Neumann TLM 102 vs DPA 4099G (universal vs special)

[ezFinger]

I choose TLM 102 instead of AKG Lyra last week.
Then, I compared with DPA 4099G.
4099 is special microphone for musical instruments.
102 is universal microphone for all round.
what's better for guitar?

and


The guitar is same. Somogyi MDC.

[DupleMeter]

The 4099 is universal. The "G" version just includes a mount that works for guitar (and 'cello). The only difference form one 4099 to another is the mounting hardware (though they offer a less sensitive version for very loud instruments, like brass). Basically the 4099 is a cheaper DPA pencil condenser, similar to the 4011 or 2012, only less expensive.

That said, it's a preference thing. They don't sound the same & they aren't meant to.

About the mount that comes with the 4099: I think it puts the mic too close for a great sound.

You're also comparing a small diaphragm (the 4099) and large diaphragm (TLM 102) to each other. They have intrinsically different responses to input signal. An SDC reacts faster (smaller surface area & mass = less energy to make it move), so you get more transient detail. I actually find that a down side. Digital is so clean already that I find I want to tame the transients of stringed instruments.

Small diaphragm mics have more self noise. It's just the physics of making the diaphragm smaller.

Large diaphragm mics are less transparent. The physics of the larger diaphragm make it so that there is a skew in the pickup of certain frequencies. A lot of people find that pleasing, but it is adding a sound to things.

The DPA is an electret or permanently polarized capsule, while the Neumann is an externally polarized capsule. This means the DPA "charges" the backplate of the capsule with an electrical charge during production, where the Neumann relies solely on phantom power for that. Early electrets earned themselves a bad name because the voltage would fade over time making the mic less sensitive & more noisy. This is no longer the case. DPA solely produces electret condensers & they are considered some of the finest mics around. In the same category as Schoeps, Neumann, Sanken, etc.

More acoustic guitar recordings have been made with a U87 than any other (pretty much more "anyhting" has been recorded with a U87...it's just the de facto studio mic, and has been since the '70s). The TLM102 is the little cousin of the U87. It doesn't sound exactly the same, but it's in the neighborhood. Maybe a couple blocks away ;-) Definitely closer than the TLM103.

So, which is better is subjective. I would go for the TLM102 myself, because I prefer large diaphragm condensers most of the time...and all the time for guitars.

[rick-slo]

In those recordings the TLM 102 is a little warmer sounding of the two. No particular preference and hard to derive realistic
conclusions (lots of other variables). I do have a TLM 103 which I used a little bit but my favorite mikes for solo guitar have
been Microtech Gefell 295s (small diaphram mikes).

[Doug Young]

These both sound fine, and not all that different to me on this recording. But the 4099's intended for live amplification, with some limitations for recording: You're really restricted in placement with the 4099, and they can pick up some handling noise (tho I didn't notice any here). Since you have both, I'd try the 102 down at the lower bout, the 4099 where you have it, and record in stereo.