered the 193 but ended up with a TLM 107 which I am really enjoying. As you've acknowledged in other videos, your Studiobricks isn't as "dead' as it could be, and I think this really plays to the detriment of the 87ai. With its high sensitivity and mid forward presence, it often highlights that "boxy" booth sound. I finally got my space to a point where the 87ai sounds great, but for the most part I still reserve it for short form and commercial work. Fun videos. Thanks.
@@jaymyersvoiceover The 193 has more of a "broadcast" sound on your voice/in your booth which I like, but I'll agree with many of the other posts here that the 102 works best for you. It's like a smoother 87 with some extra low end. On my voice I find the 102 too bloated sub 200hz, but it really works for you. That said, I think people listening to VO performances don't notice mic nuances, and as long as there's nothing obnoxious or wrong with the audio they could care less. BUT... as someone who records and listens to themselves every day I absolutely hear the differences and want to spend my time working with the sound that is most pleasant to my ear.
Well, it seems I may be one of the few that preferred the 102 as the test went on. It kept some of that low end warmth, but also allowed for a bit of "edge" that, strangely enough, came through in more "airy" vowel sounds especially in the Milne reading. It may not be the best for that long form stuff, but it seems like a nice one for more commercial needs.
Loads of folks like the 102! I think it ends up pushed to the side because the others are more popular or expensive, but I’ll often go back to it for all the reasons you listed. In fact I just recorded an audiobook on it with awesome results.
Ahhh I do love a mic review, Jay! I have to say it's nice to see the progression as you as voice actor, knowing or perhaps having experienced more things now than perhaps before, when you did your original Neumann mic review video! I shall keep the TLM 193 in my mind for future reference! Also if you ever wanted to spend another fair penny on a microphone, I've heard great things about Lauten Audio mics like the Clarion & Atlantis!
I own the TLM-103 & the U87Ai. Honestly, I like the way my voice sounds with the 103 over the U87. Actually, the two mics I use the most on my voice overs are the 103 and the Sennheiser MKH-416 shotgun mic. Loooovvveee the way the 416 sounds!
A sounds familiar and airy, B sounds natural(post processing to make it pop ), C sounds great, D is thin and flat; Now the idea of choosing between these is which one is safe, which one complements your voice and what budget -> deep voice less sibilance 103 great, Sibilance voices u87, light and airy voices 102 and 193; best all around is 103 hands down, 102 is a nice to have but eventually will end up costing you more money as you will want to upgrade to 103 or u87; 193 is a nice and great contender but it lacks the familiar voice we all used it of the first two; bottom line still 103 and u87 if you have the budget - u87 after post processing sounds incredible and natural yet i would choose 103 for a home studio.
Great test! I recognized them correctly in the blind test. I own a tlm 170, which has been my favorite for voice-over work. I've never liked the U87. I always felt that it took the power out of my voice. The 103 is nasal sounding and the 102 sounds identical to the Audio-Technica 2035 on voice (although that one has a bit of a rough edge).
Well, it was a toss up between A and D - D feeling the clearest and most detailed B felt flat, C was a bit too warm I’m very pleasantly surprised since I’m receiving my 102 today :)
Lastly, regardless of any differences we may have regarding how to interpret the engineering data, there is still what you experience and feel. My motto is to trust this much more than any data sheet, and here we seem to agree.
Thanks for your points! And allow me to clarify. I’m simply noting a seeming correlation in my practical use between each mic and these data sets, where some mics allow me to be less attentive to adjusting preamp gain on the fly and others require more attention. If I want to focus on performing rather than engineering with a project that has lots of dynamic range, I’ve found some to be more forgiving. That’s all I’m saying.
As for maximum SPL as given in the data sheet this is the volume level where the microphone starts to modify the sound with 0.5% distortion. This is commonly regarded as ”barely hearable”, but our sensitivity to this varies between persons. Higher volume sound levels will give higher distortion. The selection of 0.5% distortion is more or less arbitrary, the engineers could have choosen a different value. In addition, actual microphones have different max SPL at different frequencys which is never described (some calibrated measurement microphones might be an exception). You describe that when using the U87Ai you need to turn down the preamp gain to not get distortion. The point you miss here is if this removes the distortion it is the preamp or audio interface that distorts, not the microphone. The simple remedy is to simply decrease the ”volume” knob on the preamp. It is possible, but in my mind slightly improbable, that you create sounds strong enough to distort the microphone enough to be heard, say above the stated 117dB. The remedy then is to engage the pad.
