| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Neumann km 84 new and old
This is an attempt to attach a new posting to a thread from about two
years ago, to correct something which I've since learned is in error. In case the message doesn't attach itself to the old thread, here's the context--I had written this: "The KM 84, 140 and 184 all use the same K 84 capsule. However, the hemispherical reflector behind the backplate and the side vents is shaped differently on the newer models. This causes a high-frequency response peak of 3 dB or so around 9 kHz, as compared with the more nearly flat on axis KM 84." The response of the KM 84 also had a very slight (maybe 1 dB) bump rather than being absolutely flat at high frequencies, and the difference between the KM 84 and the newer mikes is really only 1 - 2 dB. But the increased bump in the KM 140 and KM 184, according to Martin Schneider of Neumann, is due rather to the narrower slits in the capsule housing, which expose the rear ports of the capsule. For his message on the Neumann Pinboard see: http://tinyurl.com/6qqgx --best regards |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Unless I am mistaken, Martin Schneider also suggests the overall frequency
response of the KM140 and KM184 is virtually identical to that of the KM84 and attributes the newer microphones' perceived brightness as the result of quieter and cleaner electronics. He further states the electronics of the 184 are slightly cleaner than those of the 140, possibly accounting for comments we have read from this group that the 184 is brighter sounding than the 140. He claims the acoustic measurements of each are identical. Comments? "Uncle Russ" Reinberg WESTLAKE PUBLISHING COMPANY www.finescalerr.com WESTLAKE RECORDS www.westlakerecords.com "David Satz" wrote in message om... This is an attempt to attach a new posting to a thread from about two years ago, to correct something which I've since learned is in error. In case the message doesn't attach itself to the old thread, here's the context--I had written this: "The KM 84, 140 and 184 all use the same K 84 capsule. However, the hemispherical reflector behind the backplate and the side vents is shaped differently on the newer models. This causes a high-frequency response peak of 3 dB or so around 9 kHz, as compared with the more nearly flat on axis KM 84." The response of the KM 84 also had a very slight (maybe 1 dB) bump rather than being absolutely flat at high frequencies, and the difference between the KM 84 and the newer mikes is really only 1 - 2 dB. But the increased bump in the KM 140 and KM 184, according to Martin Schneider of Neumann, is due rather to the narrower slits in the capsule housing, which expose the rear ports of the capsule. For his message on the Neumann Pinboard see: http://tinyurl.com/6qqgx --best regards |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Williams wrote:
Newer 87's do have increased "reach" which is important for distant micing. Hi, Jim--nice to see you here. What exactly do you mean by "reach" in the above? The difference between the two U 87 versions is in their respective dynamic ranges; the newer version has lower noise and higher output for a given SPL, plus as you point out, it clips ca. 5 dB sooner (117 dB SPL vs. 122 dB SPL). But usually when I hear someone talk about increased "reach" I take that to mean a sharper directional pattern with greater rejection of random- incident sound energy. That clearly isn't the case here; did you just mean that the newer model would be more suitable for use in extremely quiet recording environments? That's certainly true. Best regards, David |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David Satz" wrote in message
om... What exactly do you mean by "reach" in the above? I've normally called a capsule's ability to be at a distance from the source and still seem to be able to "focus" it's pickup of that source without really changing characteristics as "reaching". For instance, even though many prefer the KM84 over the 184, I've found over the years that, specifically for jazz drum overheads, I've been able to "reach" into the playing of the drums without significantly increasing the overall picture of the cymbals and maintain their character whilst still being able to increase the overall pickup volume on the rest of the set. Better stick articulation on the snare and toms, for instance, without the cymbals changing either their volume nor their particular stick articulation. But I couldn't give you a reason why. It's just something I've observed after using KM184s on drum overheads on some 400 live jazz recording sessions, and it's consistent on playback of the multitrack tapes. The obvious caveat is that different players attack the drums differently, so let's eliminate 99% of all the drummers I've recorded and just say it applies to Lenny White. Either way, it's the best description I can give and it's what I have definitely called "reaching". BTW, my MXL 603s don't "reach" for a good ****, but they still work fine for drum overheads on jazz drummers. I just have to boost them up in the air quite a bit. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio Jim Williams wrote: Newer 87's do have increased "reach" which is important for distant micing. Hi, Jim--nice to see you here. The difference between the two U 87 versions is in their respective dynamic ranges; the newer version has lower noise and higher output for a given SPL, plus as you point out, it clips ca. 5 dB sooner (117 dB SPL vs. 122 dB SPL). But usually when I hear someone talk about increased "reach" I take that to mean a sharper directional pattern with greater rejection of random- incident sound energy. That clearly isn't the case here; did you just mean that the newer model would be more suitable for use in extremely quiet recording environments? That's certainly true. Best regards, David |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
nearly flat on axis KM 84."
