Comments on: A comparion of the U87 and TLM103 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/ Posts about voiceover, life and assorted other ramblings from Bob Souer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:14:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dan Popp http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-11711 Dan Popp Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:47:12 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-11711 Dan-in-Miami, Those two mics are different enough that having them both should cover most bases! Dan-in-Miami,
Those two mics are different enough that having them both should cover most bases!

]]> By: Dan http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-11708 Dan Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:22:46 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-11708 Dan & Bob, Just wanted to get a reply back to the blog. Thanks again for your opinions. 35 years of doing VO work and I still feel that I need to hear from other pros when making a new mic purchase. Ever get that feeling that although we're pretty confident about our craft, we sometimes feel alone in the VO jungle ? I bought the MKH 416 a couple of months ago and love it for trailer & promo work. However, I find myself using it for a variety of other applications, as well. Amazing mic. I've used the 47 for a little over 20 years now and it has served me well, but I agree with Dan's assessment and think it's time to say goodbye to an old friend and acquire the 87. I've worked with them in Germany and here in the U.S and I'm always impressed. So, I think having just the 416 and the 87 will probably do it for me. With those two, I believe I'll be good..really good. Best, Dan (in Miami) Dan & Bob,
Just wanted to get a reply back to the blog. Thanks again for your opinions. 35 years of doing VO work and I still feel that I need to hear from other pros when making a new mic purchase. Ever get that feeling that although we’re pretty confident about our craft, we sometimes feel alone in the VO jungle ?

I bought the MKH 416 a couple of months ago and love it for trailer & promo work. However, I find myself using it for a variety of other applications, as well. Amazing mic. I’ve used the 47 for a little over 20 years now and it has served me well, but I agree with Dan’s assessment and think it’s time to say goodbye to an old friend and acquire the 87. I’ve worked with them in Germany and here in the U.S and I’m always impressed. So, I think having just the 416 and the 87 will probably do it for me. With those two, I believe I’ll be good..really good.
Best,
Dan (in Miami)

]]> By: Dan Popp http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-11707 Dan Popp Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:01:14 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-11707 Hi, Dan-in-Miami. My impression of the U47FET is that it sounds a little "pinched." A bit "constricted" and "midrange-heavy." It's not as plummy on the low end as the tube version, which is good if you have some bottom to your voice already. I think the 87 is more versatile, though we all might prefer the 47 in some applications. The 47 is certainly going to help you punch though a screaming Monster Truck spot. And it looks cool. Hope that helps! Hi, Dan-in-Miami.
My impression of the U47FET is that it sounds a little “pinched.” A bit “constricted” and “midrange-heavy.” It’s not as plummy on the low end as the tube version, which is good if you have some bottom to your voice already.

I think the 87 is more versatile, though we all might prefer the 47 in some applications. The 47 is certainly going to help you punch though a screaming Monster Truck spot. And it looks cool.

Hope that helps!

]]> By: Bob http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-11706 Bob Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:17:37 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-11706 Dan, I like the U87 a lot though I don't have one of my own yet. That will probably be my next microphone purchase in a couple of years. Meanwhile, I still like my Sennheiser MKH-416 a lot. Be well, Bob Dan,

I like the U87 a lot though I don’t have one of my own yet. That will probably be my next microphone purchase in a couple of years. Meanwhile, I still like my Sennheiser MKH-416 a lot.

Be well,
Bob

]]> By: Dan http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-11705 Dan Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:06:10 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-11705 Good comments on the U87 v TLM103. I'd really love to know what others think about the comparison between the U87 and the U47 fet. Both great mics for VO, but what would be your choice for VO is you had to choose between the two? Bob, thanks for a great forum. Best, Dan in Miami Good comments on the U87 v TLM103. I’d really love to know what others think about the comparison between the U87 and the U47 fet. Both great mics for VO, but what would be your choice for VO is you had to choose between the two?

