[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

wrote:
I was very surprised because each microphone has totally different personality!
Yes, but they are all good ones.

I think km 184 is most transparent and has a lot of details in sound
I hear sound is not one but from many other angle.

What you like about the KM184 is the brightness. This is what I usually
dislike about the KM184, although it can be useful in some rooms and with
some instruments. It makes violin more harsh, at the same time it makes
the piano more forward.

cmc6 is opposite. I heard sound is more together and much warmer.

Yes, I like that.

Mkh 40 has very powerful sound but little bit too harsh to me .

It should sound pretty close to the KM184 except in the octave or so below
middle C where it sounds a little weird to me.

Overall, I liked km184 the best.

If your room and your instrument sounds best with the KM184, then by all means
go with the KM184.

Here is another link my professor sent me .

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remo...-km-183-d.html

There is audition between analog and digital one
Please let me know how you think. It seems #2 is the digital one

Both of these recordings are digital recordings. One was made with the
converters in a digital microphone, the other was made with the converters
in the Nagra VI portable recorder.

The two recordings sound a little different... but it is the kind of
difference that might be cause by moving the microphone a foot or two away.
It sounds to me like the difference is just more low frequencies on #2.
That might be the result of the converters or the preamp or the placement.
--scott

scott,

Do you think it is theoretically possible for the perfect microphone to
exist, assuming a given radiation pattern? Why or why not?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/28/2015 2:09 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
Do you think it is theoretically possible for the perfect microphone to
exist, assuming a given radiation pattern?

Yes, but only on the perfect source for that microphone. If you're
moving to a desert island and can only take one microphone with you
because you're taking so many instruments that you don't have room to
pack more than one microphone, it'd better be a Sennheiser 441 or EV RE20.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Randy Yates wrote:

Do you think it is theoretically possible for the perfect microphone to
exist, assuming a given radiation pattern? Why or why not?

What is perfect?

I will say that it's easier to define what is perfect with an omni microphone
than with any other pattern, and that these days it's possible to make omni
microphones that are very close to perfect. You can pick a small omni and
get something whose pattern really IS very close to perfectly uniform and
whose noise floor is dominated by the brownian movement of the air.

But.... is that what you want? Personally, I like an omni that is just a
little beamy at high frequencies... I much prefer the 1" B&K capsules over
the 1/2" ones for recording. Space them apart with a baffle and you get
some amplitude imaging from the baffle, some amplitude imaging from the
beaminess, and some phase imaging from the spacing.

Maybe you want directionality... but the more directionality you get, the
harder it is to keep the response off-axis constant. You can get a $3
electret capsule that has pretty uniform response but you're in for a
couple thousand to get a cardioid that is even in the same ballpark.

I mean, in some sense already some of these microphones are very close to
as perfect as they can be, even though they may be much less perfect than
you want. Getting directionality and uniformity at the same time requires
violating physical laws, so the question is whether what you really want is
something better than perfect.

On the other hand, the equalization trick in the MKH-20 means you get lower
noise floor than you would from a theoretically perfect conventional capsule
of the same size... it reduces the effect of Brownian noise. So in that
sense, maybe you can get something better than perfect.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 28/08/2015 20:05, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/28/2015 2:09 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
Do you think it is theoretically possible for the perfect microphone to
exist, assuming a given radiation pattern?

Yes, but only on the perfect source for that microphone. If you're
moving to a desert island and can only take one microphone with you
because you're taking so many instruments that you don't have room to
pack more than one microphone, it'd better be a Sennheiser 441 or EV RE20.

How about a microphone that could perfectly plot the pressure of air at
a mathematical point in space, ignoring Brownian motion? Maybe one that
used the conductivity of a plasma in a microscopic volume? Then modify
that signal to be what's wanted for any particular application.

Like everything else in real life, all real microphones have to be a
compromise between many factors.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

Here is another link my professor sent me .

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remo...-km-183-d.html

There is audition between analog and digital one
Please let me know how you think. It seems #2 is the digital one

Both of these recordings are digital recordings. One was made with the
converters in a digital microphone, the other was made with the converters
in the Nagra VI portable recorder.

The two recordings sound a little different... but it is the kind of
difference that might be cause by moving the microphone a foot or two away.
It sounds to me like the difference is just more low frequencies on #2.
That might be the result of the converters or the preamp or the placement.

I suspect the latter. I've used those Nagra pres before and while respectable, they
aren't a Grace Designs or any of the other higher-end preamps.

Cabling makes a difference too. We worry about capacitance affecting the high end
but cable with inductive issues can act as a gentle high-pass; not recommended for
recording pipe organs!!!

The KM183s (analog) are good to 10 hz or something crazy like that; I've done
multiple organ recordings with them in various venues using Grace pres and
converters, and good cable. The results will shake the house if your subs can go
that low flat. The recordings in the samples here both seem a bit anemic to me. (And
who knows what the MP3 encoding did?)

Plus, IIRC, the blurb stated the mics were at 56 cm, parallel with each other. This
probably accounts for the lack of depth that should be present. Diffraction spheres,
with the mics splayed up and out at 50 cm, will fix that. (And for Scott, the
Jecklin disk. w)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Neil[_9_]]

On 8/28/2015 3:05 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/28/2015 2:09 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
Do you think it is theoretically possible for the perfect microphone to
exist, assuming a given radiation pattern?

