Exceptioonal video! Thank you ! I tried the U87, the AEA R84 DVJ and the Senn 416. The issue I had with the Neumann and AEA was that they are designed in such a way to make the voice sound deep, round and warm which is my normal voice. So with auditions, if not reviewed on studio monitors or professional headphones my voice was too soft. I trained with Marc Graue in LA and his studio almost exclusively uses 416's. So I am back to the 416.
great video Jay! I have both mics and tend to jump between them year by year, my ears grow tired of one and wanna' switch! Both are great, just different flavor. Now, I'm saving up for the U87ai. Honestly? I don't think the U87ai will replace either mic, BUT having one in the locker means more clients are willing to look your direction and also I mean, the history of the U87 is just *chefs kiss* (yeah I'm partially getting one purely for the history of it) Uh, but anyway you've accurately described my time with both mics over the years in one handy dandy video!
I am going to buy both for different applications as you've stated in this video (narration, commercial). Im also going to pick up the Audient iD24 audio interface for its superior preamps but I am also looking at the Solid State Logic SSL 2+ audio interface. The noise floor in both audio interfaces is excellent.
I immediately knew which one was the 103. Man, do I love the sound of that mic! I spent years finding the mic that suits my voice. First an SM7b (every radiostation in the Netherlands used them), then a Rode Broadcaster (found more often in Dutch studios now too), then the BCM705 because I thought they looked cool (they look better than they sound, I find them muffled), then the Broadcaster again, then the TLM102 (which I still use for live on air) and now the TLM103 for recording. The TLM103 is definitely my favorite. I also looked at the Ethos, as that one is deemed ‘the new kid in town’, but I still prefer the 103. Of course: for MY voice. It’s probably not for everyone. Thanks for this video! I’m happy I could distinguish them. Makes me even more confident that I do NOT need another mic 😄 (it’s getting a bit of an addiction and sales are SO tempting…).
great comparison! Would love if you test the MKH50 against the TML103. I have the MHK416 and MHK50 and I think the MKH50 will sound very similar to the TLM103.
I have been switching between the lct 540 & Ethos and notice I have more breath cleanup etc to do with the 540 which is a more sensitive mic. I would think the 103 similarly requires more post work.
Mic B the 103 not even a competition to the trained ear the 416 is nice as a general use mic with intent of processing but if you go for unprocessed raw to my trained ear it is not even close again both nice but completely different level especially in clarity, accuracy and separation of tones.
I really like these mike comparisons - although I don't plan to buy any new gear… I listened to the comparison on Sennheiser HD650. Mic B was so much nicer to the ears. Mic A had a lot more sibilance and sometimes felt as if a steel brush was pulled over the eardrum. Personally, I use Mic C on an MixPre which I find actually cleaner and more pleasant than the Apollo Solo, which I use for the C-Suite C-Vox.
🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷👏🏻, The TLM 103 sounded better in the treated room you used, but not outdoors. For recordings that are indoors, the MKH50 performs better, while for outdoor recording, the MKH 416 or Rode NTG3 are superior, in my opinion that is...
I own both. The 416 is very flat, so it works very well with almost any read. But for something that you would want to listen to for longer narration (audiobooks), it's more pleasant on the 103. It sounds more intimate and personal. It fits your voice nicely.
@@jarredcannonMy subjective view is that his voice sounds better with the 103 because there frequency response is tailored, a bit more bass and treble, than the 416 which is more flat. I just thought it felt more pleasing. Add some EQ, and you can get whatever response you want. The proximity effect of the LDC is more pronounced in the 103, so that's another thing. You can work the mic to get a different effect. Some don't like the "airy" boost of the 103, so some object to that. Whichever one you like, that's the one for you.
@@paulmccloud Yeah listen no hate, but subjective or not, there are objective things about mics that we can state. The 103 doesn't have more bass than a 416, and there's nothing "tailored" about a v-shaped mic... Likewise, the LDC won't get MORE boomy than a shotgun with proximity... WRT EQ, there's a lot more to it than just FR and adjusted FR (EQ). As an example, you can EQ match two mics but they'll still sound different... And if EQ could give you anything you wanted, then why would anyone spend more than like $200 on some mic and match it to, like an 87ai or an 017 Both of them have very hyped, sibilant high ends. You can say you like one more, but a sibilant mic is never a pleasing mic. Notice how the 103 is rare in, say, the audiobook world (but not unheard of) A mic that you may be interested in given what you've said is the OC18/818 with the hard top cap removed (it causes a 5khz peak due to the design of it)
tbh the 103 just didn't have that offish artificial high end that and you can just hear a bit more noise on the 416 other than that both good mics for there recommended use
There's some weird resonance here in the A/B samples on both mics that make me think that they aren't a great indication of the performance of either. Owning both, I know that those mics don't resonate like that on their own (though the 103 could benefit from a riser in the basket)
Good ear! You're not alone in noticing. My booth has some hefty resonance peaks due to its dimensions that I'm tweaking with acoustics, but for the A/B I wanted to keep it honest without any adjustments to the audio. The remainder of the video addresses the resonance in post for both mics to a degree.
