why so many TLM neumanns?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

buschfsu

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
760
Location
jacksonville FL
just curious as to why neumann sells so many transformerless mics (even tube models!)  seems like xfos are one of the more robust parts and contribute alot to the character of sound?  is this purely cost cutting?

 
and a transformerless mic can be more a disirable mic in many situation, a schöps for instance

nicholas
 
A transformer is a source of distortion; it's an identified performance-limiting element. An active circuit can be made to outperform a xfmr by at least an order of magnitude. Isn't it enough a justification to get rid of them?
 
abbey road d enfer said:
A transformer is a source of distortion; it's an identified performance-limiting element.


With all due respect:

Are you speaking of electrical performance...or musical performance? :)
 
Besides some of the correct answers above,  I honestly think that they just took advantage of their TLM 103 fame.  Remember that it was the best sold Neuman mic for a long time and as soon as they came out with other TLM models, people started paying more attention to them.
that is just my take on it.

take care
Gil
 
I think it's mostly a question of philosophy for Neumann. A transformerless output is very reliable and performs pretty much the same at any input. Transformers are variables. Plus, as was mentioned, transformerless mics can have higher output than mics that use a step down transformer. People like mics with a high sensitivity.
 
At the SF AES show, the Neumann rep wouldn't shutup about the new digital mic the had... I guess they're down to just the one m140 tube mic? And it doesn't even have a transformer in it, iirc. (plus, they charge you 300 bucks for a replacement 6111)
 
desol said:
abbey road d enfer said:
A transformer is a source of distortion; it's an identified performance-limiting element.


With all due respect:

Are you speaking of electrical performance...or musical performance? :)
Naturally, i was speaking from a designer's point of view; after all these years I'm still convinced that measured performance cannot harm musical performance.
In the best case, a xfmr will do no harm; in most cases, it could be replaced with a purely electronic device that will outperform it. Sound is an acquired taste; we've grown accustomed to all sorts of distortions that we miss when they are eradicated, but it is scientifically and evolutionarily right to get away from xfmr's and tube distortion in the domain of recording and reproduction. If some kind of distortion is desired, it should be integrated on the artist's side. If you want a crunchy guitar sound, it is right to put a pedal in front of a tube amp with sagging speakers, and record it with the cleanest recording chain, it is not-so-right to play it clean-ish and distort the mic pre, or worse using a plug in.
The problem with the tube/xfmr/retro approach is that it leads to some designers abusing it and making the "tube sound" a mere combination of restricted bandwidth and high distortion. I understand very well Neumann's position in this respect; they would use only very high quality xfmr's, that would be as transparent as can be, so they think rightfully that the trans-less option is a better one. As to tubes, they know better than anyone else that a well designed solid-state pre outperforms any tube stage, but they have to sell their mics... and nobody buys an expensive mic today if it doesn't have a tube in it.
 
I don't care about specs, I care about sound.  New TLM models typically sound worse than their older counterparts with transformers.  Sometimes fast repsonse means sharp transients which are unpleasing most of the time.  This is just one of the many issues you get when you trade euphonics for anal precision.

That and transformers cost a lot more than a few transistors.  When you can market a mic with "superior" specs and save a lot of money in manufacturing yet ask the same price you've been getting for a previous model that realistically sounds better, isn't that considered a WIN for the company?

It's marketing spin, that's all. 

Remember that Neumann isn't Neumann, it's Sennheiser. 
 
Svart said:
Remember that Neumann isn't Neumann, it's Sennheiser. 

That's not really true. Neumann is Sennheiser owned but they're still very much an independent unit. The headquarter is still in Berlin, and chief of engineering is still Stephan Peus (the one who wrote the "Microphones" book and a true gentleman btw). They do their own development, engineering, marketing etc. The mics are now manufactured in the big Sennheiser plant, but there is a separate Neumann unit who is responsible for all Neumann mics. So it's not like they now fall off an assembly line next to a bin of Sennheiser stage mics. That said, Sennheiser make highly respected mics in their MKH line and some all time classics in their dynamic mic line, so don't understand why people keep saying that Neumann isn't any good anymore because it's Sennheiser now.

To return to the original topic: I think there are arguments for and against transformers. I don't think it makes sense to say one solution is better than the other. It depends on what you want. As an asside: I know engineers who prefer the old Fet70 line (AB powering, transformerless) over their Fet80 counterparts.
 