Yes, but only on the perfect source for that microphone. If you're
moving to a desert island and can only take one microphone with you
because you're taking so many instruments that you don't have room to
pack more than one microphone, it'd better be a Sennheiser 441 or EV RE20.

+2!

Those have been my "go to" mics for decades.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
The KM183s (analog) are good to 10 hz or something crazy like that; I've done
multiple organ recordings with them in various venues using Grace pres and
converters, and good cable. The results will shake the house if your subs can go
that low flat. The recordings in the samples here both seem a bit anemic to me. (And
who knows what the MP3 encoding did?)

Could be the MP3 encoding, but I am thinking some of it might just be the
room and placement. Again, moving a foot in some rooms can make a big change
in the low end.

Plus, IIRC, the blurb stated the mics were at 56 cm, parallel with each other. This
probably accounts for the lack of depth that should be present. Diffraction spheres,
with the mics splayed up and out at 50 cm, will fix that. (And for Scott, the
Jecklin disk. w)

Some people like that sound with the rather compressed soundstage. Some
people like a really widely spaced triad with exaggerated depth. Me, I
like a wide but not too-detailed soundstage, like you're sitting in the
balcony. But I have customers who like other things and they get what
they ask for usually. Sometimes what they ask for is physically impossible
in the room they have, though. Or with the constraints NPR puts on material
for broadcast.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Neil wrote:
On 8/28/2015 3:05 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/28/2015 2:09 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
Do you think it is theoretically possible for the perfect microphone to
exist, assuming a given radiation pattern?

Yes, but only on the perfect source for that microphone. If you're
moving to a desert island and can only take one microphone with you
because you're taking so many instruments that you don't have room to
pack more than one microphone, it'd better be a Sennheiser 441 or EV RE20.

+2!

Those have been my "go to" mics for decades.

I have, in fact, recorded classical ensembles with a pair of 441s in a
pinch, and been quite surprised at how well they performed.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 27-08-2015 10:04, wrote:

Thank you for reply everyone .

Would you say I should rent both since KM184 or MHK40 because they are equally good for piano and violin recording?

A Shure KSM 141 pair in omni mode is my preferred piano tool, but it is
a specialist microphone that is very good for some instruments and vox
and not so good for other instruments and you need some general
practitioners, therefore not suggested as a first choice.

I am sorry for asking too many questions .

Do not be, good and relevant questions and much appreciated.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Nate Najar]

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 27-08-2015 10:04, wrote:

Thank you for reply everyone .

Would you say I should rent both since KM184 or MHK40 because they are equally good for piano and violin recording?

A Shure KSM 141 pair in omni mode is my preferred piano tool, but it is
a specialist microphone that is very good for some instruments and vox
and not so good for other instruments and you need some general
practitioners, therefore not suggested as a first choice.

I am sorry for asking too many questions .

Do not be, good and relevant questions and much appreciated.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

how does the ksm141 perform as an omni in the near field for spot miking? The better I get at this recording game the more I realize I need a handful of omnis at my disposal and the price is sure right on those....

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 30-08-2015 19:46, Nate Najar wrote:

how does the ksm141 perform as an omni in the near field for spot miking?

I only tried that with a pair for concert grand and a single for a
flutist with a selection of classical flutes. It did that very well
indeed and gave the musician good inaudible freedom of movement in a
recording context.

It has a low midrange power like nothing else and a SM57 like top range
and focus, more linear, but still with a cloud of sparkle around 9 kHz.
EQ strongly recommended to fix its ambience, if not EQ'ed the background
sneaks up too close in the panorama. For a start-setting fix its on-axis
response. Real world mic frequency response is a three dimensional
concept so it will keep its SM57 manners when EQ'd. Top end is the same
in cardioid mode, but it gets a cardioid style bass roll-off.

The better I get at this recording game the more I realize I need
a handful of omnis at my disposal and the price is sure right on
those....

It is the SM57 of the condenser mics. It is focused. As cardioid it can
pick an accordion out of a concert band at 6 feet, or a trumpet pair. It
will also do it with singing wimmen, there are some in the classical
world that move back whenever the mic gets closer than 6 feet. They will
not be able to elope, it will catch them. As omni I have used it on
assorted classical flutes for recording and it is my first choice for
concert grand except if I want a smoother blend with the main pair C42's.

What it doesn't do well: I had an alto that just didn't sound right with
it even if needing the focus pulling property of it, talking classical
mic up at 4 to 6 feet. Violins will sound like something from a recently
built chinese factory, viola/violi(?) probably also. It can be useful,
worked well for modern classical performed in a parking basement with
"short" acoustics as intented coloration.

What it does very well: concert grand, church organ on organists request
because bright and powerful, I didn't like its treble smear, but
organist was jubilate, all kinds of brass, cello, contrabass, male vox
at 1 foot to 6 feet, female vox same conditions if you really need the
focus, mezzo and alto rather than soprano. And as a pair on choir, oh,
you will jump for joy if you cherish the tactile sensation of clarity,
good singers will be rewarded.