Bob, thanks for a great forum.
Best,
Dan in Miami

]]> By: Bob http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-11084 Bob Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:27:29 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-11084 Brent, I very much appreciate your cogent comments. Thank you. Be well, Bob Brent,

I very much appreciate your cogent comments. Thank you.

Be well,
Bob

]]> By: Brent Brace http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-11083 Brent Brace Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:05:08 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-11083 Bob. You make the most sense in your pro evaluation of the U87 and TLM 103 mics for voice-over work. I've been in the business for 25 years in Los Angeles/Hollywood/Burbank and have my own studio and company. After recording in most of the major post studios/ they used the 416 60 percent of the time and U87 the rest. In New York and the east, they like the U87 preferably. I was a studio musician in L.A. (union local 47-retired) and saw the U87 used on everything from strings to horns to voices. Even Foley for film. I have all three mics. The U87 is best on my voice at this stage. I put the 416 away. The TLM 103 is nice, but it "whistles" on S's, particularly on women. The U87 is much smoother in that respect. And when you need the omni or figure 8 setting . . .there it is. And you're right. It EQs better than any mic I've heard. Engineers talk about that. It doesn't color the sound of the voice in the different frequencies and remains transparent and natural. For those on a budget, the TLM 103 is the mic. For those who have made some money in this business, the U87 is my pick between the two. Bob. You make the most sense in your pro evaluation of the U87 and TLM 103 mics for voice-over work. I’ve been in the business for 25 years in Los Angeles/Hollywood/Burbank and have my own studio and company. After recording in most of the major post studios/ they used the 416 60 percent of the time and U87 the rest. In New York and the east, they like the U87 preferably. I was a studio musician in L.A. (union local 47-retired) and saw the U87 used on everything from strings to horns to voices. Even Foley for film. I have all three mics. The U87 is best on my voice at this stage. I put the 416 away. The TLM 103 is nice, but it “whistles” on S’s, particularly on women. The U87 is much smoother in that respect. And when you need the omni or figure 8 setting . . .there it is. And you’re right. It EQs better than any mic I’ve heard. Engineers talk about that. It doesn’t color the sound of the voice in the different frequencies and remains transparent and natural. For those on a budget, the TLM 103 is the mic. For those who have made some money in this business, the U87 is my pick between the two.

]]> By: Bob http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-10905 Bob Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:02:50 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-10905 Dan, I agree completely! Be well, Bob Dan,

I agree completely!

Be well,
Bob

]]> By: Dan Popp http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-10904 Dan Popp Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:56:38 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-10904 Bob, there may be some good booths out there, but I've never met one. I'd rather try to eliminate noise by using a shotgun mic in a normal space. Or get the ASC Tube Trap "Quick Sound Field" solution, or one of the portable "shield"-type devices. I might even try noise gating before a booth. Besides sounding boxy (who knew the inside of a box would sound boxy?), they are uncomfortable and don't keep out loud sounds. Other than that, they're great. You can move your noisy computer out of the room, you can work around HVAC noise. A portable booth is expensive, doesn't work, and creates more problems than it solves - in my humble opinion. Bob, there may be some good booths out there, but I’ve never met one. I’d rather try to eliminate noise by using a shotgun mic in a normal space. Or get the ASC Tube Trap “Quick Sound Field” solution, or one of the portable “shield”-type devices. I might even try noise gating before a booth. Besides sounding boxy (who knew the inside of a box would sound boxy?), they are uncomfortable and don’t keep out loud sounds.

Other than that, they’re great.

You can move your noisy computer out of the room, you can work around HVAC noise. A portable booth is expensive, doesn’t work, and creates more problems than it solves – in my humble opinion.