Svart said:
I don't care about specs, I care about sound.  New TLM models typically sound worse than their older counterparts with transformers.
True, but there are so many differences in the capsule, the mounting, the basket, and so on that one is at pain to pinpoint it to the mere suppression of transformers.
  Sometimes fast repsonse means sharp transients which are unpleasing most of the time.
Then, is it the mic's fault? No, it's the original sound that is unpleasant.
  This is just one of the many issues you get when you trade euphonics for anal precision.
What an argument! Distortion and restricted bandwidth is euphonic, precision, cleanliness, openness is anal. Pffhew...
a previous model that realistically sounds better
If I understand well, for you Realistically = subjectively
 
Quote from: Svart on April 10, 2009, 01:02:24 pm
I don't care about specs, I care about sound.  New TLM models typically sound worse than their older counterparts with transformers.

True, but there are so many differences in the capsule, the mounting, the basket, and so on that one is at pain to pinpoint it to the mere suppression of transformers.

KM84 vs. KM184.  Almost identical in every respect except for the circuit.  KM84= sounds good.  KM184= shrill and harsh (to me).



Quote
  Sometimes fast repsonse means sharp transients which are unpleasing most of the time.

Then, is it the mic's fault? No, it's the original sound that is unpleasant.

Yes it's the source's fault but we use mics as instruments of sound just like any musical instrument.  We always pick the mic that sounds best on a source and most folks choose mics with transformers(if they can) for a lot of sources because it just sounds better.  Why else do vintage mics and clones sell for ridiculous amounts of money?  Some say that it's marketing and brands but you would think that thousands and thousands of people would eventually lose interest in paying lots of money for mics that don't sound good.


Quote
  This is just one of the many issues you get when you trade euphonics for anal precision.

What an argument! Distortion and restricted bandwidth is euphonic, precision, cleanliness, openness is anal. Pffhew...

What do engineers do to audio to make it sound better?  The compress/limit(limit dynamic range), EQ(adjust the frequency spectrum until it sounds better than the source), add effects(adding spacial recognition that is lacking in the original or adding distortion on guitars or adding distortion through using class A preamps/lineamps/bus amps, etc.) and this is supposed to make something precise, clean and open?  I don't think so.  We mix to make things sound good, not precise.


Quote
a previous model that realistically sounds better

If I understand well, for you Realistically = subjectively

I didn't mean realistic as in true to the source, sorry that might have confused.  Yes, I meant that it subjectively sounds better.  Again, time has proven that some models of mics are truly great on most sources and those tend to be older mics with transformers.

That's not really true. Neumann is Sennheiser owned but they're still very much an independent unit. The headquarter is still in Berlin, and chief of engineering is still Stephan Peus (the one who wrote the "Microphones" book and a true gentleman btw). They do their own development, engineering, marketing etc. The mics are now manufactured in the big Sennheiser plant

I have real Neumanns.. They are called Gefell..  ;D
 
Svart said:
That's not really true. Neumann is Sennheiser owned but they're still very much an independent unit. The headquarter is still in Berlin, and chief of engineering is still Stephan Peus (the one who wrote the "Microphones" book and a true gentleman btw). They do their own development, engineering, marketing etc. The mics are now manufactured in the big Sennheiser plant

I have real Neumanns.. They are called Gefell..  ;D

I have a Gefell UM92S, and while it's not a bad mic, I'd be happy to trade it for one of those "harsh transformerless, even opamp-equipped" Neumann M149 mics.
 
It is a nice book, but more like a coffee table book for Neuman affectionados. Don't expect an in-depth historical investigation or overly technical stuff. Also the English translation is a little unidiomatic at times. The text is German-English, but because the English text is black and the German text is grey, my eyes always get drawn to the English version. There are lots of good photographs and some good information, I also like the interview snippets from engineers such as Stephan Peus and Martin Schneider. There is very little information on Neumann desks and broadcast modules (e.g. the V47x stuff), and most of the real rarities are missing such as special request microphones for the French market. The inclusion of a lengthy section on Sennheiser appears a little intrusive. I assume the book was mostly financed by Neumann/Sennheiser, so you won't find a critical perspective.
 
Thanks Rossi for the info. Based on what you wrote I get the impression
that I'd be a bit disappointed when getting it (hoping for more tech-info & backgrounds).

Have a good weekend,

  Peter
 
Svart said:
Quote from: Svart on April 10, 2009, 01:02:24 pm
I don't care about specs, I care about sound.  New TLM models typically sound worse than their older counterparts with transformers.

True, but there are so many differences in the capsule, the mounting, the basket, and so on that one is at pain to pinpoint it to the mere suppression of transformers.

KM84 vs. KM184.  Almost identical in every respect except for the circuit.  KM84= sounds good.  KM184= shrill and harsh (to me).

Some of that also comes from small changes they made in the vents, to create an upper-frequency peak. Bleah.

Peace,
Paul
 

Latest posts

Back
Top