why so many TLM neumanns?

[BR]

Maybe someone can confirm or not, but I thought the new TLM103s and others were made in the Sennheiser factory, while high end models were made in the Neumann factory.  Is that correct?
BTW I have a pair of consecutive serial number KM84i that I'm dying to use in a session.

 

[Svart]

I'm pretty sure I read that all TLM stuff is mass produced in the sennheiser factory and started life as your standard high-margin-stuff-sold using-the-brand-name.  I've also heard from a few that some of it is pretty good too though they tend to use the same circuits across multiple models, kinda like the chinese mics do, but with higher quality parts.  This is hear-say of course.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I've also heard from a few that some of it is pretty good too though they tend to use the same circuits across multiple models, kinda like the chinese mics do, but with higher quality parts.

What is this supposed to mean? Of course, a serious manufacturer would tend to use the same circuit all over a whole series of products in a family; this is just sound management of resources. R&D concentrates on one circuit design instead of spreading too thin in a multitude of directions, purchasing will concentrate on a restricted number of components. In the past, major redesigns at Neumann did not come out from a will to differentiate products, they came out of necessity, when VF14 became unavailable, then when nuvistors became unacceptable, or the switch from pvc to mylar, and so on. At the time, they had only a couple of products in their portfolio, which explains why they may have had different technologies simultaneously, but today they have 10 types of tube mics, 10 types of LDC, 10 types of SDC, there is no way to justify differents techniques and different technologies for all these mics.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

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 from the neumann's websitehttp://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=km180_description:
Although the KM 184 has the same capsule as the KM 84, the microphone differs slightly on the 0° frequency response: The KM 184 has a gentle rise at about 9 kHz, a characteristic that was introduced very successfully with the KM 140. The result is a tonal balance that is fresher and livelier when compared to the KM 84 with its flat frequency response in that band.

This difference was achieved with just a slight change of the capsule’s rear opening, and is not due to resonances.

Isn't it enough to justify the fact that it sounds shrill and harsh (to you)?

 

[Svart]

Why do people get defensive on this subject? What does it matter to you? Are you afraid you spent your money on a product that is not what you thought it was?  If it sounds fine to you, then great.

So from going to the KM184 from the KM84, they changed their circuitry, they changed their capsule ports(which IS changing the capsule, although they claim to have not changed it).

I've heard the difference, that was enough to justify the shrill and harsh comment.

What is this supposed to mean? Of course, a serious manufacturer would tend to use the same circuit all over a whole series of products in a family; this is just sound management of resources. R&D concentrates on one circuit design instead of spreading too thin in a multitude of directions, purchasing will concentrate on a restricted number of components.

Not necessarily.  If Neumann was as esoteric as they want so seem then they would be hand picking components that matched the intent of the mic model they are designing.  A certain type of capsule would be chosen and then a certain amplifier would be chosen to match it.  If you use the same capsule and the same preamp inside of 10 different mic models, then you have 10 mics that are EXACTLY the same.  Why even bother with having multiple models?  The only reason a company would have multiple models with the same internal design would be to trick the customer into thinking that they are getting a different mic.  I think you missed the point here because you mentioned exactly what the name Neumann should be against.

In the past, major redesigns at Neumann did not come out from a will to differentiate products, they came out of necessity, when VF14 became unavailable, then when nuvistors became unacceptable, or the switch from pvc to mylar, and so on. At the time, they had only a couple of products in their portfolio, which explains why they may have had different technologies simultaneously, but today they have 10 types of tube mics, 10 types of LDC, 10 types of SDC, there is no way to justify differents techniques and different technologies for all these mics.

They have 10 different tube mics(probably with the same circuit).

They have 10 different LDC(probably with the same capsule AND circuit).

They have 10 different SDC(probably with the same capsule and circuit).

And the justification is COST VS PROFIT. 

