The other day I made a recording of an orchestra using borrowed Neumann
KM83. Today I used them on organ, string quartet and choir. I sort of
like them. How do they compare to the currently available KM183?

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

The other day I made a recording of an orchestra using borrowed Neumann
KM83. Today I used them on organ, string quartet and choir. I sort of
like them. How do they compare to the currently available KM183?

Lars


Not even similar. The 183 has a hyped high end for diffuse field recording

How did you like the KM83's?

Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Lars Farm wrote:
The other day I made a recording of an orchestra using borrowed Neumann
KM83. Today I used them on organ, string quartet and choir. I sort of
like them. How do they compare to the currently available KM183?

The top end on the KM183 is definitely more etched. I rather like the
older KM83 more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Richard Kuschel wrote:

How did you like the KM83's?

Enough to more seriously start looking for a pair of omnis. They had a
full or rich character. Especially in the bass. Cello, bass and the
organpedals (even on the small organ that was used yesterday where
Ann-Kristin leaned heavilly on the pedals giving lots of bass in the
room and in the recording too) came through truer than in my cardioids
(or maybe I'm just seduced by the difference from previous experience -
time will tell which is the truer). They were nice to soprano voice too.
I'm not yet sure what to think of the top end... Compared to the Pearl
DC-96 (my point of reference) they were bigger in the lower registers,
even though I like their sound too. Neither sounded exactly like the
real thing though... Also, one thing missing was structural noise picked
up through the mic stands from the floor. My cardioids are quite
sensitive to that.

Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

(Lars Farm) wrote
Enough to more seriously start looking for a pair of omnis. They had a
full or rich character. Especially in the bass. Cello, bass and the
organpedals (even on the small organ that was used yesterday where
Ann-Kristin leaned heavilly on the pedals giving lots of bass in the
room and in the recording too) came through truer than in my cardioids
(or maybe I'm just seduced by the difference from previous experience -
time will tell which is the truer). They were nice to soprano voice too.
I'm not yet sure what to think of the top end... Compared to the Pearl
DC-96 (my point of reference) they were bigger in the lower registers,

What was your setup? Did you use the KM83's as spot mics or as a second
stereo room pair, along with a cardiod pair?



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

What was your setup? Did you use the KM83's as spot mics or as a second
stereo room pair, along with a cardiod pair?

Two situations: 1) orchestra ORTF + spaced omnis (see recent thread:
"Orchestra recording - advice/experience"...) and 2) spot mics added to
the DC-96 pair as an experiment because I happened to still have the
borrowed KM-83 available and wanted to listen to them more... This was
for a consert with choir (ca 40 singers), string quartet + piano + organ
+ soprano + tenor + bass soloists (several setups) ending in the
Schubert g-major mass with strings, organ, soloists and choir. I put one
on the quartet and one on the organ. I was pleasantly surprised at the
result of the omnis in both conserts as already described.


Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

"Lars Farm" wrote in message
news:1glsrwg.1yv45uqdcbmogN%mail.addr.can.be.found @www.farm.se...
Richard Kuschel wrote:

How did you like the KM83's?

Enough to more seriously start looking for a pair of omnis. They had a
full or rich character. Especially in the bass. Cello, bass and the
organpedals (even on the small organ that was used yesterday where
Ann-Kristin leaned heavilly on the pedals giving lots of bass in the
room and in the recording too) came through truer than in my cardioids
(or maybe I'm just seduced by the difference from previous experience -
time will tell which is the truer). They were nice to soprano voice too.
I'm not yet sure what to think of the top end... Compared to the Pearl
DC-96 (my point of reference) they were bigger in the lower registers,
even though I like their sound too. Neither sounded exactly like the
real thing though... Also, one thing missing was structural noise picked
up through the mic stands from the floor. My cardioids are quite
sensitive to that.

Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Lars: I tried to send you an email in reference to using a Jecklin Disk to
do your recording but the email does not go through.

Geoley

Reply to
Remove nospam to reply

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Lars Farm wrote:
The other day I made a recording of an orchestra using borrowed Neumann
KM83. Today I used them on organ, string quartet and choir. I sort of
like them. How do they compare to the currently available KM183?

