How important is…dimension?

"microphones in headphones ... sense of dimension".

Could be that that your hearing is not symmetrical: you're getting a pseudo-stereo effect  from a mono microphone.

I wouldn’t give this particular test a lot of credence, as monitoring your own voice live is a horrible way to test mics due to the secondary path from bone conduction. For example, if you flipped phase on that TLM it might sound totally different.

However, good mics do tend to sound better, all things considered. One thing that mics have to do is encode sound from all different directions into a single mono output. Off-axis response is often the thing that separates bad mics from good ones. The off axis response can be weird in tone and phase, or smooth and natural. (Side note, it is generally better the smaller the diaphragm is, which is why measurement mics have small diaphragms.)

If I was running the GC and wanted you to prefer the Neumann I would just make it 1 dB louder and everyone would swear it was the best.

It'd be interesting to see what you'd think if you blind-tested the mics. You could use https://www.audiotestkitchen.com/, create a lineup of the same Neumann and WA mics and then use the blind-testing feature. When I was in the market for an LDC, my preferences shifted a ton when I couldn't see which mics were glossy and expensive. It's not a criticism or accusation or anything, it's just that branding and marketing work and taking those out of the equation could help you pin down what's behind that sense of dimension you were experiencing.

I tested some mics including a TLM103 and some WAs at Guitar Center recently and didn't get very helpful info. The amp setup was pretty rough at the one I went to; I wouldn't trust that each channel was consistent given that the whole thing was pretty beat up and half-broken. That location (in Chicago) has been on the decline though, so it might be a different story where you are.

"dimension" is such a subjective term. I don't know what that means, how they showed you these mics and what was in the chain for different mics. Personally I don't think hearing your own voice as you speak/sing a good way to test anything.

Plain old signal level can be a deceptive false indicator of quality as well. A few dB's of increased level often sounds "better".

But if you hear it and like it, and it sounds that way when you take it home, then there's nothing wrong here, you found the one that works for you.

My opinion would be that you need to do a proper microphone shootout with gain matched recordings of the same source for a useful comparison to be had. You also would need to consider the sound source. You gotta get scientific with it. i.e. There's a whole lot of factors that could come into play so you need to be aware of them in your testing.

This is a great video of one way to do a mic shootout. The results are certainly interesting.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by dimension. I can hear the distance a sound source is from a condenser mic and the room reflections from the space it was recorded in, but to me the word "dimension" has always been a stereo thing and getting a sense of space and directionality in stereo. I'm not sure how to get that from a mono recording. Could it be that you're just hearing the high frequency boost that the TLM103 is known to have? Although, I haven't spent much time using $1000+ microphones so maybe I'm just missing out on something.

When I got my TF251, I had that same experience. I have yet to find a source it sounds bad on.

I think most people are missing the point here. I don't have an accurate answer for you, but if you ever get the pleasure of using a U47, Telefunken 251, AKG C12 etc or to a slightly lesser extent a Brauner, Manley Gold, Flea etc you'll experience this dimension thing tenfold. Even just line checking them on headphones it feels like there is a vivid recreation of yourself standing right in front of you. I think it boils down to how much detail the mic reproduces, as well as how it handles proximity effect, how much natural high end it has vs cheap capsule or electronically boosted. But this is why those mics are so sought after. In practical terms things recorded through these mics will sit much easier in your mix, where the vocal/instrument can be tucked into the mix without losing all the detail and nuances. Switch a vocal recording to an SM7 or something and you'll get it cutting through the mix but you'll lose all that size and depth and the vocalist won't get that larger-than-life feeling while they record.

Nothing scientific or academic about anything I just wrote, but it comes from real world experience using and making the most of cheap tools the first decade of my career and then moving onto mostly high end tools the second decade and realizing how much easier it was to achieve what I'd been trying so hard to achieve.

If you can pick out the “dimensional” mic 10 out of 10 times in a blind test, that would be something to talk about. But this is just one experience in an uncontrolled environment where it is possible that one microphone was simply LOUDER than the rest.

