KM 140 vs KM 184 Sonic difference?

[Boll]

Hi everyone. I'm in the market for a pair of km 140 for recording quiet sources like classical guitar, lute and clavichord in nice acoustics. I've heard so many great sounding recordings made with these mics. The people at Neumann claim that the 140 and 184 should sound the same, just a little better noise figures for the 184. I never got the chance to A-B the different mics. The modularity and pad is not important at this point. But the price is. Since the 184's are quite a lot cheaper I would obviously choose them if they sound as good as the 140's. Well, do they? I saw a few threads on the subject, but didn't really get any wiser. Have any of you made a direct comparison? Any conclusions?

Thanks in advance!

[bass man]

I was talking to Martin Schneider from neumann about this and he claimed basically that the main difference between Km18x and Km 14x series is interchangeable capsule on 14x series.
I never compared them side by side but i own 4 km184 mics and use them all the time on everything ( Contra bass , drums , guitars , piano, even sax etc ) and this mics never failed in giving me the best results, i am very happy with them .
Neumann made all this "poor man`s versions " mic series like tlm 193, cheaper version of Tlm 170 , Tlm 103 for U87 Km18x series for Km 8x series etc ....
In my opinion km 184 are the best "New" neumann mics of them all and right after them are the tlm 193 .On some sources the tlm 103 sounds same or better than U87 but not on vocals - don't ask me why, but when the tlm 103 works for that alto female voice it works damn well ....

[BrianHanke]

I would go with the 184s. They are great-sounding mics! The 140s are quite a bit more expensive; if you don't need the pad or the interchangeable capsules it’s not worth it.

[klaukholm]

We have 7 tlm170 and regularly use the tlm193. It is not a poor mans 170.
It behaves a little better off axis and it is a little quieter, but the sound is pretty much indistinguishable from the 170 in real life which for me is orchestral work.

While the 140 is arguably a little friendlier then the 184, I would say that if the 184 is not working for you, then neither will the 140.

For your application I would really consider either the MKH8040 or a cmc6 with an mk22 or an mk4.

[bass man]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

We have 7 tlm170 and regularly use the tlm193. It is not a poor mans 170.
It behaves a little better off axis and it is a little quieter, but the sound is pretty much indistinguishable from the 170 in real life which for me is orchestral work.

While the 140 is arguably a little friendlier then the 184, I would say that if the 184 is not working for you, then neither will the 140.

For your application I would really consider either the MKH8040 or a cmc6 with an mk22 or an mk4.

I have 2 tlm 193 and one tlm 170 ... i am not saying that the 193 is bad mic - i love it to death but i wouldn't miss the tlm 193 if i had 170 and besides it is made as poor man`s version of the TLM 170 and U 89 ....
There is difference in the hi freq response of this two mics , tlm 170 is little sweeter in highs but let's not go OT

[d_fu]

The setup may not be totally scientific, but if you want to hear them side by side (and next to a few others), have a look at this thread: Harpsichord mic shootout

I recently sold my sole 184, yet kept the 140... And I would possibly look elsewhere if I were to use just one stereo pair.

[GES]

Originally Posted by Boll

Hi everyone. I'm in the market for a pair of km 140 for recording quiet sources like classical guitar, lute and clavichord in nice acoustics. Any conclusions?

Thanks in advance!

Hello Boll. I also like to record classical guitar and lute.
I have no conclusions, since I have had only the 184 stereo pair, and they are fantastic in my opinion. I have recorded classical guitar. I will post this little live sample (jose-sonata) of a classical guitar in a very nice hall, the microphones were the 184 at about 2 meters from the guitar in ortf. BUT, i added a tinny reverb because at the end the hall was a little dry for my taste.

The microphones i use for lute (in this case a fantastic archilute) are the Se electronics se4400a (i find them fantastic too), here i post also this sample of this instrument (kapsberger), but not at all in a good room. Actually my living room, then i added a little reverb...the mics were also in ortf or almost ;-)

Both reverbs are bricasti. I think I like both microphones, the thing i like alot in the se ones, is that you have all patterns...anyway, you asked for the neumann comparison, sorry to bring this se-mic thing to subject.

The third and last example (fandanguillo) is probably my favourite combination. The 184 and a samson vr88 (ribbon) to give a very fat and round sound to the guitar. This is also in my living room, with reverb added....

Sorry not to give you the dry ones, or if this samples very bad you find...I am learning and enjoying the recording world.
Bye!

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by Boll

Hi everyone. I'm in the market for a pair of km 140 for recording quiet sources like classical guitar, lute and clavichord in nice acoustics. I've heard so many great sounding recordings made with these mics. The people at Neumann claim that the 140 and 184 should sound the same, just a little better noise figures for the 184.

Of course they would say so. It's business.

Strangely enough, the people at Neumann, even Mr. Schneider, whom I have the utmost respect for, are often not the best subjective judges of their own work. After all, they've dismissed (in writing) the U89 as being pejoratively "old fashioned".