]]> By: Bob http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-10903 Bob Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:20:39 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-10903 Dan, Thank you for your excellent thoughts. You've answered Dan, the muddled, better than I might have. I'd like to highlight just one of your points: the booth. Working in a 4x4 space is a sonic nightmare without a LOT of treatment of the space to tame the bass and absorb most of the rest of the reflections. Get a competent pro to evaluate the sound of your booth. You may be surprised with a few hundred dollars worth of sound treatment will do for everything else. Getting the room right will make everything else sound better. Be well, Bob Dan,

Thank you for your excellent thoughts. You’ve answered Dan, the muddled, better than I might have. I’d like to highlight just one of your points: the booth. Working in a 4×4 space is a sonic nightmare without a LOT of treatment of the space to tame the bass and absorb most of the rest of the reflections. Get a competent pro to evaluate the sound of your booth. You may be surprised with a few hundred dollars worth of sound treatment will do for everything else. Getting the room right will make everything else sound better.

Be well,
Bob

]]> By: Dan Popp http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-10902 Dan Popp Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:01:02 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-10902 Dear Muddled, I think your post points out that creating a professional-grade recording setup is not as easy as it's often presented to be. Everything interacts with everything else. Your booth could be giving you some audible "boom." The mic could be a poor match for your voice, or it could have drifted out of spec over the years. Your technique could be a factor: you may be trying to record too close to the mic. The pre may be too dark-sounding. And of course, knowledge of processing is important. I am an "old-school" hardware guy myself. I've confirmed to my own satisfaction that when you capture the right sound going in, it sounds better than if you record "flat" and try to tweak it in software - or even in hardware coming out. But the "Get it Right at the Input, Professor" (GRIP) approach requires a lot of trial and error and listening and tweaking. If you can get ahold of some other mics to demo - maybe buy a couple hours of time at a friendly studio and try some mics in their cabinet - that would be helpful. Once you've found a more suitable mic (if indeed that's a problem), you can work your way up the chain - pre, EQ, compressor. Try getting out of the booth, too. I really hate those things. Hope that helps! Dear Muddled,
I think your post points out that creating a professional-grade recording setup is not as easy as it’s often presented to be. Everything interacts with everything else. Your booth could be giving you some audible “boom.” The mic could be a poor match for your voice, or it could have drifted out of spec over the years. Your technique could be a factor: you may be trying to record too close to the mic. The pre may be too dark-sounding. And of course, knowledge of processing is important.

I am an “old-school” hardware guy myself. I’ve confirmed to my own satisfaction that when you capture the right sound going in, it sounds better than if you record “flat” and try to tweak it in software – or even in hardware coming out. But the “Get it Right at the Input, Professor” (GRIP) approach requires a lot of trial and error and listening and tweaking.

If you can get ahold of some other mics to demo – maybe buy a couple hours of time at a friendly studio and try some mics in their cabinet – that would be helpful. Once you’ve found a more suitable mic (if indeed that’s a problem), you can work your way up the chain – pre, EQ, compressor.

Try getting out of the booth, too. I really hate those things.

Hope that helps!

]]> By: Dan http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-10901 Dan Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:37:36 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-10901 Bob, I've been a writer, director, producer for 30 years and throughout my career I've also worked as a voice actor. Now, I'm looking to do more VO work. I have a home VO studio consisting of the following: 4X4Vocal Booth (vocalbooth. com / Silver series). Neumann U47fet mic, ProTools LE & M Box, MAC Intel computer, Universal Audio 710 amp., pair of KRK "Rocket 5" speakers, hybrid phone patch. I have a deep, baritone voice with good flexibility and can read from Movie Trailer deep to mid-range DRTV easily. Since putting together the above package, I've been having trouble getting that crisp, clean sound out of my system. When I bounce my ProTools sessions to mp3 (which is how I send my audition scripts to clients/48k @ 256) I get a less than great sound. It sounds a bit muddy and doesn't have that great, crisp sound with plenty of bottom and mid pop. I guess I'm not hearing the punch. I've been told that I may not be using the right mic pre. Although my U47fet is one of the most sought after mics, I wonder if it's the best mic for me. Also, a lot of VO guys I know say they love the Symetrix 528 voice processor. Not sure if a piece of hardware like that has any advantages over the ProTools EQ, compressor/limiter, reverb, etc. that it comes with. All I do is voice work, so I'm interested in knowing what you'd recommend. What strips, pre-amps (tube or transistor) would you recommend, based on your experience? Although I'm not a novice, perhaps the big questions here is my lack of experience working the EQ, compressor/limiter, de-esser and other controls within ProTools LE. The UA has no controls for these items, so I'm doing it all inside the ProTools software. Software vs Hardware...any thoughts? I'd like to know what experienced sound recordists / engineers think about using the ProTools LE software to EQ, compress and limit, as opposed to a piece of hardware (Amp/strip). Am I missing anything? Muddled in Miami Bob, I’ve been a writer, director, producer for 30 years and throughout my career I’ve also worked as a voice actor. Now, I’m looking to do more VO work.