The response of the KM 84 also had a very slight (maybe 1 dB) bump rather than being absolutely flat at high frequencies, and the difference between the KM 84 and the newer mikes is really only 1 - 2 dB. But the increased bump in the KM 140 and KM 184, according to Martin Schneider of Neumann, is due rather to the narrower slits in the capsule housing, which expose the rear ports of the capsule. For his message on the Neumann Pinboard see: http://tinyurl.com/6qqgx --best regards I have 4 KM 84s and two KM 184s. Three of my Km84's sound very similar. The fourth probably had a rough childhood. None of them sound even close to the sound of the KM184's. The 184's are brighter and the low frequency response is thinner. I would say that the 84's are more natural sounding, but that is not a scientific obversation, only an opinion. The KM 184's generally sit in the box unless I am doing some outdoor work, where the increased output comes in really handy,and even then I generally use other microphones in preference to them. Richard H. Kuschel "I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Uncle Russ" wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, Martin Schneider also suggests the overall frequency response of the KM140 and KM184 is virtually identical to that of the KM84 and attributes the newer microphones' perceived brightness as the result of quieter and cleaner electronics. It's a bit awkward discussing this on rec.audio.pro, but I think you need to read Erik Sikkema's question on the Pinboard carefully in order to understand what Mr. Schneider was replying to. Erik has many ideas about microphone sound, and proposed that a less boosted low end could increase people's perception of brightness in a microphone. That was in a thread which was originally about the treble response of the KM 83 versus the KM 130, where there was no change between models in anything about the capsule or its physical/acoustical setting. Some folks here had insisted that the two mikes sounded distinctly different, while I doubted it; that's why I started that thread on the Pinboard. Anyway, Mr. Schneider replied to Erik, "True, one reason for perceived brightness is often found in slightly lower, or 'cleaner' bass responses. Difficult to keep these things apart, if you don't have the possibility to measure the mics." But that certainly isn't any statement that the KM 84 and the KM 140/184 have the same high-frequency response; it was just a general remark. Mr. Schneider has said in many previous messages that the treble response of the KM 184 and KM 140 has a 1 - 2 dB peak as compared with the KM 84. That's easily visible in the published curves; it would be rather unusual if he were to deny it, I think. --I see that you've posted a question in that same thread on the Pinboard, so maybe you'll get a reply that will clear this subject up for you. But it is already covered in many past messages in the Pinboard archives. The high-frequency response of the KM 140 was given a small boost, supposedly due to customer requests--then the later model KM 184 took on that same response. I say, always be careful what you ask for; you may get it ... --best regards |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
That's not the way I hear it. I believe even Karl mentioned they sounded different. Karl....... See, for example, http://tinyurl.com/69a6b -- Karl said that he hears the KM 140 as sounding the same as the KM 184 (which they are intended to do) but definitely not the same as the KM 84 (which it isn't intended to be). Karl is also polite toward those who claim to hear differences between the KM 140 and KM 184. He allows for the possibility that someone might hear a difference; two microphones of the same model can sound different for any number of reasons, and to tell someone that they don't really hear what they think they hear (especially when he isn't there to listen for himself) could be insulting. So Karl didn't do that; good on him. Keep in mind that the electronics of the KM 184 were revised at one point maybe about three years ago now, but originally the output circuits were completely identical, and the only difference was at the capsule/amplifier junction. Now there are somewhat greater differences between the KM 140 and KM 184 amplifiers than there were originally--enough so that they now carry different dynamic range specifications. --best regards |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nmm wrote:
So does this mean i can use KM84/KM184 capsules for my KM85 mics? Which I might be able to buy new? You can convert any KM 85 to a KM 84 (or KM 83) by exchanging capsules. This was a modular series with three different capsules; the bodies were exactly the same. Eventually Neumann stopped marking the bodies with specific model designations and labeled them simply "KM" or "KMi". Replacement capsules cost ca. $500 apiece from Neumann nowadays. KM 184 capsules are sold only as repair/replacement parts since at the consumer level, the capsules of the KM 183/184/185 aren't intended to be interchangeable--but the three amplifiers are in fact the same and the only question I would have concerns the near-hemispherical reflector behind the capsule backplate--that needs to be the right shape for the capsule design, and I'm not sure whether that is the same for both of the directional models or not. Neumann's current modular model is the KM 100 series, which has seven different interchangeable capsules and the ability to be used with special accessories that go between the capsule and amplifier. But if you don't need the special accessories or the wide cardioid, speech cardioid, free-field omni or figure-8 capsules, then the KM 180 series is considerably