Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Why did Neumann stop making the KM84? It seems that those who have used
both generally prefer the KM84. The recording I did with the KM184 on
acoustic guitar was too harsh on the high end. I just listened to an
acoustic guitar recorded with a KM84 and it was far superior to the KM184,
at least to my ears.

Martin


  #2   Report Post  
Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Okay, that makes sense. I just assumed that the 184 took over from the 84
because so many people have commented on using the KM184 on acoustic guitar,
but much preferred the KM84.

Martin

"ScotFraser" wrote in message
...
Why did Neumann stop making the KM84? It seems that those who have

used
both generally prefer the KM84. The recording I did with the KM184 on
acoustic guitar was too harsh on the high end. I just listened to an
acoustic guitar recorded with a KM84 and it was far superior to the KM184,
at least to my ears.

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.


Scott Fraser



  #3   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

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
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #5   Report Post  
David Satz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Martin wrote:

My goal over the last 8 months or so was to find a desert island, matched
pair, of microphones to record my Martin D28. I believe I have found it in
the Schoeps CMC6 MK41. [ ... ] As for the KM84 I was quite impressed with
every acoustic guitar recording that used a KM84. Today, a few of us
compared recordings of acoustic guitar that used the Schoeps and KM84.
We all agreed the Schoeps sounded more accurate.


You certainly won't get an argument from me about that! I also prefer
Schoeps over Neumann for accuracy, and the supercardioid is the Schoeps
capsule that I've used the most over the past 25+ years. But you didn't
seem to be asking for recommendations--I thought you just wanted to talk
about the Neumann KM 84 versus its successors.

(By the way, CMC 6-- + MK 41 = CMC 641; that's how all their microphone
nomenclature is supposed to work, but no one seems to get it ... sigh ...)

--Did you also have a chance to try the MK 8 capsule? I have lately become
very fond of figure-8 microphones, and for applications that don't require
especially strong low-frequency response the Schoeps is one of the best.

Disclaimer: I've done most of the German-to-English translations of Schoeps'
product literature for many years, but I'm not a dealer or distributor.

--best regards


  #6   Report Post  
Ty Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

In Article , Fletcher
wrote:
Geoff Wood wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:bh49g9

, but Neumann says they aren't supposed to.

So why are they two different models ?!!


Because you can remove and change the capsule on the KM-100
amplifier and the KM-184 is all one piece... fewer machining and
assembly expenses, lower price tag, greater sales.

The KM-84i became too expensive for Neumann to produce 'cost
effectively'. Transformers cost money and can mess up the 'spec
sheet'... their current 'transformerless' designs while ****ty
sounding in comparison spec way, way, way, better than any of
their transformer based designs... and specs is where it's at if
you don't actually listen to the damn things.

FWIW, I've found the Josephson C-42 and the Gefell 295 to be more
than acceptable alternatives to the KM-84i in exactly the same
applications... but as always... YMMV.


I have a pair of Gefell M294 and m295 here at the moment. Nice sound. Pure
nickel diaphragms! Not nickel sprayed on PVC or Mylar; the whole diaphragm
is nickel.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

  #7   Report Post  
Fletcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Geoff Wood wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:bh49g9

, but Neumann says they aren't supposed to.

So why are they two different models ?!!


Because you can remove and change the capsule on the KM-100
amplifier and the KM-184 is all one piece... fewer machining and
assembly expenses, lower price tag, greater sales.

The KM-84i became too expensive for Neumann to produce 'cost
effectively'. Transformers cost money and can mess up the 'spec
sheet'... their current 'transformerless' designs while ****ty
sounding in comparison spec way, way, way, better than any of
their transformer based designs... and specs is where it's at if
you don't actually listen to the damn things.

FWIW, I've found the Josephson C-42 and the Gefell 295 to be more
than acceptable alternatives to the KM-84i in exactly the same
applications... but as always... YMMV.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"


  #8   Report Post  
tomhartman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

(David Satz) wrote in message . com...
Martin wrote:

My goal over the last 8 months or so was to find a desert island, matched
pair, of microphones to record my Martin D28. I believe I have found it in
the Schoeps CMC6 MK41. [ ... ] As for the KM84 I was quite impressed with
every acoustic guitar recording that used a KM84. Today, a few of us
compared recordings of acoustic guitar that used the Schoeps and KM84.
We all agreed the Schoeps sounded more accurate.


You certainly won't get an argument from me about that! I also prefer
Schoeps over Neumann for accuracy, and the supercardioid is the Schoeps
capsule that I've used the most over the past 25+ years. But you didn't
seem to be asking for recommendations--I thought you just wanted to talk
about the Neumann KM 84 versus its successors.

(By the way, CMC 6-- + MK 41 = CMC 641; that's how all their microphone
nomenclature is supposed to work, but no one seems to get it ... sigh ...)

--Did you also have a chance to try the MK 8 capsule? I have lately become
very fond of figure-8 microphones, and for applications that don't require
especially strong low-frequency response the Schoeps is one of the best.

Disclaimer: I've done most of the German-to-English translations of Schoeps'
product literature for many years, but I'm not a dealer or distributor.