I love my 416 but I never use it for long scripts because recording pickups on it are a nightmare if you're not in exactly the same spot as when you record the original. The tone and proximity is difficult to match...so I use it for commercials and promos. I use my TLM 102 for everything else because those pickups are a breeze. These mics serve totally different purposes in my opinion but both amazing in their own right.
I could hear the difference. I’ve always felt the 416 has more… maybe resonance is the word. I’ve had both mics for years and I’ve used the 103 maybe 2 or 3 times. I don’t dislike it at all. I think what happened is that I found my favorite mic(416) and then kept buying microphones because buying them just became a habit. There’s also something I noticed about the 103 that’s different from all of my other microphones. Can you tell me if this is something you noticed as well? I use mixpre audio interfaces with my microphones. When I’m using the 103 and I’m hearing myself through my headphones, there’s a sort of… emptiness to the sound. Maybe the word is clarity. I don’t know. But it just sounds like the vacuum of space around my voice. It’s not something that matters to me one way or the other. Just something I noticed. I wondered if it had to do with the noise floor of the 103, but I also have the Nt1 and it has a lower noise floor than the 103 and yet it doesn’t have that same empty/ clear/ nothingness sound of the 103.
Glad you liked the video! And the 416 as well ;) Regarding your question, unfortunately, I'm not sure as I've never used a mixpre interface/recorder. However, I can say that I've experienced something similar when using my Zoom H6 recorder, which might simply have something to do with the headphone preamps relative to what one might find in a studio interface like the Apollo. That's just a guess though.
So I found this shocking, and initially thought there must be a mistake here. I have always preferred the sound of the 416 and (incorrectly) picked it instantly as Mic B. Bigger, warmer, punchier, thicker, more production-ready. This comparison seems to directly contradict what I hear in Booth Junkie's comparison (ruclips.net/video/sdE_VekATvE/видео.html). However on closer inspection I've realised this: the 416 comes into its own for VO when used with the foam windshield which warms up the bottom end and takes away some of the harsher highs. Other comparison vids confirm that when used without the windshield, the 416 lacks body and "oomph".
Very nice. I notice you don't use a traditional round pop filter but you called the mic cover a pop filter? Are those two things practically doing the same? Don't you find using a cover changes the character a bit? Thanks for sharing your views and for making such an authentic review.
I have a video talking about exactly that! How to Choose the Best Pop Filter for YOU -- Tips from a Professional Voiceover Artist ruclips.net/video/QkROCKBOqmc/видео.html I’m not using them here for the sake of the camera, but normally I do use a pop filter.
I am very conflicted I own a MKE 600 but I was not very pleased with the results in terms of noise rejection when I am filming interviews during events, like parties or weddings. Is the Sennheiser MKH 416 better or it's more for voice overs, or maybe I should go for a NTG5 or NTG4 ?
Really I think all would be good options and would simply come down to personal preference. If you're happy with the results you're getting with the MKE 600, I wouldn't feel pressured to switch. If you're curious though, maybe you could find a place that rents the mics for a day or so and you could test them!
@@jaymyersvoiceover Thank you very much for the prompt response. I really appreciate that. I started for fun also my youtube vlog (coming back to italy) and the MKE600 for voice overs and ambience sound is great. I really live a bit in the middle of nowhere but close to Milan. So, they might have that somewhere. My need is to have a shotgun that can get just the talent voice from the front when I interview them without putting a lapel mic.
@@AndreaFarnocchiaMedia For that use case, I think you'll still be fine with the MKE 600 personally. It's a quite good mic overall. Again, you might prefer one of the others personally, but 99% of folks on YT aren't going to hear a significant difference between mics of that quality.