The top end on the KM183 is definitely more etched. I rather like the
older KM83 more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott: I have a pair of KM183s and a matched pair of Schoeps CMC62h omnis
and there
is a definite deference in the sound. The Schoeps have a more natural sound
and very smooth top and bottom end
where the Neumann's have as you say a more etched top end but the bottom end
seems ok

George

Richard Kuschel wrote:

Not even similar. The 183 has a hyped high end for diffuse field
recording [ ... ]

I agree, they're somewhat too bright for some "spaced omni" classical
stereo recording, which most often is done with the microphones at or
near the "critical distance" in a hall (the point at which about half
the sound energy is direct and about half is reflected).

But the KM 83 and the KM 183 use the same capsule and have essentially
identical response. The main difference is that the (transformerless)
amplifier of the KM 180 series is quieter and has greater headroom.

If you're thinking of the small Neumann omni that has flat response
on axis, that would be the KM 131 in their modular KM 100 series. The
lower-cost KM 180 series has only the diffuse-field omni model KM 183,
which would correspond to the KM 130 in their modular series. Got it?

Historically, the original application for this type of microphone was
single-mike mono recording of an entire orchestra or other fairly large
ensemble. The high-frequency response is essentially flat in a diffuse
sound field, and for a microphone of this size this implies a peak of
some 6 or 7 dB on axis. It's perfectly OK to reduce that treble response,
or to back the microphones away a little farther than usual. The blend
in the recording might even improve that way, as long as all the direct
sound doesn't get overwhelmed by hall sound in the process.

And that's also the type of microphone that can benefit very well from
accessory mounting spheres to mimic the Neumann M 50; Neumann sells
those spheres as accessories for the KM 183 or the KM 130 and 131. The
M 50 had a definite diffuse-field equalization characteristic so the
KM 183 is a very reasonable choice for that approach.

--best regards

In article rs.com,
Geoley wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Lars Farm wrote:
The other day I made a recording of an orchestra using borrowed Neumann
KM83. Today I used them on organ, string quartet and choir. I sort of
like them. How do they compare to the currently available KM183?

The top end on the KM183 is definitely more etched. I rather like the
older KM83 more.

Scott: I have a pair of KM183s and a matched pair of Schoeps CMC62h omnis
and there
is a definite deference in the sound. The Schoeps have a more natural sound
and very smooth top and bottom end
where the Neumann's have as you say a more etched top end but the bottom end
seems ok

Yes, and the KM83 sounds almost muffled in comparison with the Schoeps.
--scott


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

But the KM 83 and the KM 183 use the same capsule and have essentially
identical response. The main difference is that the (transformerless)
amplifier of the KM 180 series is quieter and has greater headroom.


They may have tha same cap and frequency response, but they don't sound the
same. Not even close. Must be the traansformers doing something to the sound.

Same problems with KM 184 AND KM 84..

If the KM 184's sounded even close to the KM84, they would spend a lot more
time out of the mic locker.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Scott Dorsey wrote:
The top end on the KM183 is definitely more etched. I rather like the
older KM83 more.

OK, the AKG C480 with omni capsule is discussed in an other thread. How
does it compare to these two (KM83, KM183)?

sincerely
Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

Lars Farm wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The top end on the KM183 is definitely more etched. I rather like the
older KM83 more.

OK, the AKG C480 with omni capsule is discussed in an other thread. How
does it compare to these two (KM83, KM183)?

It's a step up from either one and is much closer to the Schoeps. On the
other hand, it also costs almost as much as the Schoeps too.
--scott

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

Richard Kuschel wrote:

Same problems with KM 184 AND KM 84..

If the KM 184's sounded even close to the KM84, they would spend a
lot more time out of the mic locker.

I agree with you about the two cardioids, but it's a questionable analogy;
the KM 184 uses the same capsule as the KM 84, but has a differently-
shaped reflector behind it which tips up its high frequency response a
couple of dB. It's more akin to the cardioid response of a KM 86, which
also had a differently shaped "lens" behind the same capsule as the KM 84.