--best regards



Another Neumann that sounded great on acoustic guitar was the Neumann
KM-54. They used them at Abbey Road quite a bit and I remember them
sounding pretty wonderful. They also used this mike on snare (!) and
piano. Seemed to be a bit of a workhorse. This is during pop
sessions...have no idea how it would fare on more legit stuff. These
are around too...but pretty expensive. Does anyone know whether the
tubes in these are still available?
  #9   Report Post  
ScotFraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

The KM 184 was introduced
five years after the KM 140 and matches it completely in terms of sound
and specifications, except for the "interchangeable / separable active
capsule" feature of the KM 100 series which the KM 180 mikes don't have.


Let's settle this once & for all. Somebody in LA with KM184s (Ben?) should come
over here & put them up next to a pair of my KM140s, plugged into identical
channels of Focusrite pre & we'll listen & see if there is any discernible
difference. I've only used 184s in PA situations & not had my 140s along to
compare. Can we do this, somebody?



Scott Fraser
  #10   Report Post  
Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

My take on accurate is how close the mic reproduces an instrument that is
not plugged into anything. The thing I noticed on the Schoeps was what I
wasn't hearing. I don't hear that screeching high end or that muffled sound
or that annoying....... Perhaps my statement, "We all agreed the Schoeps
sounded more accurate.", could have been rephrased by saying that "we all
preferred the sound of the Schoeps." Anyway, we were probably splitting
hairs on the KM84 because we all quite liked it. Which lead me to my first
post in this thread; why did they do away with the KM84 when it sounds so
good? Everytime I pose a question like that I learn a lot from all the great
responses.

Martin

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
In Article , "Martin"
wrote:
Interesting.

My goal over the last 8 months or so was to find a desert island, matched
pair, of microphones to record my Martin D28. I believe I have found it

in
the Schoeps CMC6 MK41. I have researched, read everything I could find,
listened to every sample of every mic I could find, renting everything in
sight, etc... I'm sure there are other high quality mics that could be
considered but I want to get on with it. As for the KM84 I was quite
impressed with every acoustic guitar recording that used a KM84. Today, a
few of us compared recordings of acoustic guitar that used the Schoeps

and
KM84. We all agreed the Schoeps sounded more accurate.

Martin


Hmmm. Martin, can you expound on accurate?

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford





  #12   Report Post  
Uncle Russ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Hi, Scott.

I have a pair of new 184s in perfect condition. Ben and I used them on my
recent album. I'd love to test them against your 140s. I've been reading
these comments for quite some time and it would be most interesting to add
some really substantial input.

Oh, and I'm sure Ben would like to participate, too. He thinks very highly
of you.

"Uncle Russ" Reinberg

"ScotFraser" wrote in message
...
The KM 184 was introduced
five years after the KM 140 and matches it completely in terms of sound
and specifications, except for the "interchangeable / separable active
capsule" feature of the KM 100 series which the KM 180 mikes don't have.


Let's settle this once & for all. Somebody in LA with KM184s (Ben?) should

come
over here & put them up next to a pair of my KM140s, plugged into

identical
channels of Focusrite pre & we'll listen & see if there is any discernible
difference. I've only used 184s in PA situations & not had my 140s along

to
compare. Can we do this, somebody?



Scott Fraser



  #13   Report Post  
David Satz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Tom Hartman wrote:

Another Neumann that sounded great on acoustic guitar was the Neumann
KM-54. [ ... ] Does anyone know whether the tubes in these are still
available?


They aren't made any more but there is a certain supply of them around
in various places. The typical cost of a Telefunken AC 701k that tests
well is still in the low hundreds of dollars, for now at least.
  #14   Report Post  
Fill X
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

I don't know from 'accurate'... it's not what I do. I have found the Gefell
295
and the T.H.E. KP-6M to be my current favorites for acoustic guitars... but
for
all I know we're looking for very different results when recording acoustic
guitars.



Ah, a pet peeve of mine. I rarely hear a recording of an acoustic guitar
anymore where you hear whole instrumen;, rattles, strings and body etc. The
glossy high end sheen with the body rolled out of it has been really dominant
on records for many years and I can't stand it. What's worse is that many
guitar makers are trying to build more toward that sound, using thin tops
thatsound good right out of the box and buckle if you play them hard.

I miss acoustic guitars sounds like the ones on "Beggars Banquet" or even "The
times they are a changin' ", but I guess that kind of sound is another thing
that's "Unacceptable" these days.




P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker




  #16   Report Post  
Luke Kaven
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

John Hardy wrote:

Somebody in LA with KM184s (Ben?) should come
over here & put them up next to a pair of my KM140s, plugged into identical
channels of Focusrite pre


Geez, there has GOT to be a better preamp than THAT for an accurate
comparison.


John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.


Somewhere there is...

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.


But Where?

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.


Just can't think...

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.

  #17   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:bh49g9

, but Neumann says they aren't supposed to.

So why are they two different models ?!!


