10.03.2015 Views

Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine

Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine

Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Gear Review By Trevor Long<br />

|<br />

The Bartlett<br />

TM-125C<br />

www.theatreface.com/tm-125c<br />

I<br />

have an overwhelming desire to like the Bartlett TM-125C Super-<br />

Cardioid <strong>Stage</strong> Floor Mic.<br />

I’ve got a fairly intense love/hate thing with boundary mics<br />

in general. I love them in use for a variety of reasons but hate seeing<br />

the things. Despite claims in advertising literature, just because<br />

something is black doesn’t make it invisible—especially when it is<br />

so close to the audience. So, in that way the Bartlett TM-125C has<br />

an advantage for me. It’s a little less than an inch and three quarters<br />

shorter side to side than the Crown PCC-160 and a quarter inch<br />

shorter upstage to downstage. The height between the two is essentially<br />

the same. So, that’s one big checkmark in the plus category.<br />

Additionally, the same microphone has a model that comes<br />

without a permanently attached cable—the TM-125—so the<br />

cable can be detached and run under a piece of scenery or put<br />

through the floor more easily—also making it less obtrusive.<br />

Channeling my desire to spend as little money on equipment as<br />

possible, the other very attractive feature of the Bartlett microphone<br />

is the price. This supercardioid condenser stage-floor microphone<br />

will run you $199.00 per unit. For comparison I did some online<br />

shopping and averaged 20 retailers’ prices on the Crown PCC-160.<br />

The average price was $247.20. Another big checkmark in the plus<br />

column.<br />

But just because it’s smaller and costs less won’t mean a thing<br />

if the audience isn’t getting the best possible sound—or if your<br />

designer has been driven batty trying to get that sound. And that’s<br />

why we put this to use in as many different ways as we had time for:<br />

I got some time to play around with the microphone in a couple of<br />

rehearsal halls; a friend borrowed the two test units to do a Flamenco<br />

dance concert; a composer/sound designer tested them in his theatre;<br />

three additional engineers tested them in their home studios;<br />

and they were used to provide support for a business meeting/<br />

corporate event.<br />

The rehearsal hall floor tests were first. Different types of materials<br />

were put under the microphones to see if there was any noticeable<br />

difference in the sound quality and to see how sensitive they are to<br />

picking up the severity of footfalls on things like linoleum, medium<br />

density fiberboard (MDF) and carpet (both ‘70s shag and office style).<br />

We all stomped around and talked and walked and talked, a few<br />

people even sang. (I didn’t.) The pickup of the voices was great. Only<br />

the hard-soled shoe and MDF combination caused some legibility<br />

problems, and then only at certain distances. The microphone diaphragm<br />

is perpendicular to the floor, so floor vibrations do not make<br />

the diaphragm move in and out.<br />

Next up was the Flamenco concert. When setting up the sound<br />

tech noticed that the pattern is more open on the backside than<br />

what he expected. He was getting bleed from the front row seats.<br />

Fortunately there was room to make adjustments in placement.<br />

The sound of the concert itself was very natural with minimal EQ<br />

needed. He felt the self-noise of the TM-125C was quieter than that<br />

of the PCC-160, and he also really appreciated the sturdiness and<br />

build quality.<br />

The other real world workout that the microphones got was to<br />

support a business presentation. For this event the engineer knew<br />

that the podium mic would not be sufficient because a particular VIP<br />

on the schedule was known for coming out from behind the podium<br />

The Bartlett TM-125C super-cardioid stage floor mic with permanently attached cable.<br />

at random times. With a house of almost 3,000, that can be annoying<br />

to the audience. He called the Bartletts into use, and the speaker<br />

came and performed as promised, stepping out a number of times<br />

in his speech. The board op was able to smoothly increase the gain<br />

on the TM-125C’s to accommodate. After the speech, the VIP’s handler<br />

expressed how pleased she was. There was a lot a feedback (the<br />

good kind) from the client as well.<br />

Tests aside, what happens when some working sound engineers<br />

and a designer take a look at the microphone side by side with the<br />

PCC-160? After all, Bruce Bartlett, owner of Bartlett Mics, designed<br />

both. He worked for years at Shure and Crown, and that company<br />

has a nice patent certificate for the PCC-160 with Bruce’s name on it.<br />

Of the five people who were interviewed the results were pretty<br />

similar. We’ll start with the matter of the two models. All five would<br />

choose the TM-125. They all cited the fact that for theatre a mic’s<br />

cable is hidden in some way. The ability to disconnect and replace<br />

the microphone easily was a key factor for them.<br />

In terms of sound, two of our testers stated that they would like to<br />

purchase the Bartlett to have in their arsenal of microphones. These<br />

were the same two that did the corporate event and the Flamenco<br />

concert.<br />

Four of our testers reported that the TM-125C required more EQ<br />

to get a natural sound versus the Crown. As one of the testers put<br />

it, “the initial sound through the new mics was boxy. It took some<br />

heavy EQ’ing to get a flat signal.” However, given that the PCC-160<br />

has been the industry standard for years now, this may be a result of<br />

trying to get the TM to sound like the PCC, and what engineers are<br />

“expecting” to hear.<br />

[Bartlett responds: “The mic sounding ‘boxy’ is very odd…Maybe the<br />

frequency response of the mic changed when its cover was removed,<br />

and maybe the mic cover was reversed front-to-back. I’ll measure the<br />

mics when you return them to make sure their performance was what<br />

I sent from the factory.” During the review process (documented online<br />

at www.theatreface.com/tm-125C) the cover for the microphone was<br />

removed prior to sound tests. We’ll update the online page after Bartlett<br />

takes his measurements, and also run the update in an upcoming issue.<br />

—ed.]<br />

What separates the Bartlett microphones is the price. You can<br />

figure on anywhere from<br />

fifty to a hundred dollars less<br />

Bartlett TM-125C<br />

What it is: A super-cardioid<br />

stage floor mic (boundary<br />

mic)<br />

Highlights: Small size;<br />

picks up audio, not floor<br />

noise; good price<br />

What it costs: $199<br />

www.bartlettmics.com<br />

than the Crown PCC-160s,<br />

and still get the sound you<br />

want from the engineer who<br />

designed both mics.<br />

ONLINE BONUS<br />

To see the entire review<br />

process, go to<br />

www.theatreface.com/<br />

tm-125c<br />

40 August 2010 • www.stage-directions.com

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!