Topic: What is the live application difference between these type of mics?

[cavernut]

What would be the difference between these type of mics to record rock shows:
A Pair of Large diaphragm mics like the Neumann TLM-103/ZST and a pair of small diaphragm mics like the AKG C 480 B CK 61/62/63. With both using a preamp like the V3?
Even though they both are capable of the same polar patterns, frequency response and pressure levels....How do they differ in basic characteristic's???

I was just looking at the possibilities, and a pair of either of these two combinations are exactly the same price....So i was really curious which way people would go with this choice.....

I sorta know what they would both do in a studio situation.
However what are they like in a live environment.....?

Besides the obvious size and weight difference what would the advantages be to running large diaphragm's live?

[tgakidis]

What would be the difference between these type of mics to record rock shows:

Vanilla and chocoloate.......

[TNJazz]

Soncially there is a huge difference due to components used, capsule diameter, body resonances, all that kind of stuff.

Plus the Neumann is an LDC, so it's bulkier and harder to work with in a live setting because it (obviously) uses up a lot more physical space.

TLM103 is quite possibly the most hated mic in the Neumann line.  Most pro forums bash the hell out of it.  I owned a pair a couple of years ago and I made some pretty good recordings with them.  They weren't versatile enough for me at the time though, so I sold them and moved on to something else.  It may be a bit overpriced for what you get, but it's still a good mic.  I'd not hesitate to use them again in an ambient situation.  Some people consider them a hell of a good vocal mic too (I guess it depends on your voice though).

I won't comment on the AKG's, except to say I would pick the Neumanns over them if I had to make a choice between the 2.

[DSatz]

cavernut, the directional pattern specified for a microphone is a generalization, an incomplete description. The actual directional pattern of nearly all microphones varies at different frequencies throughout the audio range. Not only does this affect the way they relate to the sound in a room, but it also means that sound sources at various angles off-axis will be picked up with varying sound quality--sometimes drastically so--because the frequency response of the microphone depends on the angle of sound incidence.

Stereo recording with two main microphones relies critically on the off-axis response as well as the on-axis response of microphones, so it is generally done with smaller microphones. Of course these are also easier to handle physically, and block other people's sight lines less. But the main reason is that consistent freqency response both on- and off-axis requires either small pressure-gradient (i.e. directional) microphones, or if you want to use omni mikes they have to be very, very small (which generally means they will be noisy). No large-diaphragm microphone ever has anywhere near the same frequency response curves on and off-axis (i.e. the same sound quality in all directions); it's a physical impossibility because of the size of the mike vs. the sound wavelengths, unless you want to give up all meaningful high-frequency response.

I suspect that the next step in your audio education ought to be to learn to read polar diagrams for microphones. Neumann publishes good, clear ones; go to their Web site and compare those of the TLM 49 or M 147 for example (both microphones based on a "classic" large-diaphragm capsule design) with those of (say) the KM 183 and KM 185 and you can learn a lot. I'd be glad to talk through it with you here.

--best regards