Good morning Jay, I have an off topic question about plugins. Activate or bypass plugins while recording. If a plugin is active while recording are the signal changes imbedded permanently in the recording; ie is it better to bypass plugins when recording ?
Morning! That's a good question, and it depends on the program/process you're using. For example, during the recording process if you are using a UAD interface, you can choose to have the plugins imbedded into the recording or not. If however you have plugins active in a recording software like Reaper or Audition, those will only apply plugins/effects either when you render the audio (in the case of Reaper) or when you apply the effects (in Audition). Having the plugins active while you record in either software will not change the recording, and bypassing them while you record will just lower the load on your computer's processing power.
Thanks Jay, I wasn't sure if I was double processing. I have the RCP2 and intentionally don't activate the onboard process for the reason you say about the UAD interface but I wondered about plugins. I have been whittling the recording chain down to just a few plugins that give me the sound I like. I think I have finally learned that more is not better & the all-in-one plugins are a bit of a rabbit hole: hard to tell what is really going on. Thanks again Its great to have someone knowledgeable to answer these random questions rather than trying to sift through some of the clutter of half baked opinions on YT. Cheers & have Merry NY Christmas.
Well thanks! The 416 can just be a bit picky with your position relative to it which can be challenging (or at least more so than the 103) to keep consistent over several days.
@@SuperMiker78 I’d say that’s entirely subjective! For my preference however, there are other mics I personally prefer to use. Though major audiobook studios DO use the 416 often.
the tlm 103 has a richer deep tone, at the base, but looses something, the MKH-416 has a clarity level I'm not hearing out of the 103.. there is something in Mid-high's the 416 has that the 103 is lacking, the 416 just sounds more authentic how people actually sound, the 103 seems to give that up in favor of enriching deeper voice tones which is fine but the m7b mic already accomplishes this BlueSona also.. soooo I would just go that rout if that is what you are after.. the mkh-416 still King personally, thank you for the video..
I own the T power version of the 416 and got it wrong! In my defense I was watching on a TV without headphones. My studio is just a room full of clutter, and that seems to be more than enough for the 416. Sibilance on it seems very dependent on positioning (maybe don't point it straight at the gap in your front teeth!) and use of a pop filter. For you, yes, the 103 is definitely the better sound.
@@jaymyersvoiceover It's the same mic, just powered off 12V T power instead of 48V phantom. It needs a converter to safely use phantom power, but the encumbrance of an extra dongle doesn't matter to a static mic in a VO booth. It's a budget way into the sound of a 416.
I found the 416 to b e a bit too harsh and sibilant... The 416 picks up on high frequencies too much. The TLM103 to be more effective in each of the tests. MIC B is my choice.
They serve totally different purposes. The TLM 103 is way better for voiceovers, acoustic guitars, overheads for drums etc. On the other hand, the 416 shines in film and video production, especially for capturing actors' voices in noisy outdoor settings. If you’re doing voiceovers in a soundproof environment, definitely go for the TLM 103-I’ve got two of them!
While you’re right that the 416 shines on set and on location, the 416 is the main microphone for many pro VOs in their home studios to where it’s more or less an industry standard now, so I wouldn’t write it off for that use case. It’s also used in studio for some audiobook/audio drama productions-Audible uses them all the time.
I bought mine July 2023 after buying a TLM102. Soooooo happy with both.
Glad this video was made for others that had the same question as I did!
thanks Jay, helpful as always
Glad to help!
Exceptioonal video! Thank you ! I tried the U87, the AEA R84 DVJ and the Senn 416. The issue I had with the Neumann and AEA was that they are designed in such a way to make the voice sound deep, round and warm which is my normal voice. So with auditions, if not reviewed on studio monitors or professional headphones my voice was too soft. I trained with Marc Graue in LA and his studio almost exclusively uses 416's. So I am back to the 416.
great video Jay! I have both mics and tend to jump between them year by year, my ears grow tired of one and wanna' switch! Both are great, just different flavor.
Now, I'm saving up for the U87ai. Honestly? I don't think the U87ai will replace either mic, BUT having one in the locker means more clients are willing to look your direction and also I mean, the history of the U87 is just *chefs kiss* (yeah I'm partially getting one purely for the history of it)
Uh, but anyway you've accurately described my time with both mics over the years in one handy dandy video!
Glad you liked it! And I agree with the 87ai on all counts.