less expensive. If the High Pass Filter on the KM85 part of the amp section or in capsule? It's not a filter; it's in the way the capsule is designed; the membrane is stretched to a higher tension than in the KM 84 capsule. It isn't possible to convert one to the other. --best regards |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:03:38 -0400, Uncle Russ wrote (in article ): Unless I am mistaken, Martin Schneider also suggests the overall frequency response of the KM140 and KM184 is virtually identical to that of the KM84 and attributes the newer microphones' perceived brightness as the result of quieter and cleaner electronics. He further states the electronics of the 184 are slightly cleaner than those of the 140, possibly accounting for comments we have read from this group that the 184 is brighter sounding than the 140. He claims the acoustic measurements of each are identical. Comments? "Uncle Russ" Reinberg That's not the way I hear it. I believe even Karl mentioned they sounded different. Karl....... I would expect the KM184 to sound better than the KM140 if there were a difference due to having one less electric coupling. In the AKG 451/C60 series this is a significant issue, but then they have the added problem of using the chassis as a signal ground path. The only other factor in any perceived difference would have to be mechanical. Perhaps having two "chambers" as opposed to one could lead to this difference. Rob R. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rob Reedijk wrote:
I would expect the KM184 to sound better than the KM140 if there were a difference due to having one less electric coupling. In the AKG 451/C60 series this is a significant issue, but then they have the added problem of using the chassis as a signal ground path. Rob, anyone is welcome to speculate on what could have made one model of microphone sound different from a nearly identical design using the identical capsule. But it seems moot now that the KM 184 has been revised to use different ICs in its output circuit, its noise power has been reduced by half, and a similar change has not been made in the KM 100 series amplifiers. Under certain conditions, two microphones of the _same_ model can sound different enough to tell them apart. Because of that, some people prefer matched pairs of microphones for certain applications. For those few people here who feel that the KM 184 and the KM 140 sounded different a couple of years ago, the possibility of individual sample differences really can't be ruled out unless those people listened to, say, twenty different samples of each model--from different batches representative of Neumann's cumulative production for both models--and were still able to identify the sound of one or the other model (e.g. an A/B/X test). Since that isn't bloody likely, I take their observations at face value. I would never say to a serious, experienced professional audio engineer that he isn't hearing what he believes he is hearing, unless I can give a clear, convincing reason for a misperception to be occurring. There could be any number of valid explanations for audible differences. Also I am a fallible human being, and it seems appropriate to respect the other people who contribute here and give them the benefit of every reasonable doubt. That way I might learn something, too--and that would justify the time that I spend on forums such as this one. --best regards |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Satz wrote:
Rob Reedijk wrote: I would expect the KM184 to sound better than the KM140 if there were a difference due to having one less electric coupling. In the AKG 451/C60 series this is a significant issue, but then they have the added problem of using the chassis as a signal ground path. Rob, anyone is welcome to speculate on what could have made one model of microphone sound different from a nearly identical design using the identical capsule. But it seems moot now that the KM 184 has been revised to use different ICs in its output circuit, its noise power has been reduced by half, and a similar change has not been made in the KM 100 series amplifiers. Under certain conditions, two microphones of the _same_ model can sound different enough to tell them apart. Because of that, some people prefer matched pairs of microphones for certain applications. For those few people here who feel that the KM 184 and the KM 140 sounded different a couple of years ago, the possibility of individual sample differences really can't be ruled out unless those people listened to, say, twenty different samples of each model--from different batches representative of Neumann's cumulative production for both models--and were still able to identify the sound of one or the other model (e.g. an A/B/X test). Since that isn't bloody likely, I take their observations at face value. I would never say to a serious, experienced professional audio engineer that he isn't hearing what he believes he is hearing, unless I can give a clear, convincing reason for a misperception to be occurring. There could be any number of valid explanations for audible differences. Also I am a fallible human being, and it seems appropriate to respect the other people who contribute here and give them the benefit of every reasonable doubt. That way I might learn something, too--and that would justify the time that I spend on forums such as this one. I want to add that not everyone prefers the KM140. I actually know a local classical music recording engineer who prefers the KM184. I am pretty sure he is comparing the KM184 before the revision. And he has spent a lot of time with both mics. I still think that resonance of the bodies might be a factor. Rob R. |
Linear Mode
