SHURE KSM 137 / 141 audio examples?

[Plush]

Hello Uncle Russ,

It is true that I don't think that the Shure KSM series is as good as a Schoeps microphone---a mic that costs at least 5 times the price of the Shure. I DO think that the Shure KSM series are very good mics though.

Indeed, as I have mentioned, if I did not think it was good why would I participate in the development of the Shure mics? Why would I spend the time. I spent 1 year helping them.

The Shure sound is not as elegant and refined as the Schoeps sound. It is slightly thinner and has a more prominent presence than the neutral Schoeps.

I would never hesitate to use the Schoeps and the Shures on the same stage. I do indeed choose the Shure KSM 137 over the Schoeps CMC64 for percussion, marimba, tabla, anything with very fast transients. The Shure mics have very thin diaphragms and have a "snappy" sound.

Indeed if I did not have any Schoeps mics, I would be perfectly happy to make outstanding recordings using only the Shure KSM 137 and KSM 141.

However I would still demand to have the full complement of tube mics that I use.
There, there is nothing that compares.

The source (playa, room, instrument) is making the sound--the mic is not making the sound.

[Uncle Russ]

Thanks very much, Plush. I use a pair of CMC64s extensively but have been very curious about the Shures ever since I discovered you were involved in their development. I listen closely to every relevant 141 and 137 sample people post and hear exactly what you describe.

My least used pair of mics are KM184s and, for years, I have considered replacing them. So far the main contenders would be the Shures or Mojave 100s (a mic almost nobody seems to post about but which my friend, Ben Maas, says sound something like the KM84).

This thread is the best information about the Shures to have appeared anywhere in the past six years. I want to thank everyone for their helpful posts.

[mal]

As an alternative to a KM184 the Shure 137 is a good choice and cheaper..without the brittleness and sometimes unpleasant harshness of the 184

[mathieujm]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Did anyone directly compare those two mics (MC930 and KSM 137) in similar applications?

So no direct comparison of these two mics

JMM

[The Listener]

I know I am getting silly with my persistence, but what the heck - does anyone own a pair of KSM141 and a DAV BG1 preamp (ok - it can also be any other preamp...) and has recorded (or could record) some classical/flamenco guitar with this combination. I have heard lately a couple of great recordings of classical guitar with a pair of Neumann KM184, that are not over bright at all and I am again considering this purchase.

Some good stereo guitar recordings with KSM141 would be ideal to get an even better picture.


edit: this is the reason for asking - if you can get that level of guitar sound with KSM141 as achieved with "loathed" KM184 in those two posts, than I am sold for sure (pun intended):

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4631492-post1.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4044422-post35.html

[The Listener]

I decided to go the "snob way" and will be getting a used Sennheiser MKH40 for 750EU (too good a deal to let go?). I'll buy complementary mic (either figure8 or another MKH40) for stereo later.

A collegue in this project will probably go for the Shure KSM 141 pair, so we could do some samples, soon.

Anyone object to getting Sennheiser MKH40 instead of Shure KSM141? The deadline for purchase is tommorow and I am collecting final opinions.

[rumleymusic]

Sennheiser MKH40 for 750EU (too good a deal to let go?).

I don't know, I have seen used 8040's for about that price more than once. I don't think you can go wrong with either choise.

[Plush]

Far from a "snob" choice---it is just a tool.

Best wishes for capturing good music,

Plush

[The Listener]

Thank you for best wishes.

We just started practicing with our percussion group with two KSM141 as overheads to capture our sessions and check how we play.

They sound great even in this situation where we don't complicate with mic positioning, etc.

They are really quick and precise. No excessive harshness to be heard, percussion instruments are reproduced accurately.

When I'll have some decent recordings I'll post a clip.

[rmaier]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

So no direct comparison of these two mics

JMM

Well, I finally caved and picked up a pair of 141s to compliment my MC930s (thanks, minions of the dark one that inhabit this thread...)

I like them both, especially when mixed together. Here they are in a rehearsal session of a student guitar ensemble I conduct.

Both pairs are about 10 feet back and 6 feet high. Beyers are through SCA C184s, Shures are through SCA T15s. The noise is coming from the room, not the gear.