I am going to buy both for different applications as you've stated in this video (narration, commercial). Im also going to pick up the Audient iD24 audio interface for its superior preamps but I am also looking at the Solid State Logic SSL 2+ audio interface. The noise floor in both audio interfaces is excellent.
Great choices, those are both fantastic interfaces!
Regarding the A-B comparison, I'm so glad I invested in the TLM 103. I was quite surprised that the difference between mics was so obvious.
I immediately knew which one was the 103. Man, do I love the sound of that mic! I spent years finding the mic that suits my voice. First an SM7b (every radiostation in the Netherlands used them), then a Rode Broadcaster (found more often in Dutch studios now too), then the BCM705 because I thought they looked cool (they look better than they sound, I find them muffled), then the Broadcaster again, then the TLM102 (which I still use for live on air) and now the TLM103 for recording. The TLM103 is definitely my favorite. I also looked at the Ethos, as that one is deemed ‘the new kid in town’, but I still prefer the 103. Of course: for MY voice. It’s probably not for everyone. Thanks for this video! I’m happy I could distinguish them. Makes me even more confident that I do NOT need another mic 😄 (it’s getting a bit of an addiction and sales are SO tempting…).
Thanks for taking the time to lay all that out! It's lovely to hear your thoughts/experiences with all those mics. :)
great comparison! Would love if you test the MKH50 against the TML103. I have the MHK416 and MHK50 and I think the MKH50 will sound very similar to the TLM103.
Glad you liked it! If I end up with a MKH50 in the future I'll keep that in mind. :)
I have been switching between the lct 540 & Ethos and notice I have more breath cleanup etc to do with the 540 which is a more sensitive mic. I would think the 103 similarly requires more post work.
Mic B the 103 not even a competition to the trained ear the 416 is nice as a general use mic with intent of processing but if you go for unprocessed raw to my trained ear it is not even close again both nice but completely different level especially in clarity, accuracy and separation of tones.
I really like these mike comparisons - although I don't plan to buy any new gear…
I listened to the comparison on Sennheiser HD650.
Mic B was so much nicer to the ears.
Mic A had a lot more sibilance and sometimes felt as if a steel brush was pulled over the eardrum.
Personally, I use Mic C on an MixPre which I find actually cleaner and more pleasant than the Apollo Solo, which I use for the C-Suite C-Vox.
🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷👏🏻, The TLM 103 sounded better in the treated room you used, but not outdoors. For recordings that are indoors, the MKH50 performs better, while for outdoor recording, the MKH 416 or Rode NTG3 are superior, in my opinion that is...
I own both. The 416 is very flat, so it works very well with almost any read. But for something that you would want to listen to for longer narration (audiobooks), it's more pleasant on the 103. It sounds more intimate and personal. It fits your voice nicely.
Thanks!
Just checking in... In what world is the 416 flat and the 103 pleasant??
@@jarredcannonMy subjective view is that his voice sounds better with the 103 because there frequency response is tailored, a bit more bass and treble, than the 416 which is more flat. I just thought it felt more pleasing. Add some EQ, and you can get whatever response you want. The proximity effect of the LDC is more pronounced in the 103, so that's another thing. You can work the mic to get a different effect. Some don't like the "airy" boost of the 103, so some object to that. Whichever one you like, that's the one for you.
@@paulmccloud Yeah listen no hate, but subjective or not, there are objective things about mics that we can state. The 103 doesn't have more bass than a 416, and there's nothing "tailored" about a v-shaped mic... Likewise, the LDC won't get MORE boomy than a shotgun with proximity...
WRT EQ, there's a lot more to it than just FR and adjusted FR (EQ). As an example, you can EQ match two mics but they'll still sound different... And if EQ could give you anything you wanted, then why would anyone spend more than like $200 on some mic and match it to, like an 87ai or an 017
Both of them have very hyped, sibilant high ends. You can say you like one more, but a sibilant mic is never a pleasing mic. Notice how the 103 is rare in, say, the audiobook world (but not unheard of)
A mic that you may be interested in given what you've said is the OC18/818 with the hard top cap removed (it causes a 5khz peak due to the design of it)
tbh the 103 just didn't have that offish artificial high end that and you can just hear a bit more noise on the 416 other than that both good mics for there recommended use
There's some weird resonance here in the A/B samples on both mics that make me think that they aren't a great indication of the performance of either. Owning both, I know that those mics don't resonate like that on their own (though the 103 could benefit from a riser in the basket)
Good ear! You're not alone in noticing. My booth has some hefty resonance peaks due to its dimensions that I'm tweaking with acoustics, but for the A/B I wanted to keep it honest without any adjustments to the audio. The remainder of the video addresses the resonance in post for both mics to a degree.
