| Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #339748] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 08:12  |
 |
PlugHead
Messages: 115
Registered: April 2004
Location: near the escarpment |
Active Member |
|
|
Gents,
I spoke directly with Dave Pearlman the other day, and am seriously contemplating purchasing one of his mics - just trying to differentiate between the 4 models and deciding which one to try...
First off - I could care less about all the U47 comparisons and hoopla - if the mic sounds great, and can be useful for varied applications is all I care about. I've searched every thread available on all forums re: the merits of each of his mics, so I've done a fair bit of research on this.
Background info: I recently sold my orig. U99 - it wasn't used as much as I wanted (mainly for vocal duties) - I swapped different NOS tubes to change it's palette, but still rarely suited my aesthetic (for voice). I've used a few different U67's, and know their sound fairly well. This is a sound I often prefer, esp. on male voice, and tho the U99 was marketed as a "U67" inspired design, it never sounded at all close to either of the 2 I know and love...
Of the comments I've read, the TM-2 sounds like it has the more favourable mids, which is the area I'm most interested in. I like 'authoritative' lows, but not overly bright top-end, as I already have a couple of mics that exhibit this characteristic (most often flattering). I seek thick and pronounced mids: 'reediness' has been coined by some here, and I think this descriptive is hopefully accurate for the sound I'm seeking - like a km88, but in a large diaphragm design.
For the Pearlman owners - it appears Dave can 'tune' the mics somewhat: in anyone's personal experience, can this be applied to the mid-presence, or is it relegated to hi and low freq. responses? Of the users here with experience re: Dave's mics, which one exhibits the most well-defined mids - thick, and rich, without strident top end?
Thanks to all in advance!
N. Jay Burr
PlugHead Productions
|
|
|
| Re: Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #339757 is a reply to message #339748 ] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 09:07  |
 Steve Hudson
Messages: 482
Registered: November 2004
Location: Austin, Texas USofA |
Active Member |
|
|
I have used all four of Dave's mics and my favorite hands-down is the TM-LE, which I have two of. It doesn't seem to have any weakness at any part of the spectrum - it captures the whole spectrum well and without hype, detailed without any annoying high end. I recently A/B'ed a TM-LE with my M269 and preferred the Pearlman in almost every application (some vocalists sounded better with the Neumann). I see it used a lot on acoustic guitar where I work. A very nice piece of mic design and building. BTW it does not sound as bright as my KM88.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
http://www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson
|
|
|
| Re: Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #339761 is a reply to message #339748 ] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 09:50 |
|
I own a pair of TM-2's. I'd say that the highs are present and detailed, but not harsh. The midrange has a nice character to it. Not boring at all. It really reaches down into the throat of the singer, if that makes any sense. I'm lousey at describing stuff like this, but the fist time I tracked a vocal (female) and acoustic guitar with it, I remember thinking "this is the type of sound I've been after." It's my favorite OH pair as well, and I have been liking it on electric guitar amps. It's very detailed, but not in an unflattering way. Obviously it won't work in every context, but when it's good, it's really good.
It's very hot, so it's handy to have a pad on your preamp.
I opened one up for the first time last night to check out the guts, and it's very well put together.
Hope that helps. If you'd like I could try to post a picture of the innards for you to check out.
Ryan Slowey
Albany, NY
Me: http://www.myspace.com/bubba_joan
Music page: http://www.myspace.com/hangmanslowly
|
|
|
| Re: Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #339770 is a reply to message #339761 ] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 10:15 |
Steve Hudson
Messages: 482
Registered: November 2004
Location: Austin, Texas USofA |
Active Member |
|
|
| Ryan Slowey wrote on Thu, 08 May 2008 09:50 |
It's very hot, so it's handy to have a pad on your preamp
|
Or some inline pads like the Shures. I had to deal with this issue when using the TM-LEs on OHs into API 512Cs.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
http://www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson
|
|
|
| Re: Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #339786 is a reply to message #339748 ] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 11:12 |
|
PlugHead
Messages: 115
Registered: April 2004
Location: near the escarpment |
Active Member |
|
|
Thanks for the comments gents - much appreciated.
So - the LE has something special about it? This actually was Dave's suggestion as well.
The TM-2 appeals to me as well - other specific comments on this mic are welcome...
cheers,
N. Jay Burr
PlugHead Productions
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #339830 is a reply to message #339825 ] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 14:03 |
Steve Hudson
Messages: 482
Registered: November 2004
Location: Austin, Texas USofA |
Active Member |
|
|
| Ryan Slowey wrote on Thu, 08 May 2008 13:31 |
| PlugHead wrote on Thu, 08 May 2008 12:12 |
So - the LE has something special about it? This actually was Dave's suggestion as well.
|
The TM-LE uses a Neumann K-67 capsule, which is the capsule used in the U67. I believe that's the only difference.
|
Which is also the capsule used in the U87ai, which I don't care for in the least. Just goes to show how all the elements of a mic contribute to its sound.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
http://www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson
|
|
|
| Re: Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #339866 is a reply to message #339825 ] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 16:08 |
|
PlugHead
Messages: 115
Registered: April 2004
Location: near the escarpment |
Active Member |
|
|
| Ryan Slowey wrote on Thu, 08 May 2008 14:31 |
| PlugHead wrote on Thu, 08 May 2008 12:12 |
So - the LE has something special about it? This actually was Dave's suggestion as well.
|
The TM-LE uses a Neumann K-67 capsule, which is the capsule used in the U67. I believe that's the only difference. The TM-2 uses a capsule made by John Peluso, IIRC.
|
Yes, this was mentioned by Dave as well, and as Steve mentioned re: the U87, implementation is everything.
I have nothing against Peluso-made capsules: whatever serves my needs. If it's implemented in a manner that effectively presents a smooth, buttery mid-range, I could care WHO makes the capsule (unless it's 8 yr old children in a sweatshop in Malaysia etc.)
cheers,
N. Jay Burr
PlugHead Productions
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pearlman TM-1 vs. TM-1 LE vs. TM-2 vs. Church? [message #340620 is a reply to message #340293 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 11:04 |
|
PlugHead
Messages: 115
Registered: April 2004
Location: near the escarpment |
Active Member |
|
|
| dbock wrote on Sat, 10 May 2008 19:30 |
| Quote: |
tho the U99 was marketed as a "U67" inspired design, it never sounded at all close to either of the 2 I know and love...
|
The U99 was marked as a modified67 design- no NFB or HF rolloffs etc. Not disputing your results.
regards,
David
|
Thanks for chiming in David. I respect your work, and craftsmanship - it was a tough decision to move that mic - it worked so well on a good many other subjects, just not for it's intended purpose.
Good luck with the new company - I wish you the best of success!
N. Jay Burr
PlugHead Productions
|
|
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