Hi! I really like your reviews as you actually test the microphones, lets us listen to the result and additionally adds your own thoughts. But in this review I have to disagree with some of your statements regarding the data sheet values of sensitivity and maximum SPL. Sensitivity as given in the data sheet is best compared with a volume control: high sensitivy is equivalent to turning up the volume control. In itself it says nothing about what details the microphone ”hears”. On a microphone with a high sensitivity in the data sheet, simply turn down the volume control on the preamp. As such it is a simple technical measurement, not saying anything about what you perceive as a listener. Add enough gain on a SM7B and the chain of mic + preamp will be measure as sensitive as a U87Ai with less gain on the preamp. And yes, the microphones will probably ”hear” things differently due to different designs, but the difference is not really seen in the engineering measurement of sensitivity. The easiest way to make a U87Ai less sensitive is to simply turn down the preamp gain, or equivalently to engage the pad.
I LOVE my 102… except that I can hear my roommates breath from across the house 😂 Any tips on how to compensate for this? Currently I have my noise floor set to -45db, which sounds fine, but I feel like I’m losing some quality.
Hmmm…that’s tough. Unfortunately, the only sure-fire way to compensate for that is to improve your sound isolation-in other words build out a booth. Beyond that the best you can do is probably try to orient your microphone away from the rest of your home trying to utilize the ‘dead zone’ in the cardioid polar pattern.
That's somewhat the idea! In previous comparisons, some folks noted my booth's resonance was making some mics unnaturally 'boomy/boxy/muddy', so in this video I used EQ to mitigate that, which affects the sound. If you want to hear totally unprocessed audio from the mics, I'd check out some of the other videos I've got up. :)
Hi Jay, I use a TLM 103 for my (mainly commercial) voice recordings, but I need to address my sibilants quite a bit. I'm looking for a second mic that sounds warmer and more pleasing to the ear for longer reads. Would you still say that the TLM 193 is worth a try? Or has your opinion changed after 5 months?
Listening blind, I liked the TLM 193 best, and was surprised how much I preferred it over the U87ai. We've recently started using a TLM 103 for our cartoon voice acting, but I'm finding it's not suitable for all our character voices.
Disney uses the Shure KSM32 for a lot of their animations. Very similar to the U87ai, but not quite as aggressive. Jay features that mic in a couple of his videos.
Yeah the KSM 32 has been fantastic as well. In my use of it, it feels similar to the TLM 193. Perhaps not in tone (I haven’t thrown them head to head), but recording with them and in processing has been very similar.
@@offplanetfilmsTLM 49 is unique. Crunchy but not shrill. I had one in the booth a couple months ago. Like the TLM 67 (which I also own), the TLM 49 is designed to emulate a tube mic, bringing some harmonic distortion to the signal. It has a sort of "loudness" factor that I don't get with the KSM32. I didn't love it (for my voice in my booth). The KSM32 may lack the up front "wow factor" some Neumanns have, but it is pretty honest and, though I don't use it much, is the one mic in my locker I'll never get rid of.
sweet! what are your thoughts on the mkh 416? let's say for animation/games. to what extent do you feel natural tone/pitch matters for which mic would be best in a similar price range (unless it's mostly preferential in that case)?
The 416 is great. A mainstay in those genres for sure. It’s not necessarily ‘neutral’ or ‘natural’ but it’s still great. Though once you’re above $1k for mics it does somewhat become preference too.
@@jaymyersvoiceover The MKH 416 is indeed a great mic, but personally, I've found it sounds better outdoors than in my booth for my voice. I typically use the u87 AI for that or TLM 49. This video piqued my interest for trying out the TLM 193, though.
Super video as always Jay, this really made my day! I also purchased the TLM193 about 1.5yrs ago on b-stock reduction (customer returns) and love it. But always worried about was it the right one and only found limited reviews online for voice over / podcast applications. Sounded great, would love to learn your process chain / EQ etc as a baseline for comparison. Keep up the great work!
Thanks! Glad it was helpful, and yes in my research I only found the same limited number of resources/reviews. RE my signal chain, sure thing! I really only attenuate the resonant frequencies in my booth (around 185hz, 450hz, and 650hz), a smidge of de-essing just to be safe (for which I use a dynamic EQ in a tight band), and gentle compression unless the project requires heavier processing in that respect. For some projects I'll use a bit of gating just to make my life easier, and I also use iZotope RX Mouth Declicker on...everything.