Great comparison. I already have the 416 and have been looking for a video on how best to set it up. Do you have a video about that?
Not yet! But I’ll put it on the list :)
I got it right between A&B confirmed by the proximity test.
Three weeks later, having forgotten my previous answer, I got it totally backward this time.
I love my 416 but I never use it for long scripts because recording pickups on it are a nightmare if you're not in exactly the same spot as when you record the original. The tone and proximity is difficult to match...so I use it for commercials and promos. I use my TLM 102 for everything else because those pickups are a breeze. These mics serve totally different purposes in my opinion but both amazing in their own right.
Solid point! I feel very much the same way.
I could hear the difference. I’ve always felt the 416 has more… maybe resonance is the word. I’ve had both mics for years and I’ve used the 103 maybe 2 or 3 times. I don’t dislike it at all. I think what happened is that I found my favorite mic(416) and then kept buying microphones because buying them just became a habit. There’s also something I noticed about the 103 that’s different from all of my other microphones.
Can you tell me if this is something you noticed as well? I use mixpre audio interfaces with my microphones. When I’m using the 103 and I’m hearing myself through my headphones, there’s a sort of… emptiness to the sound. Maybe the word is clarity. I don’t know. But it just sounds like the vacuum of space around my voice. It’s not something that matters to me one way or the other. Just something I noticed. I wondered if it had to do with the noise floor of the 103, but I also have the Nt1 and it has a lower noise floor than the 103 and yet it doesn’t have that same empty/ clear/ nothingness sound of the 103.
Glad you liked the video! And the 416 as well ;)
Regarding your question, unfortunately, I'm not sure as I've never used a mixpre interface/recorder. However, I can say that I've experienced something similar when using my Zoom H6 recorder, which might simply have something to do with the headphone preamps relative to what one might find in a studio interface like the Apollo. That's just a guess though.
So I found this shocking, and initially thought there must be a mistake here. I have always preferred the sound of the 416 and (incorrectly) picked it instantly as Mic B. Bigger, warmer, punchier, thicker, more production-ready. This comparison seems to directly contradict what I hear in Booth Junkie's comparison (ruclips.net/video/sdE_VekATvE/видео.html). However on closer inspection I've realised this: the 416 comes into its own for VO when used with the foam windshield which warms up the bottom end and takes away some of the harsher highs. Other comparison vids confirm that when used without the windshield, the 416 lacks body and "oomph".
Thanks for this note, I had the same assumption and then confusion as you.
Great! What lens(focal length) are you using in the booth?
Quite wide!
24mm 😊 it’s pretty tight quarters
Thank you! What are you using in your Booth on the walls? Looks very stylish
Thanks! The wall treatment is from Studiobricks, it’s built into their booths. I’m not sure if they sell it separately though.
Very nice. I notice you don't use a traditional round pop filter but you called the mic cover a pop filter? Are those two things practically doing the same? Don't you find using a cover changes the character a bit? Thanks for sharing your views and for making such an authentic review.
I have a video talking about exactly that!
How to Choose the Best Pop Filter for YOU -- Tips from a Professional Voiceover Artist
ruclips.net/video/QkROCKBOqmc/видео.html
I’m not using them here for the sake of the camera, but normally I do use a pop filter.
I am very conflicted I own a MKE 600 but I was not very pleased with the results in terms of noise rejection when I am filming interviews during events, like parties or weddings. Is the Sennheiser MKH 416 better or it's more for voice overs, or maybe I should go for a NTG5 or NTG4 ?
Really I think all would be good options and would simply come down to personal preference. If you're happy with the results you're getting with the MKE 600, I wouldn't feel pressured to switch. If you're curious though, maybe you could find a place that rents the mics for a day or so and you could test them!
@@jaymyersvoiceover Thank you very much for the prompt response. I really appreciate that. I started for fun also my youtube vlog (coming back to italy) and the MKE600 for voice overs and ambience sound is great. I really live a bit in the middle of nowhere but close to Milan. So, they might have that somewhere. My need is to have a shotgun that can get just the talent voice from the front when I interview them without putting a lapel mic.
@@AndreaFarnocchiaMedia For that use case, I think you'll still be fine with the MKE 600 personally. It's a quite good mic overall. Again, you might prefer one of the others personally, but 99% of folks on YT aren't going to hear a significant difference between mics of that quality.