I have a home VO studio consisting of the following: 4X4Vocal Booth (vocalbooth. com / Silver series). Neumann U47fet mic, ProTools LE & M Box, MAC Intel computer, Universal Audio 710 amp., pair of KRK “Rocket 5″ speakers, hybrid phone patch. I have a deep, baritone voice with good flexibility and can read from Movie Trailer deep to mid-range DRTV easily. Since putting together the above package, I’ve been having trouble getting that crisp, clean sound out of my system. When I bounce my ProTools sessions to mp3 (which is how I send my audition scripts to clients/48k @ 256) I get a less than great sound. It sounds a bit muddy and doesn’t have that great, crisp sound with plenty of bottom and mid pop. I guess I’m not hearing the punch. I’ve been told that I may not be using the right mic pre. Although my U47fet is one of the most sought after mics, I wonder if it’s the best mic for me. Also, a lot of VO guys I know say they love the Symetrix 528 voice processor. Not sure if a piece of hardware like that has any advantages over the ProTools EQ, compressor/limiter, reverb, etc. that it comes with. All I do is voice work, so I’m interested in knowing what you’d recommend. What strips, pre-amps (tube or transistor) would you recommend, based on your experience?

Although I’m not a novice, perhaps the big questions here is my lack of experience working the EQ, compressor/limiter, de-esser and other controls within ProTools LE. The UA has no controls for these items, so I’m doing it all inside the ProTools software. Software vs Hardware…any thoughts? I’d like to know what experienced sound recordists / engineers think about using the ProTools LE software to EQ, compress and limit, as opposed to a piece of hardware (Amp/strip). Am I missing anything?
Muddled in Miami

]]> By: batteries http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-10819 batteries Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:34:25 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-10819 As I own both of these mics, I am always sincerely surprised. So many times I made a direct comparison between these two mics and there was not a single application where U 87 would not sound substantially better, more rich, more present, be it spoken word, vocal, string instruments, wind instruments, drums etc. U 87 has as if some “magic” in it, everything sounds “bigger”, more pleasant, brilliant and present. TLM 103 sounds OK as itself, but a bit flat and tiny boring comparing to U87, just in relation to the price, kind of cheaper brother. As I own both of these mics, I am always sincerely surprised. So many times I made a direct comparison between these two mics and there was not a single application where U 87 would not sound substantially better, more rich, more present, be it spoken word, vocal, string instruments, wind instruments, drums etc. U 87 has as if some “magic” in it, everything sounds “bigger”, more pleasant, brilliant and present. TLM 103 sounds OK as itself, but a bit flat and tiny boring comparing to U87, just in relation to the price, kind of cheaper brother.

]]> By: Luis Fernando http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-10096 Luis Fernando Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:07:12 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-10096 I've a pair of 2 u87's... i love it! The way you describe is perfect! I love mine, and use with great Eqs (Api, Neve, Focusrite Red) I’ve a pair of 2 u87′s… i love it! The way you describe is perfect!
I love mine, and use with great Eqs (Api, Neve, Focusrite Red)

]]> By: Bob http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-9515 Bob Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:21:44 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-9515 Dan, Thank you for the excellent and detailed comments. I hope we don't induce screaming too often! Be well, Bob Dan,

Thank you for the excellent and detailed comments. I hope we don’t induce screaming too often!