I actually like the TLM 102 and the TLM 193. The TLM 193 is very airy which I like. And it is a little less harsh than the TLM 102 from what I can hear. But I like both of those. I'm looking for a Neumann that doesn't accentuate sibilance as much. the 102 and the 193 seem to be better the the 103 or 87. But that is my ears. What do you think from your end?
Hey Suzie! I think you're right, if your goal is to minimize sibilance the TLM 102 and 193 are both solid options out of these. Another that I see a fair number of folks using is the TLM 49.
The used Neumann TLM 193 is worth to buy? The original seller bought in 2005. I have Neumann TLM 49. I want to sell and want to buy used one so that I can save money and invest in other musical instruments.Thanks.
I can't explain it but I actually disliked Mic B from the get go. Even while wearing headphones for some reason the mic appeared to be "constrained" or "tight". Not sure how else to describe it. The other three I would have to listen to over and over again. The 193, in your case, actually works better than the u87
I actually disliked tge U87ai on your voice. I have tinnitus and it just rubbed me the wrong way - some speakers and mics do that to me. The others I'd live with just fine, but tge slightly better warmth of the 193 won me over. I currently use a previous gen Rode NT1 and it compared with that one, but sounded even better.
I am slightly annoyed at myself that at least in your test the TLM 193 sounded better or fuller at least than my U 87 😅😂😮. Hoping it’s just the case with your voice L O L.
Ah, don't be annoyed! The 87 is awesome and just different. Sometimes I'll beef up the low end on it using a preamp if I'm looking for that, and I also find that I occasionally have to tame the 193 a bit on the low end just to balance out the sound a bit. (if that helps ;) )
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The 193 is such an underrated mic. They are great for stringed acoustic instruments as well. They are used a lot in orchestral and choir recording.
Great comparison! My favorites were the TLM 102 and U87
they ALL sound great.
I have invested in a Lauten Atlantis. Moved over from Neaumann and oh, MY god. It sounds SO good. Not only does it sound amazing but it's 3 mics in one, it can be gentle, neutral (like an 87) or forward like that modern sound we're used to and it's not EQ! It's an analog switch that changes the way the capsule operates in terms of ohms. I'm genuinely flabbergasted about how good the Lauten Atlantis is compared to Neumann.
I'd implore ya' to have a look into it. It's designed with our day and ages interfaces in mind, and it shows.
This is NOT a blast post at Neumann, Neumann is amazing! I'm just ... like, kinda' taken aback by what lauten is doing.
Nice! I’ll keep that in mind, thanks!
Surprisingly, I had them all wrong. In this case I liked the 102 and 193 the best. (not that any of them were bad). Jay, for your voice, and your booth, I consistently prefer the 102 across your multiple neumann comparison videos.
Thanks! I appreciate that 😊
I love my TLM103 and loved it in your video too. I didn't hear a lot of difference between them tbh, only slight variations in the warmth. Being Neumanns, they're all lovely. :)
Hi guys, I have to add my opinion.
Your speaking tests are very good Jay, you are very good at your work in front of the microphone, clean, slightly compressed without pressure and therefore pleasant for your microphones.
The biggest problem is probably the bass parts in the frequency, more on that later.
My listening situation is NDH 20 headphones from Neumann, and ME Geithain ME 160 hi-fi speakers, the way I would listen in a living room.
I listened back and forth a few times and can say the following for myself:
After 3 seconds, the recordings sound pleasant to the ear, no one can judge whether that is good or bad. Because I am listening to your voice and not the microphone, or the plug-in, or the $5000 preamp, the cable. No! Then more the room, but primarily you.
The tlm 103 sounds best to me, soft and close and very good resolution of the s sounds.
The U 87 sounds thinner because it records your voice more realistically, it seems that way because there is less bass to be heard, but it only seems that way. You think: such a great microphone, it must sound much fatter.
The 193 sounds warmer or more mid-bass, has a nice soft finish, the s sounds are pulled further down in its frequency curve.
The 102 sounds a little more treble-emphasized right away, but also a little more indifferent in the overall range.
Please don't misunderstand, it still sounds good, you can take the result and send it straight away. It doesn't bother you. It's good for small rooms and forgives mistakes.
The U 87ai is good for promotional items with a lot of compression at this short distance, you can tweak it a lot if you want.
A 102 fits better at 10-12 cm, doesn't pick up everything, because Neumann also advertises it as a home studio microphone!
If I were to do an audiobook I would use a U87ai, then I make sure I'm at least 50cm away and have perfect room acoustics, there's nothing better, except of course a U67 hahaha.