Good morning Jay, I have an off topic question about plugins. Activate or bypass plugins while recording. If a plugin is active while recording are the signal changes imbedded permanently in the recording; ie is it better to bypass plugins when recording ?
Morning! That's a good question, and it depends on the program/process you're using. For example, during the recording process if you are using a UAD interface, you can choose to have the plugins imbedded into the recording or not. If however you have plugins active in a recording software like Reaper or Audition, those will only apply plugins/effects either when you render the audio (in the case of Reaper) or when you apply the effects (in Audition). Having the plugins active while you record in either software will not change the recording, and bypassing them while you record will just lower the load on your computer's processing power.
Thanks Jay, I wasn't sure if I was double processing. I have the RCP2 and intentionally don't activate the onboard process for the reason you say about the UAD interface but I wondered about plugins. I have been whittling the recording chain down to just a few plugins that give me the sound I like. I think I have finally learned that more is not better & the all-in-one plugins are a bit of a rabbit hole: hard to tell what is really going on. Thanks again Its great to have someone knowledgeable to answer these random questions rather than trying to sift through some of the clutter of half baked opinions on YT. Cheers & have Merry NY Christmas.
My pleasure! Glad you're finding your way to the best signal chain for you! And a very happy holidays to you as well :)
Wonderful voice, as always! How would the MKH 416 be for long format projects like audio books?
Well thanks! The 416 can just be a bit picky with your position relative to it which can be challenging (or at least more so than the 103) to keep consistent over several days.
@@jaymyersvoiceover excellent point! Would you say sound wise-that it would be pleasing to the ears long term? Depending on the voice of course
@@SuperMiker78 I’d say that’s entirely subjective! For my preference however, there are other mics I personally prefer to use. Though major audiobook studios DO use the 416 often.
@@jaymyers5010 thanks Jay, I value and appreciate your opinion!
I guessed right 416=A narrow, TLM103=B wider --give away was the low end
the tlm 103 has a richer deep tone, at the base, but looses something, the MKH-416 has a clarity level I'm not hearing out of the 103.. there is something in Mid-high's the 416 has that the 103 is lacking, the 416 just sounds more authentic how people actually sound, the 103 seems to give that up in favor of enriching deeper voice tones which is fine but the m7b mic already accomplishes this BlueSona also.. soooo I would just go that rout if that is what you are after.. the mkh-416 still King personally, thank you for the video..
Interesting points! Thanks for taking the time to lay them out. I might throw the 416 on for a few projects next week ;)
Great video
The TLM 103 for me.
I own the T power version of the 416 and got it wrong! In my defense I was watching on a TV without headphones.
My studio is just a room full of clutter, and that seems to be more than enough for the 416. Sibilance on it seems very dependent on positioning (maybe don't point it straight at the gap in your front teeth!) and use of a pop filter.
For you, yes, the 103 is definitely the better sound.
Thanks! Never tried the 416 T.
@@jaymyersvoiceover It's the same mic, just powered off 12V T power instead of 48V phantom. It needs a converter to safely use phantom power, but the encumbrance of an extra dongle doesn't matter to a static mic in a VO booth. It's a budget way into the sound of a 416.
@@colinmorrison5119 T often has a K415 capsule, and even with the 416, I find the T versions often sound....a hair sweeter than the modern 416.
I found the 416 to b e a bit too harsh and sibilant... The 416 picks up on high frequencies too much. The TLM103 to be more effective in each of the tests. MIC B is my choice.
Nice!
For booth...TLM 103. A less than perfect space go with the 416.
The TLM 103 sounds much better as far as sibilance.
I agree
I like B
They serve totally different purposes. The TLM 103 is way better for voiceovers, acoustic guitars, overheads for drums etc. On the other hand, the 416 shines in film and video production, especially for capturing actors' voices in noisy outdoor settings. If you’re doing voiceovers in a soundproof environment, definitely go for the TLM 103-I’ve got two of them!
While you’re right that the 416 shines on set and on location, the 416 is the main microphone for many pro VOs in their home studios to where it’s more or less an industry standard now, so I wouldn’t write it off for that use case. It’s also used in studio for some audiobook/audio drama productions-Audible uses them all the time.
TLM 103
This is the proof that the 416 is not made for Indoor
Say more about that! I’m curious what specifics you’re thinking.