The name Neumann meant qualilty in sound.  They made money by selling good mics but the profit margin for good designs and components in a competitive marketplace is slim.  This means that to make more money you need to leverage all those things you pointed out like reusing designs between models and reducing BOM costs to a minimum.  This means that you are exchanging uniqueness and good design practices(designing TO the goal, not placing parts in the schematic and seeing where it leads you) for profit margins.

 

[Rossi]

Naah! Svart, you're making an assumption and then you judge them by your own set of rules based on your assumption. Plus, your assuption is wrong.

The newer Neumann models are as different from each other as ever before. The TLM103 does not have the same circuit as the TLM193, and the TLM67 has yet another circuit. They all have different capsules, too. Of course, not each mic is a completely new design from scratch. The TLM67 for instance uses a K67 capsule as found in the U87A, and the U87A has the same capsule as the U67. There are some classic capsule designs that have been in production for 40+ years. Mating a classic capsule to a new head amplifier is nothing new in Neumann history, and replacing a capsule by another is nothing new either. The more modern K47 capsule replaced the M7 back in the 60s. The U47 was replaced by the U47fet, when there were no more VF14 tubes were left (the broadcast market never liked tube mics anyway). These days Neumann uses the K47 in the M147. Of course, closely related mics such as the KM183/184/185 all use the same amplifier, just like the KM83/84/85 all used the same amplifier back in the old days.

 

[Rossi]

Maybe someone can confirm or not, but I thought the new TLM103s and others were made in the Sennheiser factory, while high end models were made in the Neumann factory.  Is that correct?
BTW I have a pair of consecutive serial number KM84i that I'm dying to use in a session.

No, all Neumann mics are made at the Senheiser plant. But they are not made by Sennheiser but manufactured by a specially trained Neumann team. The reason for moving production was rationalization, of course. But not in the sense of just making things cheaper but in the sense of making production more constant and ensuring the same quality at a more reasonable cost. For instance they can use the big Sennheiser machines for mic housings, grills etc. So that part could be rationalized. The Sennheiser plant also has a high tech clean room (which is also used for Sennheiser's MKH line). That clean room is cleaner than anything Neumann had when they still produced in Berlin. I got this information directly from Stephan Peus; I visited Neumann in Berlin for a magazine report last year.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Why do people get defensive on this subject? What does it matter to you? Are you afraid you spent your money on a product that is not what you thought it was?  If it sounds fine to you, then great. 

I don't own any Neumann mics at the moment, although I've used a number of them along the years   

So from going to the KM184 from the KM84, they changed their circuitry, they changed their capsule ports(which IS changing the capsule, although they claim to have not changed it).

I've heard the difference, that was enough to justify the shrill and harsh comment.

No one questions the reality of the sound difference, I question the fact that you attribute that originally to the lack of transformer, when in fact it is probably the mods to the capsule. These mods are not done with the intent of saving money, they are done because someone (probably at marketing) thinks that it will attract more buyers. The change to the capsule costs nothing, saves nothing and changes the sound in a way you (and many others) don't like; the change from xfmr to xfmr-less saves money and may or may not change the sound, in a debatable manner.

What is this supposed to mean? Of course, a serious manufacturer would tend to use the same circuit all over a whole series of products in a family; this is just sound management of resources. R&D concentrates on one circuit design instead of spreading too thin in a multitude of directions, purchasing will concentrate on a restricted number of components.

Not necessarily.  If Neumann was as esoteric as they want so seem then they would be hand picking components that matched the intent of the mic model they are designing.  A certain type of capsule would be chosen and then a certain amplifier would be chosen to match it.  If you use the same capsule and the same preamp inside of 10 different mic models, then you have 10 mics that are EXACTLY the same.  Why even bother with having multiple models?  The only reason a company would have multiple models with the same internal design would be to trick the customer into thinking that they are getting a different mic.  I think you missed the point here because you mentioned exactly what the name Neumann should be against.

[/quote]They use the same capsules and the same preamps in all sorts of more or less relevant combinations. You don't have to buy them all: you want omni, you choose omni, you want xfmr, you take xfmr, your money, your choice.