But Jay, your comparison is flawed, it's a studio microphone with a transformer and 3-pole characteristic. In addition, noise up to 14 db.
The 102 is a home studio microphone!
The 103 is a super low noise microphone with presence gain that is also good for close meetings.
But I've dubbed both the 103 and the u87 in dubbing studios at about 60cm away, it works equally well, and you don't notice when watching the film that it was an 87ai or a 103.
All the others, such as the U 89, TLM 170 or 107 or your tlm 193, have a frequency reduction and are therefore not honestly comparable, just compare the Neumann page, frequency response and so on...
The others like the TLM 67 or TLM 49 have to be mastered.
The manufacturer itself writes:
that you can only expand your tube simulation in the overdrive range. That means that if I only control them slightly, nothing happens and they sound thin.
A sound engineer studies for 5 years and learns how to use microphones as tools and not as beauty queens.
But again, your comparison sounds good, each of your tests sounds nice, including your sm7b.
As I said, if I listen for 3 seconds, my brain has changed.
You should pay attention to your voice and the application and above all to the distance in relation to the room.
Difficult undertaking, close recording a lot of proximity, far distance a lot of room.
A U87 ai in such a small cabin is like a sailing ship on a pond. And I can think of something else nice:
A TLM 102 in a perfect studio is like a nutshell in the sea, if you're lucky you won't drown. But of course that doesn't bother a professional.
103s all day for me. Perfection in my ears.
Well, I finally got them all correct. Which is good, since I have the 87ai, 103, and 102 in my booth and should recognize the differences at this point. Like you, recently I was looking for something a bit more neutral and considered the 193 but ended up with a TLM 107 which I am really enjoying. As you've acknowledged in other videos, your Studiobricks isn't as "dead' as it could be, and I think this really plays to the detriment of the 87ai. With its high sensitivity and mid forward presence, it often highlights that "boxy" booth sound. I finally got my space to a point where the 87ai sounds great, but for the most part I still reserve it for short form and commercial work. Fun videos. Thanks.
Awesome! Good ear. And yes agreed regrading your points on the U87 and the booth.
@@jaymyersvoiceover The 193 has more of a "broadcast" sound on your voice/in your booth which I like, but I'll agree with many of the other posts here that the 102 works best for you. It's like a smoother 87 with some extra low end. On my voice I find the 102 too bloated sub 200hz, but it really works for you. That said, I think people listening to VO performances don't notice mic nuances, and as long as there's nothing obnoxious or wrong with the audio they could care less. BUT... as someone who records and listens to themselves every day I absolutely hear the differences and want to spend my time working with the sound that is most pleasant to my ear.
Couldn’t agree more!
I love the 193, especially for sibilant voices. Absolute Gamechanger
Well, it seems I may be one of the few that preferred the 102 as the test went on. It kept some of that low end warmth, but also allowed for a bit of "edge" that, strangely enough, came through in more "airy" vowel sounds especially in the Milne reading. It may not be the best for that long form stuff, but it seems like a nice one for more commercial needs.
Loads of folks like the 102! I think it ends up pushed to the side because the others are more popular or expensive, but I’ll often go back to it for all the reasons you listed. In fact I just recorded an audiobook on it with awesome results.
Ahhh I do love a mic review, Jay! I have to say it's nice to see the progression as you as voice actor, knowing or perhaps having experienced more things now than perhaps before, when you did your original Neumann mic review video! I shall keep the TLM 193 in my mind for future reference! Also if you ever wanted to spend another fair penny on a microphone, I've heard great things about Lauten Audio mics like the Clarion & Atlantis!
Thanks Seb! I'll file those away for down the road.
I own the TLM-103 & the U87Ai. Honestly, I like the way my voice sounds with the 103 over the U87. Actually, the two mics I use the most on my voice overs are the 103 and the Sennheiser MKH-416 shotgun mic. Loooovvveee the way the 416 sounds!
A sounds familiar and airy, B sounds natural(post processing to make it pop ), C sounds great, D is thin and flat; Now the idea of choosing between these is which one is safe, which one complements your voice and what budget -> deep voice less sibilance 103 great, Sibilance voices u87, light and airy voices 102 and 193; best all around is 103 hands down, 102 is a nice to have but eventually will end up costing you more money as you will want to upgrade to 103 or u87; 193 is a nice and great contender but it lacks the familiar voice we all used it of the first two;
bottom line still 103 and u87 if you have the budget - u87 after post processing sounds incredible and natural yet i would choose 103 for a home studio.
My favourite was by far the TLM 103, closely followed by TLM 102, wasn't so keen on the other two.
