Mid-priced pressure omnis?

[Remoteness]

Come on JEGG! Plush is a longtime contributor to this forum.
If you have an issues with him or him comments please address it to him directly via PMs or emails.

This forum is not the right platform for this sort of banter.

[panatrope]

I have always been a little wary of microphones with mechanically variable patterns (the first I encountered was the microphone that came with my Uher Report 4000L). I know venerated microphones such as the 77DX used this technique, but, at least as far as condensor mics are concerned, optimal design for both pressure and pressure difference operation places different constraints on membrane, damping and tensioning. But I suppose that's where Shure's "75 years" comes into it.

I note remarks about being a "copy" of a Schoeps design, presumably the MK5 capsule. I'm certain that "copy" here means a similar feature specification. The final product demonstrates the usual Shure sensibilities. However, one Schoeps feature that they could usefully emulate is the very low output impedance (quoted 35 ohms) of the CMC modules. This makes Schoeps very valuable in environments with very long cable runs (such as our Recital Centre where, if the roof winches are run direct instead of via the house digital stage box, a run of 100m can be the result) and keeps the rolloff frequency above 100kHz. Microphones with output impedance in the range 150 -250 ohm (the most common) will bring the rolloff into the region of 15 to 25 kHz, which is of little use if one is trying to record at 96kHz (the reason to bypass the house system which clocks at a fixed 48kHz).

[student123]

Regarding the 141, I'm curious how the diaphragm, or more importantly the sound, differs from that of the KSM32. The raw specs appear to be the same--2.5 microns, 19mm diameter. I've never heard the 141, but the 32 sounds a bit more like a large diaphragm to me... or perhaps my ears are being misled by the side-address format of the 32. How does the 141 have such a fast transient response when its diaphragm is larger than most 'small' diaphragm mics, and why is it always classified with SDCs when Shure doesn't even (apparently) bill it as such?

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by student123

Regarding the 141, I'm curious how the diaphragm, or more importantly the sound, differs from that of the KSM32. The raw specs appear to be the same--2.5 microns, 19mm diameter. I've never heard the 141, but the 32 sounds a bit more like a large diaphragm to me... or perhaps my ears are being misled by the side-address format of the 32. How does the 141 have such a fast transient response when it's diaphragm is larger than most 'small' diaphragm mics, and why is it always classified with SDCs when Shure doesn't even (apparently) bill it as such?

I don't think this is right. The 141 is listed as having a 20mm diameter, but that's the whole mic, not just the diaphragm. It's a pretty solid casing, so I have to imagine the diaphragm itself is 15mm if not smaller. Somebody correct me and/or provide the right measurement here if I'm wrong.

I think the KSM32 properly would be seen as a mid-size diaphragm at 19mm. The Gefell M930, for comparison, is 25mm, and the "standard" large diaphragm size is 30mm = 1 inch.

JSL

[jnorman]

25.4mm = 3 barleycorns = 0.014925 smoots = 8.4725e-11 light seconds = 1 inch

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by jnorman

25.4mm = 3 barleycorns = 0.014925 smoots = 8.4725e-11 light seconds = 1 inch

Arg! That's the second dumb math mistake I've made in a post here in as many months.

JSL

[student123]

Originally Posted by jslevin

I don't think this is right. The 141 is listed as having a 20mm diameter, but that's the whole mic, not just the diaphragm. It's a pretty solid casing, so I have to imagine the diaphragm itself is 15mm if not smaller. Somebody correct me and/or provide the right measurement here if I'm wrong.

I think the KSM32 properly would be seen as a mid-size diaphragm at 19mm. The Gefell M930, for comparison, is 25mm, and the "standard" large diaphragm size is 30mm = 1 inch.

JSL

Ah, thanks, that would explain a few things. The numbers given for the 141 at recordinghacks.com must be erroneous. Perhaps that was Jegg's source for the idea that the 141 is an MDC as well. It appears that Shure hasn't disclosed the true diameter of the diaphragm for the 141. I assume it must be closer to a more typical small diaphragm size.

[student123]

Incidentally, JSL, what are you currently using for SDCs? I seem to remember reading that you sold your 141s not to long ago, along with several other models...

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by student123

Incidentally, JSL, what are you currently using for SDCs? I seem to remember reading that you sold your 141s not to long ago, along with several other models...

Gefell M 300 matched pair - phenomenal. We inherited a KM 184 pair with our new facility, at least temporarily, and those are great, too. (Sold ours to upgrade to the Gefells a couple years ago.) We have a variety of Audix and AudioTechnica pencils for depth, and they all work just fine.

JSL

[hbphotoav]

Originally Posted by student123

Ah, thanks, that would explain a few things. The numbers given for the 141 at recordinghacks.com must be erroneous. Perhaps that was Jegg's source for the idea that the 141 is an MDC as well. It appears that Shure hasn't disclosed the true diameter of the diaphragm for the 141. I assume it must be closer to a more typical small diaphragm size.

According to the Shure specs page, the KSM32 also has an embossed or impressed pattern applied to the diaphragm, to extend the low end response, among other things. That would also somewhat distinctly change the character of the sound. While I do not own one, I've heard them in live situations (most recently, Ricky Skaggs used several as instrument mics for Kentucky Thunder several years age) and they were really nice on banjo, dobro and mandolin through a Meyer M'elodie rig.