A comparable difference in acoustical design doesn't exist between the
KM 83 and the KM 183, however. I suspect some people who think that the
KM 183 has more of a high-frequency on axis peak than the KM 83 may not
have used a KM 83 in a while, and might be surprised at how bright it
actually sounds--though I could be wrong about that, of course.

--best regards

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lars Farm wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The top end on the KM183 is definitely more etched. I rather like the
older KM83 more.

OK, the AKG C480 with omni capsule is discussed in an other thread. How
does it compare to these two (KM83, KM183)?


It's a step up from either one and is much closer to the Schoeps. On the
other hand, it also costs almost as much as the Schoeps too.

Really? Last time I checked, CK62's were selling for around $200, versus ~$550 for the MK2.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Lars Farm wrote:
How does AKG C480 compare to these two (KM83, KM183)?

It's a step up from either one and is much closer to the Schoeps. On the
other hand, it also costs almost as much as the Schoeps too.

Strangely the AKG C480 is virtually nonexisting on european webshops. I
wonder why...?

listprices excl VAT from resp. swedish agents:
1x Neumann KM131: 11141SEK ca 1535USD (http://www.sennheiser.se/)
1x Schoeps CMC62: 4880+4775=9655SEK ca 1330USD
(http://www.polteknik.se/)
1x Neumann KM183: 6524SEK ca 898USD (http://www.sennheiser.se/)
1x AKG C480 + CK62: 4080+1916=5996SEK ca 826USD (http://www.allba.se)


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

indeed, as an owner of schoeps cmc64s and DPA4011s, i find that the
AKG C480/ck61 can hold its own with anything on the market. probably
the most underrated mic ever. surprisingly, i see lots of tapers
using them, and you can find used pairs from those guys around $850/pr
- way cheaper than schoeps, DPAs, and josephsons (series 6).

David Satz wrote:

If you're thinking of the small Neumann omni that has flat response
on axis, that would be the KM 131 in their modular KM 100 series. The
lower-cost KM 180 series has only the diffuse-field omni model KM 183,
which would correspond to the KM 130 in their modular series. Got it?

snip

And that's also the type of microphone that can benefit very well from
accessory mounting spheres to mimic the Neumann M 50; Neumann sells
those spheres as accessories for the KM 183 or the KM 130 and 131. The
M 50 had a definite diffuse-field equalization characteristic so the
KM 183 is a very reasonable choice for that approach.

I have a set of KM131s. And they sound very nice, except I always found
them a bit too dark for stereo pair recording. And low and behold,
when Doug Walker tested them, the frequency response for both of them
showed as being down several dB in the top octave.

If it were only one, I would think that it has a problem but they are
actually a close match.

And seeing as Neumann does not match mic pairs due to their claim that
their tolerances are so tight there is no need for matching, I have to
assume that this is consistant with all of their KM131s---or at least
from the same generation.

This makes it challenging for stereo pair recording---Jecklin Disc and
so on. I have tried the spheres (well, I made my own, I didn't actually
buy them at $100 a pop!) and they get a bit better. But they never quite
get to where I want them without some EQ.

A Steinway Grand likes to be recorded from at least 9 or 10 feet away
to allow its sound to form---but the KM131s, any further away then
5 or 6 feet just get too dark.

I can use them as spot mics...and in a way, that is what a free field omni
is supposed to be used for...

But I am still not happy....

Rob R.

x-no archive: yes

Ty Ford wrote:

Tough break Rob. Why not send them down to me to get them out of your way?

He's not gonna do that until your M160's show up here.

--
ha

Rob Reedijk wrote:

I have a set of KM131s. And they sound very nice, except I always found
them a bit too dark for stereo pair recording.

That's understandable with a larger ensemble, given the miking distances
that typically have to be used in order to get a good overall balance
with just the two microphones. At those distances a fair proportion of
the sound energy striking the microphones has bounced off of various room
surfaces already, and has undergone high-frequency absorption as a result.