In the past, major redesigns at Neumann did not come out from a will to differentiate products, they came out of necessity, when VF14 became unavailable, then when nuvistors became unacceptable, or the switch from pvc to mylar, and so on. At the time, they had only a couple of products in their portfolio, which explains why they may have had different technologies simultaneously, but today they have 10 types of tube mics, 10 types of LDC, 10 types of SDC, there is no way to justify differents techniques and different technologies for all these mics.

They have 10 different tube mics(probably with the same circuit).

They have 10 different LDC(probably with the same capsule AND circuit).

They have 10 different SDC(probably with the same capsule and circuit).

Agreed

And the justification is COST VS PROFIT. 

The name Neumann meant qualilty in sound.  They made money by selling good mics but the profit margin for good designs and components in a competitive marketplace is slim.  This means that to make more money you need to leverage all those things you pointed out like reusing designs between models and reducing BOM costs to a minimum.  This means that you are exchanging uniqueness and good design practices(designing TO the goal, not placing parts in the schematic and seeing where it leads you) for profit margins.

You have a very strange notion of industrial reality; if one of my employees started designing products with this mindset, I would ask him to go NOW. Reusing designs and reducing the BOM is just common sense. Tell me about good design practices. What would you think if the guys at GM or Ford reinvented the wheel everytime they issue a new model? Or if you had to pay twice for the sake of uniqueness? As I said earlier, what you call uniqueness and seem to prize so much was the the result of evolving technology when Neumann issued a new product every 5 years, but as soon as they started expanding their range, they used the parts bin and made all sorts of combinations of existing designs; just take the example of the KM series in the 60's.
I think you are dreaming of a golden age that never existed. Do you really believe the U47 was created with the intention of making the best male vocal mic? Do you think Telefunken created the VF14 with a particular sound in mind?

 

[Svart]

Tell me about good design practices

Sure thing.  I've been in product design for 10 years now.

You have commodity markets where everything is cheap and plentiful, where everything is made by robots who work cheaply and all of your BOMs are identical, you reuse parts to keep costs down and you sell a million of some widget.  This is Sennheiser.

Now you have the specialty market where everything is designed and built for customers who demand performance at all costs.  The profit margin is usually less but your loss in revenue is returned in brand recognition.  This WAS Neumann.

Deciding what market you want to play in is the first step in good design.  Sticking to your plan is step number two.  Not screwing your customers by creating a name for yourself and then switching your products out so that your customer is no longer getting the quality they expect when they buy the brand is number 3.

So you have Ford motors, they sell a million of the Taurus, reuse the chassis at least 4 times in different autos in their Mercury/Lincoln brand lines and sell the basic car by the millions.  These were cheap and plentiful cars.  Ford also makes the GT40.  Handbuilt, top of the line, they make then by the dozens.  You don't see anybody using the same technology between the vehicles.  You can't do it.  The design of a commodity product can't relate to the design of a specialty market.

Don't get me started on Telefunken.  They are worse than Neumann now that they buy the chinese mics and rebrand them.  At least Neumann tries *a little*.

 

[MagnetoSound]

Don't get me started on Telefunken.  They are worse than Neumann now that they buy the chinese mics and rebrand them.  At least Neumann tries *a little*.

It's not the same company, just the same name. Telefunken-USA has nothing whatsoever to do with the original Telefunken company, they just bought the rights to the name.

Just wanted to point that out.

As you were ... 

 

[Svart]

yeah but the intent was to mislead the customer by drudging up an old and respected name from the past.  Sennheiser bought Neumann with the same intent and is what I was leading to previously..

 

[Rossi]

I suppose this thread should be moved to the Brewery.

 

[desol]

These mods are not done with the intent of saving money, they are done because someone (probably at marketing) thinks that it will attract more buyers.

Actually, at one time i did speak to a certain someone at Neumann who told me the change was made
to the KM84 not because of anything having to do with Neumann, but because of customer requests! (laugh)
Complaints about not enough high-end on the mic...

