Neumann TLM 103 Professional Microphone

Every bit as good as a U-87. Transparent, open, and natural. I have a a large collection of mics and I am very happy with this addition. What a value. So, it only has a cardioid pattern--How often do you really use the other patterns anyway?

First, I'd better clarify how limited my opinion is. I am just a rookie building a hobby home studio, so my opinion is relatively uninformed. However, I like things that work, - and the better they work, the better I like them. Before purchasing, I read a lot of reviews. I found quite a range of opinions, but there seemed to be a pattern hidden among the skeptics (buying based upon name rather than useful value) and glowing enthusiasts (so good everything else is crap). There were a handful of reviewers that spoke of quality that showed up in how a track "sat in a mix" rather than in hearing something particular in A/B ing mics. This seemed to have the ring of truth to me. I may not know much, but I do know how much each part of a signal path is vital to the end result. For example, you can do anything you like with the treble knob on an amp, & it won't do much if you've already rolled off the treble at the instrument. I also know that I haven't been happy with the results of using the inappropriate gear I have. It's been too much work trying to remove irritants and keep enough of what I want to get a strong and balanced mix. Assuming that nearly any studio mic would be better than what I had, I ordered both a Neumann TLM 103 and a Rode nt2a.

Impressions after 1st experiments:
The set up: I lined up the Neumann and Rode alongside a Sennheiser MD 421-U-5, a Neumann KMS 105, and a Shure 87A. I believe the Sennheiser is intended for both stage and recording use, but is a dynamic mic. The Sennheiser is pretty nice in its own way, but has some of the bite to the treble that lovers of 57s and 58s seem to think is normal. To me, the sort of "presence" that "cuts through a mix" is what you do on stage to hold the attention of a bar crowd. The thing that the 105 taught me is that the point of a good condenser mic is to track the transients so accurately that you don't need crunchy treble to understand the lyrics. Dynamics seem to use a shotgun style response to high frequencies that gets to be a habit. Both the Shure & the KMS 105 are stage mics.

Results: As would be expected, both the 103 and the Rode blew the others away for recording. The stage mics both had very noticable self noise and much tighter patterns. re sensitivity: The needles for both the 103 and the Rode started bouncing to sounds that none of the other mics even detected. The Neumann bounced higher. I was looking for an uncolored sound. If anything, the Rode seemed even more transparent than the Neumann, (I had the Rode switches set to be in the same mode as the 103. i.e., cardoid, no pad, no high-pass filter) but the Neumann just seemed rounder. Recording was effortless. With no eq, a vocal track was easy to lay down, sounded completely natural, and yes, - it sat really well in the mix. I could do anything I wanted with it.

The bottom line: My extremely limited experience says that the 103 appears to do what it is supposed to do, and my intuition says that I won't be disappointed as time goes on. I do trust that tools do best what they do best, and there are a whole lot of other mics out there. What I can't say is whether this is the best "value," or how long it will take before I feel like I have urgent need for something else too. I like the Rode too. Danged if I know if the difference in quality (or personality) is actually worth the money. All I know is that I am happy and have no regrets.

As an "entry level" Neumann this mic cannot be beat.....It has a great "vintage sound" and for the money it's a great deal. It stands up to my other Neumann's just fine....Highly recommneded.

I Neumann TLM 103 profesinal Microphone and it was delivered in less than a week. It was a great offer. Excellent the way it was describe.