Be well,
Bob

]]> By: Dan Popp http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/comment-page-1/#comment-9514 Dan Popp Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:06:50 +0000 http://bobsouer.com/blog/2009/07/13/a-comparion-of-the-u87-and-tlm103/#comment-9514 Bob, have you ever screamed at your computer? I just did, and it felt good. I'll try to be as kind as I can, but in my opinion, that article focuses on unimportant information and leaves out the most important - how the mics sound. Self-noise is simply not an issue with the U87A. The "A" version is the one they've been selling for quite a while now, and it is 5 dB or so quieter than the original. It is a quiet mic. High SPL handling? For voiceover? Come on, man, that's for miking drumsets. 120 dbA is about what a jet engine puts out at close range. Your voice is louder than that? Ridiculous. SONICALLY, the mics are very different. The 87 was built for the constraints of German radio broadcasting back in the 60s. So it has a rolled-off high end, compared to more modern mics. This gives the effect of the characteristic U87 lower-midrange bump that adds "fullness" to some voices. The 87 has an output transformer. This yields a bit of low-end distortion that many people find "pleasing" or "larger than life." If you buy a U87, expect to EQ it - but it takes EQ better than almost any other mic. By that I mean it doesn't start to sound grainy or noisy when you EQ it. The TLM 103 is more "modern"-sounding; that is, more open on the top (high frequencies). Compared to the 87, it can sound like it has a "hole in the middle," like an AKG 414 BLS. Sure, it's quiet. Some people may find it a bit "sterile" sounding - the same people who would describe the 87 as "organic." If you want a beefy, "vintage"-sounding mic that will happily let you EQ it to be whatever you want, buy the U87. If you want a modern, "clean" but perhaps less exciting mic out of the box, buy the 103 and a nice preamp that can add some fatness to it. If you want to buy a mic that is kind of a mix of the two, try the TLM 193. And if you want a really good alternative to the cheaper, brighter 103, check out the Microtech Gefell m930. Hope that's helpful! Bob, have you ever screamed at your computer? I just did, and it felt good.

I’ll try to be as kind as I can, but in my opinion, that article focuses on unimportant information and leaves out the most important – how the mics sound.

Self-noise is simply not an issue with the U87A. The “A” version is the one they’ve been selling for quite a while now, and it is 5 dB or so quieter than the original. It is a quiet mic.

High SPL handling? For voiceover? Come on, man, that’s for miking drumsets. 120 dbA is about what a jet engine puts out at close range. Your voice is louder than that? Ridiculous.

SONICALLY, the mics are very different. The 87 was built for the constraints of German radio broadcasting back in the 60s. So it has a rolled-off high end, compared to more modern mics. This gives the effect of the characteristic U87 lower-midrange bump that adds “fullness” to some voices.

The 87 has an output transformer. This yields a bit of low-end distortion that many people find “pleasing” or “larger than life.” If you buy a U87, expect to EQ it – but it takes EQ better than almost any other mic. By that I mean it doesn’t start to sound grainy or noisy when you EQ it.

The TLM 103 is more “modern”-sounding; that is, more open on the top (high frequencies). Compared to the 87, it can sound like it has a “hole in the middle,” like an AKG 414 BLS. Sure, it’s quiet. Some people may find it a bit “sterile” sounding – the same people who would describe the 87 as “organic.”

If you want a beefy, “vintage”-sounding mic that will happily let you EQ it to be whatever you want, buy the U87. If you want a modern, “clean” but perhaps less exciting mic out of the box, buy the 103 and a nice preamp that can add some fatness to it.

If you want to buy a mic that is kind of a mix of the two, try the TLM 193.

And if you want a really good alternative to the cheaper, brighter 103, check out the Microtech Gefell m930.

Hope that’s helpful!

]]>