Rick Ruskin wrote in message . ..
On 9 Aug 2003 22:09:13 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ScotFraser wrote:
The KM84 was NOT replaced by the KM184. It was replaced by the KM140, which is
not as boosted in the high end as the 184. The 140 was considered an upgrade
because it was quieter, higher output, has a more extended low range, & more
clarity in the highs. They thought this was an improvement. I have a bunch of
both 84s & 140s. Different mics for different jobs as I see it.
Neumann claims that the KM140 and KM184 are basically parallel models, in
that they have the same electronics and the same capsules. They do sound
very different to my ears, but Neumann says they aren't supposed to.
--scott
I recall Karl Winkler saying something about the different layouts of
the circuit boards accounting for the difference in sonic
characteristics of the 2 models.
I see that once again, this topic is getting beaten to death... g I
certainly agree that a listening test should be the best way to
determine what, if any sonic differences exist between the KM184 and
the KM140. These two models use the exact same acoustic element, but
are somewhat different in terms of electronics. In the 140, the entire
amplifier circuit is right behind the capsule, and the powering module
is in the body. This allows for long cables between the capsule and
body while minimizing losses.
The KM 184 has more of a "traditional" small diaphragm mic circuit
layout, with the amplifier and powering components in the body. This
mic was never designed to have the capsule separated from the body,
and thus no such accessories exist to do this.
The KM84, which was made from 1966 to 1988, went through several minor
modifications, and was available in a few different iterations,
including those that were wired standard at 50 ohms (vs. the typical
200), and I think also there were some different sensitivies as well.
But overall, it was truly a great, all-purpose mic and I loved using
them when I was doing touring sound. Very neutral sounding, but there
was a "life" to the sound that gave them just enough sparkle to add
something nice. We only had two in our touring rig, and so it was a
constant discussion whether to use them as drum overheads or for the
acoustic piano. In venues that didn't have a decent piano, we hauled
out the digital piano and of course use the 84s on overheads. Most of
the time, when a good piano was available, we used the 84s for that
instrument and the C451s for drum overheads. This was a better match,
since piano harmonics didn't seem to fit right with the 451s (relative
to the 84s) but cymbals sounded OK (albiet not as good as with the
84s).
The way I usually characterize the difference between the 84 and the
184/140 is that the 84 was great for spot miking but when used at a
greater distance, it was a touch too noisy and sometimes a touch too
"dull". This is where the 140 steps in and I think does a better job.
The 184 is, at least to my ear, equivalent to the 140. But I've always
said that perhaps there are those (Scott?) who can hear the difference
in certain applications or with certain instruments. And perhaps
certain preamps might also bring out more of a difference?
Many have wondered about a number of things related to the demise of
the 84 and the development of the 140 and then 184. Here's my take:
1. "old" technology. The cost of making the KM84 became prohibitive
due not only to the inclusion of a transformer, but also the way in
which the mic was made (more hand production, discrete components,
etc.) There's always an economy of scale and price elasticity
relationship. If you continue to make a product, but raise the price,
then less people buy it and the price rises more. Then even less
people buy it. Then the price goes up again until either sales stop
altogether or the cost of producing it can no longer be justified by
revenues. Any manufacturing of any product is subject to these forces.
2. It may seem strange to us today with our 20/20 hindsight, but the
KM84 may well have been considered "flat-sounding" in the 1980s, and
there was a demand for something "brighther". Neumann generally works
closely with the market to develop products, and the development of
what became the KM100 series was no exception. Also, there were
already hundreds of thousands of 84s in the market... so if someone
wanted one or two, they could be easily found (for about $300, from
what I remember).
3. Originally, the KM 140 was intended to come in at the same price as
the KM84, that is, until the market asked for modularity, certain
types of accessories, etc. And these requests resulted in the "active
capsule" design of this series. And the price was subsequently higher.
Don't forget: a huge part of Neumann's market, especially at that
time, were the classical recording engineers, and they responded quite
well to the new sound which includes a slightly tipped up top, a lower
noise floor, and better low-level signal integrity and linear low
frequency response.
4. By the early 1990s, the market spoke again by saying "the 140 is
great, but we need something less expensive". So a non-modular version
was introduced in 1994: the KM184. And numerically, it has been more
successful thus far than the KM84, when considering units sold per
year (at least in the US).
So take this as what it is: my views and observations, based on my
experience as the former Neumann product manager in the US.
Karl Winkler
Sennheiser
http://www.sennheiserusa.com