Try them some time on a small ensemble such as a woodwind quintet--you
may be pleasantly surprised, especially if you place them relatively
close to the players. They are designed for use where the predominant
sound energy reaching them is direct.

(I'm saying this all by analogy with my Schoeps MK 2 capsules, which have
similar frequency response; musicians often respond quite positively to
recordings made with them. The results may not always sound "commercial"
in today's terms, but that's a good thing, of course ...)

--best regards

David Satz wrote:
Rob Reedijk wrote:

I have a set of KM131s. And they sound very nice, except I always found
them a bit too dark for stereo pair recording.

That's understandable with a larger ensemble, given the miking distances
that typically have to be used in order to get a good overall balance
with just the two microphones. At those distances a fair proportion of
the sound energy striking the microphones has bounced off of various room
surfaces already, and has undergone high-frequency absorption as a result.

Try them some time on a small ensemble such as a woodwind quintet--you
may be pleasantly surprised, especially if you place them relatively
close to the players. They are designed for use where the predominant
sound energy reaching them is direct.

(I'm saying this all by analogy with my Schoeps MK 2 capsules, which have
similar frequency response; musicians often respond quite positively to
recordings made with them. The results may not always sound "commercial"
in today's terms, but that's a good thing, of course ...)

Thanks David,

Actually, while I have never used them on a large group, I have used them
extensively with small groups---loads and loads of solo piano recordings
and a number of duos and trios including string players, woodwinds and
brass.

The midrange and low-end actually always sound fabulous. But they are
lacking in the top-end.

As I posted earlier, Doug Walker tested them. And he was surprised by
the top-end roll-off. The fact that they are matched this way makes
me wonder if there was a generation of KM131s which were made this way.

I would be happy to send you the frequency response graphs if you want.

I know that he sent them to Neumann to ask for an explanation, but they
never replied.

Rob R.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:47:20 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article ):

x-no archive: yes

Ty Ford wrote:

Tough break Rob. Why not send them down to me to get them out of your way?

He's not gonna do that until your M160's show up here.

--
ha

Did I mention my ONE m160 was re-ribboned and had a new tranny put in...

Still don't care for it on acoustic guitar, but the top end did perk up a
bit.

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

You may want to try a pressure buildup ring as used on the MKH-20 instead of
the sphere.... at least their chart suggests about the same effect as
switching them to diffuse response....

Rgds:
Eric

"Rob Reedijk" wrote in message
...
David Satz wrote:
Rob Reedijk wrote:

I have a set of KM131s. And they sound very nice, except I always
found
them a bit too dark for stereo pair recording.

That's understandable with a larger ensemble, given the miking distances
that typically have to be used in order to get a good overall balance
with just the two microphones. At those distances a fair proportion of
the sound energy striking the microphones has bounced off of various
room
surfaces already, and has undergone high-frequency absorption as a
result.

Try them some time on a small ensemble such as a woodwind quintet--you
may be pleasantly surprised, especially if you place them relatively
close to the players. They are designed for use where the predominant
sound energy reaching them is direct.

(I'm saying this all by analogy with my Schoeps MK 2 capsules, which
have
similar frequency response; musicians often respond quite positively to
recordings made with them. The results may not always sound
"commercial"
in today's terms, but that's a good thing, of course ...)

Thanks David,

Actually, while I have never used them on a large group, I have used them
extensively with small groups---loads and loads of solo piano recordings
and a number of duos and trios including string players, woodwinds and
brass.

The midrange and low-end actually always sound fabulous. But they are
lacking in the top-end.

As I posted earlier, Doug Walker tested them. And he was surprised by
the top-end roll-off. The fact that they are matched this way makes
me wonder if there was a generation of KM131s which were made this way.

I would be happy to send you the frequency response graphs if you want.

I know that he sent them to Neumann to ask for an explanation, but they
never replied.

Rob R.

Rob Reedijk wrote:

As I posted earlier, Doug Walker tested them. And he was surprised by
the top-end roll-off. The fact that they are matched this way makes
me wonder if there was a generation of KM131s which were made this way.

