I just bought the Blue Baby bottle and love it, sounds a little warmer and more welcoming, definitely worth the price and definitely a great contender.
The biggest difference comes from their polar patterns. The baby bottle is more of a supercardioid shape which is why it has a tighter sound in the open room. Supercardioid also has a lobe of sensitivity at the back. In the booth he has it right in front of the computer screen, so he's getting a lot of reflections in the back. Moving the monitor or angling the mic a little would hsve given completely different results.
I don´t agree. The bottle is a single membrane, cardioid pattern microphone. For hypercardiod on a large diaphragm microphone two membranes are needed. The whole low budget microphone family from BLUE (Bluebird, Baby Bottle, Spark) are cardioid pattern microphones. The problem with the booth is, that he is speaking in the direction of the window, which reflects the sound into the mike. I can hear that in both recordings. The both itself is also not properly treated, taking about acoustics. The pyramid shaped foam just absorbes some of the high frequencies. I can hear that the booth needs more mid frequency absorbers. I would also cover the window, at least with a thick curtain, if there is no visual connection to a sound engineer on the outside needed. Otherwise thanks for the test. The TLM 103 has a sound with hyped presence at low frequencies. Not suitable for all kinds of voices. It would be interesting to hear the baby bottle in comparison with the TLM 102 from, since it is more neutral in sound and also in the same price range. All the best! 🙂
When you started the A/B test in the untreated room I immediately heard more room echo with Mic B, so Mic A worked better in that scenario. BTW, the background music on this video through 2:45 is way too loud and obnoxious. I was overjoyed when it stopped.
They sound remarkably similar. Outside of the booth, I couldn't really tell the difference at all. In the booth, the baby bottle sounded a little brighter.
. l would hope for the extra money the 103 would sound four times fuller, clearer and more transient. l believe that's just not so. lf l was using one for singing? Then the Neumann would be my choice and if it didn't give me any better sound at least lt may provide a plus factor in heightening my confidence level. Sames true with doing voice overs.
I couldn't pick the difference in the untreated room, but the difference was huge in the booth with the TLM very flat whilst the Blue was very lively with top end sparkle. There's no right or wrong. It comes down to sound profile you are looking for.
Fetishising any particular microphone isn't useful in any sense. Before you even watch this review, just keep in mind that inexpensive mics have come so far in the past 20 years - to the point where you'd be stupid to get a Neumann unless you were just trying to find a way to spend money. You are a million times better off spending your time on designing a processing chain to make your mic sound the way you want than you are to get into the weeds with comparing microphones to one another.
I just bought the Blue Baby bottle and love it, sounds a little warmer and more welcoming, definitely worth the price and definitely a great contender.
The biggest difference comes from their polar patterns. The baby bottle is more of a supercardioid shape which is why it has a tighter sound in the open room.
Supercardioid also has a lobe of sensitivity at the back. In the booth he has it right in front of the computer screen, so he's getting a lot of reflections in the back. Moving the monitor or angling the mic a little would hsve given completely different results.
I don´t agree. The bottle is a single membrane, cardioid pattern microphone. For hypercardiod on a large diaphragm microphone two membranes are needed. The whole low budget microphone family from BLUE (Bluebird, Baby Bottle, Spark) are cardioid pattern microphones. The problem with the booth is, that he is speaking in the direction of the window, which reflects the sound into the mike. I can hear that in both recordings. The both itself is also not properly treated, taking about acoustics. The pyramid shaped foam just absorbes some of the high frequencies. I can hear that the booth needs more mid frequency absorbers. I would also cover the window, at least with a thick curtain, if there is no visual connection to a sound engineer on the outside needed. Otherwise thanks for the test. The TLM 103 has a sound with hyped presence at low frequencies. Not suitable for all kinds of voices. It would be interesting to hear the baby bottle in comparison with the TLM 102 from, since it is more neutral in sound and also in the same price range. All the best! 🙂
When you started the A/B test in the untreated room I immediately heard more room echo with Mic B, so Mic A worked better in that scenario.
BTW, the background music on this video through 2:45 is way too loud and obnoxious. I was overjoyed when it stopped.
The levels dont match at the beginning. Your sound booth has a resonent frequency that is very noticeable. Thanks for your video.
What interface did you use for the baby bottle in the booth and what external gear if any?
Naumann has its own sweet spot.
They sound remarkably similar. Outside of the booth, I couldn't really tell the difference at all. In the booth, the baby bottle sounded a little brighter.
agreed!
Neumann sounds more clear but they aren't that far apart
. l would hope for the extra money the 103 would sound four times fuller, clearer and more transient. l believe that's just not so. lf l was using one for singing? Then the Neumann would be my choice and if it didn't give me any better sound at least lt may provide a plus factor in heightening my confidence level. Sames true with doing voice overs.
I couldn't pick the difference in the untreated room, but the difference was huge in the booth with the TLM very flat whilst the Blue was very lively with top end sparkle. There's no right or wrong. It comes down to sound profile you are looking for.
Fetishising any particular microphone isn't useful in any sense. Before you even watch this review, just keep in mind that inexpensive mics have come so far in the past 20 years - to the point where you'd be stupid to get a Neumann unless you were just trying to find a way to spend money. You are a million times better off spending your time on designing a processing chain to make your mic sound the way you want than you are to get into the weeds with comparing microphones to one another.
still the neumann sounds majestic. ngl for us (at least for me) it's completely useless and expensive af, but my god if it's good to hear
baby bottle for spoken word at 6 inches way is best
why pay that when they are on ebay for 65 bucks
What is
The TLM 103 does not sound 3x better to my ears
TML 103 slaps it out of the ballpark way more presence and clearer. especially in untreated room you hear very much difference in quality of the voice
tlm 103 sounds better
The Baby Bottle has less body in the booth. But it's still pretty good.
Baby bottle was more clear and better frequency response
Neumann 103 is way better.
Sound the same
did not sound 1000 dollar better!!!! bbb is agreat mic