Great test! I recognized them correctly in the blind test. I own a tlm 170, which has been my favorite for voice-over work. I've never liked the U87. I always felt that it took the power out of my voice. The 103 is nasal sounding and the 102 sounds identical to the Audio-Technica 2035 on voice (although that one has a bit of a rough edge).
Killer! Noted on the AT 2035, I'll hope to check that out sometime.
Well, it was a toss up between A and D - D feeling the clearest and most detailed
B felt flat, C was a bit too warm
I’m very pleasantly surprised since I’m receiving my 102 today :)
Congrats on the 102! Let me know how you like it.
Lastly, regardless of any differences we may have regarding how to interpret the engineering data, there is still what you experience and feel. My motto is to trust this much more than any data sheet, and here we seem to agree.
Thanks for your points! And allow me to clarify. I’m simply noting a seeming correlation in my practical use between each mic and these data sets, where some mics allow me to be less attentive to adjusting preamp gain on the fly and others require more attention. If I want to focus on performing rather than engineering with a project that has lots of dynamic range, I’ve found some to be more forgiving. That’s all I’m saying.
As for maximum SPL as given in the data sheet this is the volume level where the microphone starts to modify the sound with 0.5% distortion. This is commonly regarded as ”barely hearable”, but our sensitivity to this varies between persons. Higher volume sound levels will give higher distortion. The selection of 0.5% distortion is more or less arbitrary, the engineers could have choosen a different value. In addition, actual microphones have different max SPL at different frequencys which is never described (some calibrated measurement microphones might be an exception). You describe that when using the U87Ai you need to turn down the preamp gain to not get distortion. The point you miss here is if this removes the distortion it is the preamp or audio interface that distorts, not the microphone. The simple remedy is to simply decrease the ”volume” knob on the preamp. It is possible, but in my mind slightly improbable, that you create sounds strong enough to distort the microphone enough to be heard, say above the stated 117dB. The remedy then is to engage the pad.
Great video Jay, the 193 is a really easy mic to listen to isn’t it. Thanks.
Hi! I really like your reviews as you actually test the microphones, lets us listen to the result and additionally adds your own thoughts.
But in this review I have to disagree with some of your statements regarding the data sheet values of sensitivity and maximum SPL. Sensitivity as given in the data sheet is best compared with a volume control: high sensitivy is equivalent to turning up the volume control. In itself it says nothing about what details the microphone ”hears”. On a microphone with a high sensitivity in the data sheet, simply turn down the volume control on the preamp. As such it is a simple technical measurement, not saying anything about what you perceive as a listener. Add enough gain on a SM7B and the chain of mic + preamp will be measure as sensitive as a U87Ai with less gain on the preamp. And yes, the microphones will probably ”hear” things differently due to different designs, but the difference is not really seen in the engineering measurement of sensitivity. The easiest way to make a U87Ai less sensitive is to simply turn down the preamp gain, or equivalently to engage the pad.
I LOVE my 102… except that I can hear my roommates breath from across the house 😂
Any tips on how to compensate for this? Currently I have my noise floor set to -45db, which sounds fine, but I feel like I’m losing some quality.
Hmmm…that’s tough. Unfortunately, the only sure-fire way to compensate for that is to improve your sound isolation-in other words build out a booth. Beyond that the best you can do is probably try to orient your microphone away from the rest of your home trying to utilize the ‘dead zone’ in the cardioid polar pattern.
I'd love to see the BCM 104 thrown into the mix.
Jay, it does kind of sound like the EQ you do in post is actually having effect on the sound.
That's somewhat the idea! In previous comparisons, some folks noted my booth's resonance was making some mics unnaturally 'boomy/boxy/muddy', so in this video I used EQ to mitigate that, which affects the sound. If you want to hear totally unprocessed audio from the mics, I'd check out some of the other videos I've got up. :)
Hi Jay, I use a TLM 103 for my (mainly commercial) voice recordings, but I need to address my sibilants quite a bit. I'm looking for a second mic that sounds warmer and more pleasing to the ear for longer reads. Would you still say that the TLM 193 is worth a try? Or has your opinion changed after 5 months?
Yeah! The 193 I still really like. You could also check out the Shure KSM 32
@@jaymyersvoiceover great, will have a look, thanks for the advice :)
My favorite was "C"
Listening blind, I liked the TLM 193 best, and was surprised how much I preferred it over the U87ai. We've recently started using a TLM 103 for our cartoon voice acting, but I'm finding it's not suitable for all our character voices.