It’s one of the many many things that add up to making a great sounding record. Is the difference between a tlm103 and the warm audio mic next to it going to make or break your record if all else is the same? Probably not, but it’s important decision among all the countless others that together WILL make or break it. There’s a reason there’s thousands of different types of microphones ranging from $50 to $50,000. And it’s because they make the biggest difference in a record after the performer, performance, and room. Get the 103 if you can afford it

It depends on the material and personal preferences. I've been mixing a long time. Lately the younger clients I have don't actually like much front to back depth in their mixes. For whatever reason they seem to like things to sound pretty two dimensional. Not always, but more often than in the past.

You are possibly referring to 2 variables. Frequency reaponse and polar pattern. They are very important.

Is it possible that microphones all affect the phase of the signal slightly differently and this sense of “dimension” is a psychoacoustic phenomenon experienced when the microphone signal is combined with the bone-conduction signal in the listeners head? Maybe this is another way of saying what others in this thread have already said?

Sounds like you liked that mic. And you should buy it. And you should add it to your tool box because you "get it" you hear what makes that mic cool and using it everyday could become a viable tool in your arsenal of tools and skills. Anything really can do the same. When something stands out in a positive and sometimes even a negative way, take advantage of it.

Edit. But I also agree this "test" was not under the best circumstances

What you experienced in the TLM103 is exactly why I don’t prefer them. They are too detailed for me. I find the TLM170 to be even more detailed. There are few audio sources which I enjoy hearing that much detail. When speaking about dimension I think about hearing air and space around a sound source.

I used TLM103’s for a couple years on vocals. What impressed me was I could have a vocalist stand about 3 feet away from the mic and have it sound similar to vocalist singing only a few inches from a U87.

Sounds like fun. I think maybe mics are more a word of mouth thing if you can talk to others that are doing similar things. I mean testing is great, but I cannot imagine getting a lot of good data from headphones.

My question is can combining two decent say 270 dollar mics equal 9ne 1k mic. Stereo field sqy guitar amp.(?)

There’s no possible way it can feel more 3 dimensional than the other mics. It’s a Mono signal you’re listening to. It was probably just placebo effect or they’ve got something funky in the signal chain they aren’t showing you.

A sense of dimension may have been influenced by any number of factors, from the way you had your head pointed at the microphone to the exact position in the room you were standing in to how the headphones were sitting on your head. Depending on the way this mic display was set up you may also have delays from different sources.

Also what exactly is dimension to you? A big bloomy bottom end? A nice smooth top end? A sense of the room (I.e. reverb)? You said you preferred the tone of the Warm, so I’m wondering what those words mean to you.

Depth and dimension are incredibly important, but not on the input path. These things can / should be created during production and mixing with delays and reverbs. You don’t need “space” in your microphone unless that’s a stylistic thing you want printed in your input. To me, it sounds like you’re just hearing more low-mids that give your voice a “rounder” sound VS something with a mid scoop or high boost that sounds flatter or tinnier. Does it make a difference? Sure. You may find yourself needing slightly less EQ after recording. Is it drastic? No. Is it important? Not usually.

I have watched people at similar mic comparative stations. One mic will be set to omni, another set to figure-8, another cardiod....and then someone walks up and listens to each mic with phones and makes a decision on which mic is preferred.

Well...
You might just be hearing the Neumann's comparatively better capsule...it may also have more headroom. Better "reach" from the capsule and more headroom/dynamics both could be interpreted as "dimension." As others have said, the mic could also be a little hotter and brighter. That bright "detail" is kind of like a clarity or high definition effect in a digital camera and in time, you might hear that extra "detail" for what it is: an effect. It's not uncommon to hear brighter mics as more detailed in the beginning. Eventually your ears will distinguish actual detail from "bright."

People bring up dimension with tube mics, specifically...that they sound 3d. That might make sense given tube mics are powered with higher voltage typically - more electrons and more sound provided the circuit takes advantage of it.

Is dimension important? For modern pop music, I don't really think so. It's so crushed and scooped that I don't see how something subtle and elusive like "dimension" surviving that. If you're recording instruments, dynamic vocalists...anything subtle, sure.