I would be happy to send you the frequency response graphs if you want.

I know that he sent them to Neumann to ask for an explanation, but they
never replied.

Well, if he sent them to Neumann USA it's no surprise if they said
little of interest, since they (like most national distributors)
don't have an acoustical measurement setup.

The capsules would probably need to go to Neumann's Berlin shop,
where they do the advanced repairs, if you wanted them to be
seriously checked out. However, to my knowledge they don't do
any actual repairs on this type of capsule other than to replace
the actual capsule or the part of it that contains the FET
circuitry (which, as you may have noticed, is a detachable
standard part on all AK ... capsules for the KM 100 series).

You might want to send Martin Schneider a note about this, by way
of the Neumann Pinboard (http://www.neumann.com/forums/). I can't
think of any cause for a downward slope to occur in the frequency
response in this type of capsule, let alone a matched pair.
Something is wrong in this picture.

I don't know Doug Walker so it wouldn't be fair of me to say flat
out that his measurement results are the most likely suspect here--
even though in general that's what I would tend to think.

--best regards

David Satz wrote:

Richard Kuschel wrote:

Not even similar. The 183 has a hyped high end for diffuse field
recording [ ... ]

I agree, they're somewhat too bright for some "spaced omni" classical
stereo recording, which most often is done with the microphones at or
near the "critical distance" in a hall (the point at which about half
the sound energy is direct and about half is reflected).

But the KM 83 and the KM 183 use the same capsule and have essentially
identical response. The main difference is that the (transformerless)
amplifier of the KM 180 series is quieter and has greater headroom.

The KM83 didn't sound bright to me. If anything the opposit...?

And that's also the type of microphone that can benefit very well from
accessory mounting spheres to mimic the Neumann M 50; Neumann sells
those spheres as accessories for the KM 183 or the KM 130 and 131. The
M 50 had a definite diffuse-field equalization characteristic so the
KM 183 is a very reasonable choice for that approach.

Doesnt the sphere boost the high register a few dB? wouldn't that make
the KM183 that is already considered too bright, much too bright? There
is this passive device (SBK130) (basically a ball of the right size?)
that boosts frequency response. Is there an opposite? A passive device
that reduces the high end?

Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

Lars Farm wrote:

The KM83 didn't sound bright to me. If anything the opposit...?

On axis it has elevated response from ca. 6 to 15 kHz (the +3 dB points),
reaching a +6 to +8 dB peak between 8 and 10 kHz. That's pretty bright,
unless you're recording at substantial distance in a hall with a lot of
material in it that absorbs high frequency reflections.

Imagine a miking position from which you would capture the sound of an
entire orchestra with one (mono) microphone and have it all be in good
balance--that's essentially where a KM 83 was designed to go. And that
is a style of recording that is almost never done nowadays--it's more
reminiscent of classical recording in the 1940s and 1950s.


Doesnt the sphere boost the high register a few dB? wouldn't that make
the KM183 that is already considered too bright, much too bright?

No, the sphere affects a lower range of frequencies, and in a gentle way.
The microphone's directional pattern becomes narrower and less regular,
and a gradual "presence rise" of a few dB occurs on axis.

The effect isn't one of brightness--it's that you can record at greater
distances while still keeping good "focus" in the sound. This in turn
brings you other benefits (better overall balance, in many cases).


Is there an opposite? A passive device that reduces the high end?

A wind or pop screen will do that to some extent. Or you can aim the
microphone away from the sound source--though any discrete reflections
picked up on the microphone's main axis can sound rather harsh.

--best regards

David Satz wrote:

Lars Farm wrote:

The KM83 didn't sound bright to me. If anything the opposit...?

On axis it has elevated response from ca. 6 to 15 kHz (the +3 dB points),
reaching a +6 to +8 dB peak between 8 and 10 kHz. That's pretty bright,
unless you're recording at substantial distance in a hall with a lot of
material in it that absorbs high frequency reflections.

That's interesting. I went to neumanns site and looked att the resp.
freq response. The KM 183 peaks 8dB at 10kHz with a slightly wider hump
than KM83. The KM 83 is up 6dB at 10kHz.