[JEGG]

Are the 141's in cardioid or omni? And what was the distance they were spaced? (Sorry if I missed that.)

It would be nice if you have the time (right....!) to have both pair in the same position.

Thanks for posting these, I found them interesting.

[The Listener]

I just did a shoot-out on acoustic guitar, including KSM141 here:

Shure KSM141 vs Shure SM81 vs Gefell M70 on acoustic guitar

[rmaier]

Originally Posted by JEGG

Are the 141's in cardioid or omni? And what was the distance they were spaced? (Sorry if I missed that.)

It would be nice if you have the time (right....!) to have both pair in the same position.

Thanks for posting these, I found them interesting.

The 141s were in omni, 40cm apart.

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by rmaier

Well, I finally caved and picked up a pair of 141s to compliment my MC930s

IMO, MC930s are much better here because they pick less room ambience, which makes the Shure take a bit muddy.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

IMO, MC930s are much better here because they pick less room ambience, which makes the Shure take a bit muddy.

I have to agree. Both examples are actually pretty unfocused [distant in a pretty small room it seems]
On the other hand, because of this the atmosphere has something interesting to offer!

::
Mads

[rmaier]

Thanks for your feedback. Yes, I think a better way to record this group would have been to add a spot mic on each section. Still, I think part of the reason the sound is rather unfocused in both examples has as much to do with the nature of the source as the gear - ten student guitarists playing four parts...

I'll try to post a few more examples when time permits.

[Guam]

Hello everyone!
There are plenty of great samples up, but I can't find any files for drum overheads.

I'm considering purchasing a pair of ksm 141 to use as drum overheads. I have an average sounding room to work with (room is far from ideal, but not terrible). Before I purchase these, I was wondering if anyone could offer some drum clips/samples of these?

Much appreciated!!


---------------------------------
btw I have been following this forum for quite some time now and I'm glad to finally be a member. I don't know what took me so long to sign up.

[rmaier]

I've had a moment to come back to this thread. Here are a couple of examples of the mics through sca c84s. The mics are about 1 foot or so away from the 12th fret of the guitar with diaphrams about an inch apart - close as I could get them. The ksm141 is in cardioid position.

[Derek DiFilippo]

Future reference for those considering KSM141s.

Student composer --> University percussion ensemble --> quasi-ortf-stereo-something KSM141 pair (had to set up *fast*) --> Hardy M1 --> digi 003 --> massey limiter (the composer wanted a louder copy). I used the shure stereo bar and the funky shure shock mount doughnuts and a tall K&M stand.

Recorded in a small-ish rectangular concrete room, ie: a non-luscious space. Mics were about 10 feet up over top of the conductor/instructor. Converted to 192kbps mp3.. then converted from *that* into a 128kbps mp3 so it would fit under the GS file limit.

I have nothing invested at all in championing the KSM141s over anything else. I do know that the combination of KSM141s and Hardy have pleased many of my clients. I play them a test recording, they feel comfortable with the sound, and we get down to making music.

I've used these KSM141s on a lot of rock/indie/acoustic sessions too for all the usual suspects, including good success with using stereo pairs on violin & backing vocals. Good & versatile & well-made mics for the money. I'm sure the MC930s are lovely mics too.

[JEGG]

Revisiting the issue.

Earlier in the thread, ebs.audio (Hope I got that right!) posted some excellent examples comparing the Shure multi pattern with the dual pattern Schoeps in recordings of the "President's Own" Wind Band.

Well, the Shures were in the ball park, but they left me flat, and with the observation I usually have about the 137's in that they sound close and in your face. The band appeared to be in a closet between my monitors. Still, something encouraged me to go on.

Interestingly, if you only widen (both) the Shure recordings (increase difference signal), and do nothing else except make sure the final levels are all the same, the recorded image produced by the Shures tends to be only very subtly different than the Schoeps. I then made a casual observation via a trusty stereo meter, that the Schoeps recordings do indeed carry noticeably more difference information than the Shure recordings.

Additionally, with "widening" of the Shure recordings, the HF behavior of the mic's is much easier to hear and compare. The Schoeps has an "elevated shelf" from about 2 or 3k to 8k or so. The Shure has a peak that is higher. (Rhetorical question: Do we really need that?) The low end is quite similar. The Schoeps can be a bit hard here (piano) and while the Shure produces a very nice piano sound, it also produces some accented extraneous harmonics and "playing noises" from some of the winds. Still very nice. I wish there was a human voice in there somewhere.

