Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine
Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine
Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine
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