So is that difference what causes the comments that the 183 is too
bright/etched etc and brighter than the KM83? 2dB and a slightly wider
hump.

My original question was about if there is a difference between KM183
(available today with a price within reach but that I have not heard or
used) and KM83 that I have heard and can use as reference but can't
buy...

sincerely
Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

I wrote:
On axis it has elevated response from ca. 6 to 15 kHz (the +3 dB points),
reaching a +6 to +8 dB peak between 8 and 10 kHz.

whereupon Lars Farm wrote:

That's interesting. I went to neumanns site and looked att the resp.
freq response. The KM 183 peaks 8dB at 10kHz with a slightly wider hump
than KM83. The KM 83 is up 6dB at 10kHz.

The KM 83's on-axis peak can be anywhere from 6 to 8 dB as well. In any
case this is certainly no dark-sounding microphone as someone had said
earlier.

Other spec-sheet curves that have been published for the KM 130 are
completely (to the last dB) identical to those of the KM 83.


So is that difference what causes the comments that the 183 is too
bright/etched etc and brighter than the KM83? 2dB and a slightly wider
hump.

No, I don't think so--we're talking about a 1970s microphone versus
a 1990s microphone, and measurement methods and practices changed
considerably during that time, especially with the introduction of
time delay spectrometry.

Just to state the obvious, there is also some editorial intervention
when response curves are prepared for publication; any careful real-
world measurement of an actual microphone will show significant dips
and bumps which are not shown on the published graph.

This is even true of Neumann, whose curves are quite honest in general;
they are not just smoothed by technical means such as a fast paper speed
(like the "individual response graphs" which AKG and Beyer used to
include with new microphones), but clearly are drawn to be a helpful
part of the specifications--as a graphical way to indicate what one
might expect from the microphone, rather than just writing a frequency
range and a tolerance limit. The production tolerance limits may be
based on those same curves, but the curves themselves are a kind of
abstraction or generalization.

For example, the KM 84 was never ruler-flat on axis between 5 and 15 kHz
the way the curves were published; there was always a small high-frequency
bump, though less than the one in the current models KM 140 and KM 184.
(In some catalogs there was a possible very slight upward slant which,
however, looked more like misregistration in the printing process.)
And the U 87 (cardioid pattern) isn't flat in the region from 1 kHz to
4 kHz, either, though it is shown that way in the graphs; it has a slight
presence rise which Neumann's published graphs don't usually indicate.


My original question was about if there is a difference between KM183
(available today with a price within reach but that I have not heard or
used) and KM83 that I have heard and can use as reference but can't
buy...

I don't think that there should be any significant difference, except
that the KM 183 will be quieter and have a higher maximum SPL before
overload, and that a KM 183 can't be converted into a KM 84 via capsule
substitution the way a KM 83 could be.

However, what I will do next is to raise this question on the Neumann
Pinboard, so that we can hear directly from Martin Schneider or someone
else at Neumann about this. When we get a clear reply I'll post the
information back here, or you can see it there yourself.

--best regards

Scott: I have a pair of KM183s and a matched pair of Schoeps CMC62h omnis
and there
is a definite deference in the sound. The Schoeps have a more natural sound
and very smooth top and bottom end
where the Neumann's have as you say a more etched top end but the bottom end
seems ok

Yes, and the KM83 sounds almost muffled in comparison with the Schoeps.
--scott

I set up Schoeps CMC5-MK5's and Neumann U63 (U64 Nuvistor amp with
KK-83 capsule) in sound checks for the American Brass Quintet in the
Harris Hall, Aspen, CO.

They had a tough time deciding which they liked better. They also felt
the 83's were 'darker' or warmer sounding. I noticed the Neumann mic
recorded more reverberant sound in the hall. The Hall is very warm
sounding, so that could be part of it. In the end, the Schoeps were
used.

Mike

lars farm // http://www.farm.se
My original question was about if there is a difference between KM183
(available today with a price within reach but that I have not heard or
used) and KM83 that I have heard and can use as reference but can't
buy...