If any of you try this, make sure you save your work as a Wave file, otherwise the mp3 will re-compress. Don't go overboard on the widening. Just increase it till it images exactly like the Schoeps.

A couple of things go by, though:
1. I don't know if the cardioid position of the Shure (and the 137) would still sound as "in your face" when used as spots. (I suspect they would, because the mic's detractors-and my own experience- haven't exactly used them up close.)

2. Perhaps the mic's need to be placed a bit differently-that's obvous to everyone, I'm sure, but adding the difference signal was a way to guess about that. And I am glad the test had them in the same position-I still prefer tests be done that way.

3. A reminder that the 137/141 isn't really an SD, it is more of an MD, and this could account for some of its extreme directionality. In the case, the NOS arrangement was useful, as the larger Shure capsules weren't so challenged by extreme angles.

4. I do wonder if the 137 and 141 have the typical obtuse angle 8k boost for cardioids (the Schoeps and classic MKH 40 mics are exceptions to this). Shure isn't so much into publishing useful polar graphs as are some other manufacturers.


The band recording (Thanks ebs.audio!) provides opportunities to further examine the mic behavior.


BTW: if this post looks paraphrased somewhere else-I don't know where it went. My first post here disappeared.

BTW#2: The mic's have been on the market for some time. Has anyone experienced issues with the "louver assembly"?

BTW#3: It would be interesting to do a similar comparison (of amount of difference signal) between an ORTF pair of TLM193's, and the Schoeps4, MKH8040, MKH40, the cm3 and the KSM137. And all put in the same place.

BTW:#4: The band is fun to listen to!

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by Plush

Indeed, as I have mentioned, if I did not think it was good why would I participate in the development of the Shure mics? Why would I spend the time. I spent 1 year helping them.

The Shure sound is not as elegant and refined as the Schoeps sound. It is slightly thinner and has a more prominent presence than the neutral Schoeps.

I don't know about the thinner part, but you're a lot more experienced than I. Did you try talking them out of that spiky (but little) peak, or was that contrary to physics or their own corporate sound? They'd be even greater without that little peak-though I'm sure there are many (maybe most) who have needs for exactly that sort of thing. I'm wondering, too, if you tried to get that ring around the body done differently, so that it didn't present so many obstacles for sound arriving at obtuse angles or directly from the rear.

Do you know if Schoeps had more troubles with the louvers on the three pattern mic than the two, and how the double pattern Schoeps is holding up mechanically? I haven't heard of any dissatisfied Shure customers, at least as far as the mechanical and electrical integrity of the mic.

Is that the same thin diaphragm as used in their mic's that look like large diaphragm beasts, or do those mic's contain larger and thicker diaphragms?

[Plush]

The design brief on these KSM series pencil mics was excellent high spl handling, excellent signal to noise ratio and excellent all around use.
This was to be coupled with one of the thinnest diaphragms in mass production. The microphone is made in Wheeling, IL not in China or anywhere else with low quality.

Specs are very close to the Schoeps line with a much thinner diaphragm being used in the Shure mics for superior transient response. Indeed that is their stand out characteristic.

The mic started out as a very bright sounding design which was toned down substantially after commentary. It continued to be toned down through subsequent prototypes.

That it still has a presence peak was deemed no big deal because those who like that can keep it and those that do not only need to reach for the eq knob.

The knurled ring on the KSM 141 has no acoustic affect. It is simply a larger diameter part of the mic.

On to some other questions now. . .

The diaphragm on the pencil mics is smaller than in the KSM 44 series et al.
Both however are 2.5 micron capsules. I really like the KSM 44 on piano as a major sound. It is among the best available mics for piano.

Yes, the Schoeps louver system is delicate and usually requires a replacement as a part of routine service. But this is after 10-15 years of heavy use. That is excellent build quality for sure.
The older tube model capsules also using louvers often cannot be fixed, however. The louvers have disintegrated and there are no more parts.

I hope that this info is helpful. This new series are great American mics.