Aside from that, i am tending to agree with you about the transformer 'thing'.

Units built back then, were designed to sound good with the components available at the time, and
they succeeded with what they had. The same principle would apply today.

The problem with making something sound good has little to do with the component used, imo...and more to do with the ability to hear; to discern what sounds good and what does not.

ie: We should be able to make something sound good, with whatever components are available, in whatever era.

 

[MagnetoSound]

The problem, it seems to me, is that the definition of what 'sounds good', to the massed armies of democratized mic buyers, has changed.

Like it or not, louder and brighter now starts at the source.

you can't really blame them for wanting to sell more mics now, can you?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

you can't really blame them for wanting to sell more mics now, can you?

Well, I don't know, some seem to think it's the height of exploitation...

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Actually, at one time i did speak to a certain someone at Neumann who told me the change was made
to the KM84 not because of anything having to do with Neumann, but because of customer requests! (laugh)
Complaints about not enough high-end on the mic...

In the late 50's, when several famed american studios started replacing their ribbon mics with condenser mics, they found them to be very bright. The main reason was that many mic preamps (as there were no consoles -as we know them today- at the time) had built-in HF rise, to compensate for the rather dark character of ribbons. It took some time to normalize the situation.
In France, where condenser mics were the norm, after hearing the latest american records, several sound engineers complained to Neumann and AKG that their U47's and C12's didn't sound as open (bright, shrill, harsh, choose your favorite) as the american ones. It may be what opened the can of worms...

 

[bruno2000]

Ah HA!  The French!!!
;o)

 

[RedNoise]

Ah HA!  The French!!!
;o)

???

 

[craigmorris74]

While I'm a novice when it comes to design, I think I have a valid opinion as to the qualities of several of these mics.  As a general rule of thumb the modern Neumanns tend to offer a hotter signal,  a more pronounced presence spike,  less detail in the midrange.  While achieving the first showing the hot signal and presence/high end spike, the U87ai is the only current model that I've found retains the midrange detail of its predecessors.  This happens to be their last transformer coupled model.

I've never used a preamp that didn't have suitable gain for a condenser mic.  I also have no idea why anyone would need more presence/high end with digital recording.  While I'm sure transformerless designs will one day achieve many of the characteristics of the classic tranformer designs (the TLM 67 tries and fails to do this), Neumann currently seems to be designing their mics to sound impressive at Guitar Center (bright, loud).  Sure the specs are better, but the sound isn't there yet.

I apologize in advance if my opinions are a bit abrasive.

Craig

 

[abbey road d enfer]

While I'm a novice when it comes to design, I think I have a valid opinion as to the qualities of several of these mics.  As a general rule of thumb the modern Neumanns tend to offer a hotter signal,  a more pronounced presence spike,  less detail in the midrange.  While achieving the first showing the hot signal and presence/high end spike, the U87ai is the only current model that I've found retains the midrange detail of its predecessors.  This happens to be their last transformer coupled model.

I've never used a preamp that didn't have suitable gain for a condenser mic.  I also have no idea why anyone would need more presence/high end with digital recording.  While I'm sure transformerless designs will one day achieve many of the characteristics of the classic tranformer designs (the TLM 67 tries and fails to do this), Neumann currently seems to be designing their mics to sound impressive at Guitar Center (bright, loud).  Sure the specs are better, but the sound isn't there yet.

I apologize in advance if my opinions are a bit abrasive.

Craig

All the differences you hear are due to the capsule's modifications. There's just no way a transformerless output circuit can add presence and/or substract midrange. OTOH, a xfmr can be made to cut the lows, boost or cut the highs, muddy the mids, if one wishes to do so, but I seriously doubt the engineers at Neumann indulged in that kind of misbehaving. And you're absolutely right, EVERY mic manufacturer design their mics to be impressive at Guitar Center, because that's how they sell, and that's how the majority of users want them.
The point is that a mic doesn't need a transformer to be excellent.