I think you can buy the Km83 modular capsules as replacement parts from
Neumann - maybe even buy a whole Km83 for around the price of a Km131. As all
the bodies of the Km83, Km84 and Km85 mics are the same, you could buy
replacement capsules and put a few Km83's together with used Km bodies. I was
lucky enough to find a couple of NOS 83 capsules from Dan Alexander.

BTW, some Km8X mics are tapped for 50 ohms and some for 200 ohms. The ones
tapped for 50 ohms have a red or blue dot in the dimple next to the serial
number, most American imported Neumann KM83/4/5's have that red/blue dot. With
the transformer strapped to 200 ohms you typically get a 6db hotter output and
most people report a beefier sound. And on KM8x mics in the US, there's a
4-6db internal pad that the American importer Gotham insisted be installed on
the mics until the late 80's, removing that internal pad improves the mic's
sound and output as well. Mark Planke posted a "how to" here on RAP if you
google it. So a Km8x mic imported to America could have a 10-12db lower output
and sound quite different than a European issue of the same vintage, so people
could have quite different impressions of the mic/s, depending.)


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:17:36 -0400, David Satz wrote
(in article ) :

And the U 87 (cardioid pattern) isn't flat in the region from 1 kHz to
4 kHz, either, though it is shown that way in the graphs; it has a slight
presence rise which Neumann's published graphs don't usually indicate.

Hmm,

Any curve for the U 87 I remember seeing in Neumann books always had a
plateau in that range.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Rob Reedijk wrote:

I have a set of KM131s. And they sound very nice, except I always found
them a bit too dark for stereo pair recording. And low and behold,
when Doug Walker tested them, the frequency response for both of them
showed as being down several dB in the top octave.

If it were only one, I would think that it has a problem but they are
actually a close match.

Rob, I got a very nice email message today from Doug Walker. He enclosed
his measurement results with your KM 131, and also some other curves for
comparison. I must write back to him and thank him--but in the meantime
I've gotten a fairly good look at what you've been talking about here.

The top-end rolloff is marked (ca. -5 dB at 20 kHz), but it occurs only in
the uppermost audible half-octave, above 14 kHz. I think that's just too
high up to be costing you any more than some "air" or "sparkle" in the
sound. But your phrase was "a bit too dark"--and that would usually be
due to the response characteristics one to (almost) two octaves lower.

Indeed these curves show an overall downward slope of some 2 to 2-1/2 dB,
extending from about 800 Hz to 5 kHz, with only a very slight bump in the
3 - 4 kHz region as relief from that trend. I think that this overall
downward slope--though it's neither steep nor entirely continual--is the
most likely source of your perception of this capsule's sound as "dark".

That slope would also make this capsule quite different from the Schoeps
MK 2 to which I had been comparing it before--so I'm especially grateful
to have such clear, specific information. I won't compare them any more.

From 9 - 11 kHz the KM 131 shows a broad, smooth rise before the ultimate
dropoff above 14 - 15 kHz. I think that that could add a pleasant effect
if you liked the overall sound. But if you don't like the general octave-
to-octave balance in the critical 2 - 8 kHz region, it's almost a given
that you won't like whatever's happening above that range, either--just
as a light sprinkling of fine powdered sugar isn't necessarily welcome on
something which you might rather not eat in the first place.

Does this make some sense?

--best regards

Lars Farm wrote:

I went to neumanns site and looked att the resp. freq response.
The KM 183 peaks 8dB at 10kHz with a slightly wider hump than
KM83. The KM 83 is up 6dB at 10kHz.

So is that difference what causes the comments that the 183 is too
bright/etched etc and brighter than the KM83? 2dB and a slightly wider
hump.

My original question was about if there is a difference between KM183
(available today with a price within reach but that I have not heard or
used) and KM83 that I have heard and can use as reference but can't
buy...

