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

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

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."

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.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.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

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

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"

(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?

<< 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

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
>