The KM-140 allows the capsule to be removed so you can put omnis and hypers
on. The KM-184 has a fixed capsule in the body.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #18   Report Post  
Karl Winkler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

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
  #19   Report Post  
ScotFraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

Geez, there has GOT to be a better preamp than THAT for an accurate
comparison.

Yes, & I mention it (ISA428) because it's the only box I have 4 channels of. If
you have some channels available in LA with somebody willing to contribute, I'm
way open to that. I don't see that it matters WHICH 4 channels are in use,
though, because the point here is to discern distinctions between the 2 mic
pairs.



Scott Fraser
  #20   Report Post  
ScotFraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

I hope you can carry this experiment out, and am especially glad to see
that you'd test more than one sample of each model. More than two of
each would be even better, particularly if the serial numbers aren't very
close together (per model). I think that if you can determine when the
microphones were made, you'll find that there's greater variation across
years and capsule batches than there is between the two models as such.

I have 4 KM140s, but they're very close serial number-wise, one pair
consecutive, the other near consecutive & only about 50 off the first pair.
Sounds like 2 pairs of 184s have been offered up from Ben & Uncle Russ, so we
should have useable results.

--I have to admit that I don't get the remarks people made about your
preamp since I've never used a Focusrite--is that a strongly "flavored"
preamp?

No, it's a somewhat flavored pre based on Rupert Neve's original channel strip
designed after he left the Neve company. It's more transparent than the old
Neve console channels, 10xx series, but more colored than current high end
designs like Great River, Millennia, Grace, Hardy, Avalon et al. The main point
is I have 4 channels of the Focusrite ISA428 available here, & only 2 of any
other designs. If somebody wants to bring over another 2 channels of Millennia
that would be great, but I think the real issue here is to discern how the 184
& 140 differ sonically, & frankly a Mackie mixer should tell us that.
Scott Fraser


  #21   Report Post  
nmm
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 9:57 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:bh49g9

, but Neumann says they aren't supposed to.

So why are they two different models ?!!


The KM-140 allows the capsule to be removed so you can put omnis and
hypers
on. The KM-184 has a fixed capsule in the body.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


I have a pair of KM-85 mics, that allow the capsule to be removed, for a
gooseneck type thing... Are there capsules ( were there...) with
differant polar paterns for these mics?

The KM-85 body has the low end roll off ( it's marked on the body) and a
10dB pad switch.

I heard the KM-85 was a fave for accoustic guitar.. seems good to me.


  #22   Report Post  
Ty Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

In Article ,
(ScotFraser) wrote:
I hope you can carry this experiment out, and am especially glad to see
that you'd test more than one sample of each model. More than two of
each would be even better, particularly if the serial numbers aren't very
close together (per model). I think that if you can determine when the
microphones were made, you'll find that there's greater variation across
years and capsule batches than there is between the two models as such.

I have 4 KM140s, but they're very close serial number-wise, one pair
consecutive, the other near consecutive & only about 50 off the first pair.
Sounds like 2 pairs of 184s have been offered up from Ben & Uncle Russ, so we
should have useable results.

--I have to admit that I don't get the remarks people made about your
preamp since I've never used a Focusrite--is that a strongly "flavored"
preamp?

No, it's a somewhat flavored pre based on Rupert Neve's original channel strip
designed after he left the Neve company. It's more transparent than the old
Neve console channels, 10xx series, but more colored than current high end
designs like Great River, Millennia, Grace, Hardy, Avalon et al. The main point
is I have 4 channels of the Focusrite ISA428 available here, & only 2 of any
other designs. If somebody wants to bring over another 2 channels of Millennia
that would be great, but I think the real issue here is to discern how the 184
& 140 differ sonically, & frankly a Mackie mixer should tell us that.
Scott Fraser



I have 4 channels of GML...

Ty

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

  #24   Report Post  
ScotFraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

I have 4 channels of GML...


Great, we'll use those. Are you going to be on this side of town in a couple
weeks? With your Martin?


Scott Fraser
  #25   Report Post  
ScotFraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default Neumann KM84

I heard the KM-85 was a fave for accoustic guitar.. seems good to me.

So I hear. And I've sold a couple of KM 85s to people who used them for
that application and seemed to like them very much. I never tried using
them for music myself; I only ever used them for speech pickup.


First time I saw them was in WJHU (Now WYPR), public radio here in
baltimore.

The roll off in the 85 capsule was, I believe, intended to provide a cardioid
response without the proximity effect. They always sounded thin to me. They
tend to sell cheaper than the 84 on the used market.



Scott Fraser
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS or trade vintage mics. Neumann etc. Andy General 0 November 17th 03 09:09 PM
Why does one Neumann M49 has less high end than the other? Can I fix it? Jack Random Pro Audio 8 July 30th 03 11:11 PM
FS: pair of Neumann M49's/Westlake BBSM-8's JWelsh3374 Pro Audio 0 July 29th 03 02:46 PM
FS: Neumann KMR81i shotgun mic & Zeppelin Ron Charles Pro Audio 0 July 20th 03 03:04 AM
Matched Pair of Neumann mics? Dieter Ossenberg Pro Audio 20 July 7th 03 09:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"