Lars, as promised, I posted a query about this on the Neumann Pinboard.
It was answered today by Martin Schneider, a very helpful engineer in
Neumann's microphone development department in Berlin who has been the
primary public contact on their Pinboard. Rather than take his message
out of context, let me simply refer you to his reply, which can be seen
via this link: http://tinyurl.com/3vl3g

Basically he confirmed that it is exactly the same capsule--but you
might well enjoy seeing the way in which he has explained it, I think.

--best regards

David Satz wrote:

Lars, as promised, I posted a query about this on the Neumann Pinboard.
It was answered today by Martin Schneider, a very helpful engineer in
Neumann's microphone development department in Berlin who has been the
primary public contact on their Pinboard. Rather than take his message
out of context, let me simply refer you to his reply, which can be seen
via this link: http://tinyurl.com/3vl3g

Basically he confirmed that it is exactly the same capsule--but you
might well enjoy seeing the way in which he has explained it, I think.


Thanks
Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

David Satz wrote:
Rob Reedijk wrote:

I have a set of KM131s. And they sound very nice, except I always found
them a bit too dark for stereo pair recording. And low and behold,
when Doug Walker tested them, the frequency response for both of them
showed as being down several dB in the top octave.
If it were only one, I would think that it has a problem but they are
actually a close match.

Rob, I got a very nice email message today from Doug Walker. He enclosed
his measurement results with your KM 131, and also some other curves for
comparison. I must write back to him and thank him--but in the meantime
I've gotten a fairly good look at what you've been talking about here.

The top-end rolloff is marked (ca. -5 dB at 20 kHz), but it occurs only in
the uppermost audible half-octave, above 14 kHz. I think that's just too
high up to be costing you any more than some "air" or "sparkle" in the
sound. But your phrase was "a bit too dark"--and that would usually be
due to the response characteristics one to (almost) two octaves lower.

Indeed these curves show an overall downward slope of some 2 to 2-1/2 dB,
extending from about 800 Hz to 5 kHz, with only a very slight bump in the
3 - 4 kHz region as relief from that trend. I think that this overall
downward slope--though it's neither steep nor entirely continual--is the
most likely source of your perception of this capsule's sound as "dark".

That slope would also make this capsule quite different from the Schoeps
MK 2 to which I had been comparing it before--so I'm especially grateful
to have such clear, specific information. I won't compare them any more.

From 9 - 11 kHz the KM 131 shows a broad, smooth rise before the ultimate
dropoff above 14 - 15 kHz. I think that that could add a pleasant effect
if you liked the overall sound. But if you don't like the general octave-
to-octave balance in the critical 2 - 8 kHz region, it's almost a given
that you won't like whatever's happening above that range, either--just
as a light sprinkling of fine powdered sugar isn't necessarily welcome on
something which you might rather not eat in the first place.

Does this make some sense?

It makes some sense. I do like your analysis of what is going on in the
800 Hz to 11 KHz range. I tend to look at the response curve in a
slighly different way. Instead of using 0 dB (set to 1KHz) I prefer
to look at the horizontal line that forms at -1.5 dB. From this
you can see that there is an 800 Hz bump (up about 2 dB), a very
gentle dip centred from 5-6KHz (down 1 dB), and then the top end
roll off that begins at 12 or 13 KHz and is down by about 4 dB at 20 KHz.
But we are saying the same thing.

I used "dark" as my euphamism for my problem with the mic. Perhaps
I should use another word. But it is the same problem that most
ribbon mics have for me with the top end. I know that range once you get
above 10KHz isn't supposed to make much of a difference but it seems
to for me.

Lastly, I pulled out my Neumann frequency response graphs for the KM131
and that top end roll-off should not be there. It shows 2 db down by
20KHz, but that should only show up above 17 or 18 KHz. Other than
that, according to the Neumann literature, they are supposed to be
pretty flat.

The fact that this shows up on both my Neumann KM131s makes me wonder
if there was a series of KM131s that were not as flat in response
as they should be. And let's not forget the empirical proof: As
I stated, I have always found them lacking in the top-end. The fact
that when Doug Walker shot some frequency response graphs that confirmed
it has led me to wonder if there isn't a small problem with the mics.

Rob R.