Disney uses the Shure KSM32 for a lot of their animations. Very similar to the U87ai, but not quite as aggressive. Jay features that mic in a couple of his videos.
@@TimoDoesVoiceover I'm curious to also try a TLM 49 style (or equivalent), which the Shure KSM32 may be similar to?
Yeah the KSM 32 has been fantastic as well. In my use of it, it feels similar to the TLM 193. Perhaps not in tone (I haven’t thrown them head to head), but recording with them and in processing has been very similar.
@@offplanetfilmsTLM 49 is unique. Crunchy but not shrill. I had one in the booth a couple months ago. Like the TLM 67 (which I also own), the TLM 49 is designed to emulate a tube mic, bringing some harmonic distortion to the signal. It has a sort of "loudness" factor that I don't get with the KSM32. I didn't love it (for my voice in my booth). The KSM32 may lack the up front "wow factor" some Neumanns have, but it is pretty honest and, though I don't use it much, is the one mic in my locker I'll never get rid of.
sweet! what are your thoughts on the mkh 416? let's say for animation/games. to what extent do you feel natural tone/pitch matters for which mic would be best in a similar price range (unless it's mostly preferential in that case)?
The 416 is great. A mainstay in those genres for sure. It’s not necessarily ‘neutral’ or ‘natural’ but it’s still great. Though once you’re above $1k for mics it does somewhat become preference too.
@@jaymyersvoiceover The MKH 416 is indeed a great mic, but personally, I've found it sounds better outdoors than in my booth for my voice. I typically use the u87 AI for that or TLM 49. This video piqued my interest for trying out the TLM 193, though.
Super video as always Jay, this really made my day! I also purchased the TLM193 about 1.5yrs ago on b-stock reduction (customer returns) and love it. But always worried about was it the right one and only found limited reviews online for voice over / podcast applications.
Sounded great, would love to learn your process chain / EQ etc as a baseline for comparison.
Keep up the great work!
Thanks! Glad it was helpful, and yes in my research I only found the same limited number of resources/reviews.
RE my signal chain, sure thing! I really only attenuate the resonant frequencies in my booth (around 185hz, 450hz, and 650hz), a smidge of de-essing just to be safe (for which I use a dynamic EQ in a tight band), and gentle compression unless the project requires heavier processing in that respect. For some projects I'll use a bit of gating just to make my life easier, and I also use iZotope RX Mouth Declicker on...everything.
Thanks for the video! But I still think I will go with the Sennheiser 416, mostly because of the noice canceling reduction.
It's a great choice! I still use mine on a regular basis
I felt pretty sure about the 102, and I was right. I actually think the 193 sounds SO close to my 103, so I mixed that up.
I actually like the TLM 102 and the TLM 193. The TLM 193 is very airy which I like. And it is a little less harsh than the TLM 102 from what I can hear. But I like both of those. I'm looking for a Neumann that doesn't accentuate sibilance as much. the 102 and the 193 seem to be better the the 103 or 87. But that is my ears. What do you think from your end?
Hey Suzie! I think you're right, if your goal is to minimize sibilance the TLM 102 and 193 are both solid options out of these. Another that I see a fair number of folks using is the TLM 49.
The used Neumann TLM 193 is worth to buy? The original seller bought in 2005. I have Neumann TLM 49. I want to sell and want to buy used one so that I can save money and invest in other musical instruments.Thanks.
It was for me!
@@jaymyersvoiceover is it a reply to my question? WOW.
I can't explain it but I actually disliked Mic B from the get go. Even while wearing headphones for some reason the mic appeared to be "constrained" or "tight". Not sure how else to describe it. The other three I would have to listen to over and over again. The 193, in your case, actually works better than the u87
I actually disliked tge U87ai on your voice. I have tinnitus and it just rubbed me the wrong way - some speakers and mics do that to me.
The others I'd live with just fine, but tge slightly better warmth of the 193 won me over.
I currently use a previous gen Rode NT1 and it compared with that one, but sounded even better.
u87 is still easily the best mic in this lineup lol
I am slightly annoyed at myself that at least in your test the TLM 193 sounded better or fuller at least than my U 87 😅😂😮. Hoping it’s just the case with your voice L O L.
Ah, don't be annoyed! The 87 is awesome and just different. Sometimes I'll beef up the low end on it using a preamp if I'm looking for that, and I also find that I occasionally have to tame the 193 a bit on the low end just to balance out the sound a bit. (if that helps ;) )
That ai is really sensitive 🔥💪💯