As omni for spot miking I expect it to focus as much as most other
cardioids, but I have only tried it for that with concert grand, however
as cardioid it focuses as much as most other fig 8's, so they probably
have found some fine print in the laws of acoustics that other
manufacturers haven't heard about. For a rock sound: drumkit overhead.

What C42 will do better: sopranos, violins, probably steel string
guitar. The matched pair I have was bought for drumkit overhead and
disliked on cymbals and thus for sale, but that was in a rock context,
for a jazz kit I would try them as the first choice for their clarity.

KSM 141 is in my equipment the goto for focusing and getting things out
of a melange. Also great for spoken vox, commentary, storytelling. Not
so great for ambience rendering, but gets less bad at at by proper EQ.

As omni it could be the best thing on this here planet for a saxophone,
not tested.

Do be aware that the selection of cardioid or omni is mechanical, it is
either one or the other. But that makes it a simple single capsule
design, overall it may well be better, and certainly cheaper, than a
dual capsule adjustment wonder with small switches that get noisy and
fail on important recordings only.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[PStamler]

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-5, Ty Ford wrote:

Presuming that the KM 184D sounds like the KM 184, I never much cared for the
unnatural HF spike in the KM 184.

I always suspected that it was put there to offset the losses of analog tape.

Maybe; the KM 184 was introduced in the early 90s, when digital had become ubiquitous in classical recording (which was the main application of the KM series). Then again, the capsule was introduced in 1988.

Personally, I always thought the HF spike was catering to what Neumann thought the US market wanted.

Maybe we're both right.

Peace,
Paul

[Richard Kuschel]

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 7:35:05 PM UTC-6, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-5, Ty Ford wrote:

Presuming that the KM 184D sounds like the KM 184, I never much cared for the
unnatural HF spike in the KM 184.

I always suspected that it was put there to offset the losses of analog tape.

Maybe; the KM 184 was introduced in the early 90s, when digital had become ubiquitous in classical recording (which was the main application of the KM series). Then again, the capsule was introduced in 1988.

Personally, I always thought the HF spike was catering to what Neumann thought the US market wanted.

Maybe we're both right.

Peace,
Paul

The problem with audio perception is that we tend to prefer louder if everything is the otherwise the same or brighter. This perception sold a lot of cassette decks which seemed brighter because they were playing at a slightly higher speed.

I own a set of KM184's but since obtaining my Schoeps CMC6/41's I don't use them much.

One time, in pure laziness I grabbed a KM184 for a tambourine overdub instead of plowing into my portable case to pull out the Schoeps.

One hit on that tambourine sent me running for the Schoeps. The high end was bright and distorted.

The KM184 is harsh and bright with a top end 'cackle' compared to the Schoeps. To be fair, many condensor microphones have an unnatural brightness that is not desirable. Shure SM81, AKG C414, Neumann 103, Audio Technica 4033 and others.

I have found that microphones with smooth response with no unnatural peaks take very well to post production EQ.

The Schoeps CMC6/41 does have a presence peak, but it is not distorted and a gentle roll off will take care of it.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford wrote:

Presuming that the KM 184D sounds like the KM 184, I never much cared for the
unnatural HF spike in the KM 184.

I agree, but I suspect that's what the original poster likes. It's definitely
very different than the Schoeps.

I always suspected that it was put there to offset the losses of analog tape.

Maybe, but it's brighter than the original KM84, also.
--scott


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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-4, Richard Kuschel wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 7:35:05 PM UTC-6, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-5, Ty Ford wrote:

Presuming that the KM 184D sounds like the KM 184, I never much cared for the
unnatural HF spike in the KM 184.

I always suspected that it was put there to offset the losses of analog tape.

Maybe; the KM 184 was introduced in the early 90s, when digital had become ubiquitous in classical recording (which was the main application of the KM series). Then again, the capsule was introduced in 1988.

Personally, I always thought the HF spike was catering to what Neumann thought the US market wanted.

Maybe we're both right.

Peace,
Paul

The problem with audio perception is that we tend to prefer louder if everything is the otherwise the same or brighter. This perception sold a lot of cassette decks which seemed brighter because they were playing at a slightly higher speed.

I own a set of KM184's but since obtaining my Schoeps CMC6/41's I don't use them much.

One time, in pure laziness I grabbed a KM184 for a tambourine overdub instead of plowing into my portable case to pull out the Schoeps.

One hit on that tambourine sent me running for the Schoeps. The high end was bright and distorted.

The KM184 is harsh and bright with a top end 'cackle' compared to the Schoeps. To be fair, many condensor microphones have an unnatural brightness that is not desirable. Shure SM81, AKG C414, Neumann 103, Audio Technica 4033 and others.

I have found that microphones with smooth response with no unnatural peaks take very well to post production EQ.

Amazing that man can't invent a microphone to capture the sound of a simple tambourine w/o distortion. Really! Does the specifications show (graphically) you the unnatural peaks you are hearing?

Jack

The Schoeps CMC6/41 does have a presence peak, but it is not distorted and a gentle roll off will take care of it.