Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Neumann KM84
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Neumann KM84
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Neumann KM84
In Article ,
(David Satz) wrote: "nmm" wrote: 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? Yes: the KK 83 omni and the KK 84 general-purpose cardioid. Your KK 85 capsule head--which make the microphone a KM 85--was considered to be a "speech cardioid" type. These are still available from Neumann, by the way; last time I priced them, they cost $490 apiece in the United States. The KM-85 body has the low end roll off ( it's marked on the body) and a 10dB pad switch. Not exactly. The primary rolloff is in the capsule--it's 12 dB down at 50 Hz. The amplifier (body) is flat to lower than that, which makes sense since it's the same exact circuit as the KM 83 and KM 84 used. 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. Regards, Ty Ford For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews, click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS or trade vintage mics. Neumann etc. | General | |||
Why does one Neumann M49 has less high end than the other? Can I fix it? | Pro Audio | |||
FS: pair of Neumann M49's/Westlake BBSM-8's | Pro Audio | |||
FS: Neumann KMR81i shotgun mic & Zeppelin | Pro Audio | |||
Matched Pair of Neumann mics? | Pro Audio |