To your questions: Many people have widely varying reports of their 184's. But those reports are about many different 184's. There were the originals (with the RF problems), then there were the modified ones (by Neumann), then there were the later versions with higher output and lower noise. Who's to say if these sound the same? Also, there may be more undocumented changes-Neumann thinks some of these are so unimportant as not to document them. And when they do document them-like the 184's-in can take them a year or more to publish the current spec's for the microphones currently being sold.

I think the 140's sound better. (One could ask how many changes have occurred in the KM100 line...)

Buying the modular versions would also let you use the 131 omni, a fantastic and little noticed capsule that bears no resemblance in sound whatever to the very hard 130/183. And you could use their figure 8 capsule.

I'm not sure I'd want to record a clavichord with 140's or 184's, but who knows? It might be nice.

[sonare]

I have owned all the mics mentioned (except the TLM170) and will say that if you must use Neumann then a pair of TLM193s would make a nicer recording of the guitar, lute, and clavichord. I got rid of my 140s and 184s when I noticed that I would reach for them LAST.

If you are open to other brands then Klaukholm already gave the best advice.

Rich

[Boll]

Thanks everyone for the input.

For Klaukholm; you mean that the 140 tends to be a little less "harsh"? And I already have the CMC6 with several caps. Love them, but I'm looking for a different sound for some applications.

[pkautzsch]

In some cases, one can hear a SLIGHT difference between 140 and 184.
Sometimes one is subjectively better, sometimes the other. A few centimeters in placement make WAY more difference.

If you don't need the modular stuff, go for the 184.
I thought I'd never need modular. Now I'm considering exchanging my 184s for 140s and one (or even three) additional AK20s.

[fifthcircle]

Having owned both, IMO, the difference between the 184 and the 140 is not subtle... I still own my 140's and not the 184s if that says anything.

Now that being said, the Neumann offerings have a very particular sound and it is a sound that I find difficult at times to work with many of my recordings. They are both bright mics, but the 184 has a brighter and somewhat "plastic" feel to me. (the original KM84 smokes them both). I find that I use the 140 on sources- usually spot mics- where the sound benefits from a more transient, brighter sound. This includes percussion, celeste, occasionally woodwind sections/spots, and some low strings.

Given a choice, though, I usually reach for my Schoeps and my Sennheisers first. With my future plans of purchases, more 8040's and MK4's will be here before more 140's show up.

--Ben

[d_fu]

What he said... Apart from the test I posted above, I never really compared them, but the impression was that the 184 is indeed a tad brighter.
I didn't use it much, which is why it eventually had to go. Will keep the 140, though, I know I can put it practically anywhere as a spot mic to get a clean uncoloured signal. Worked nice on a lute, too.

OT: I don't usually sell mics. The only two I sold were the 184 and a Gefell M930. Nothing wrong with it, I just didn't use it much.

[huub]

We have many 140's (and 131, 145 and so on) and now recently a bunch of 184's..
I agree with neumann, I think they sound the same.. you can't use the 184's for all the gooseneck and extension cable type km 100 accessories, that's the only drawback in my humble opinion..

Huub

[Boll]

Thanks again for all your input. Seems like most people find the 140 a little nicer than the 184. I guess I really should try and audition them side by side. To me the 184's really benefit from a nice fat tube preamp to even out that "edgy" sound they produce at times.

[jnorman]

boll - i had very nice results using 184s with a vintech 1272 neve clone (big transformers in the path). i did not like the 184s paired with grace preamps, however. the edginess of 184s only seems apparent to me if i try to use them on-axis as close mics (which can actually be beneficial on some souces such as acoustic guitar, piano, etc) - when i use the 184s as an ORTF pair at some distance (8 feet and out), the distance and the off-axis configuration smooth them right out for me.

another thing to consider is the vintage of the 184s - i have owned four pairs of 184s over the years. three pairs were brand new, and each of those pairs seemed a bit brighter than the old pair i am now using - these are about 9 years old. from what i have read, there have been a couple of changes to the 184s over that time, which may have had an effect.

[Boll]

indeed there are tricks to make these babies sing. however, the 183's were IMPOSSIBLE for me to smoth out. i just found them scratchy.

[jnorman]

boll - john willett has used the 183s pointing straight up (90 degrees off-axis) to address their high end lift in a near-field situation. i would like to see neumann come out with a 18x version with the ak31 near-field omni capsule...

[Boll]

interesting. never heard of this trick. i shall try it next time. thanx

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by jnorman

boll - john willett has used the 183s pointing straight up (90 degrees off-axis) to address their high end lift in a near-field situation. i would like to see neumann come out with a 18x version with the ak31 near-field omni capsule...

Err, isn't this what everyone does to adjust the tonality of their omni to the conditions, architecture, distance, and performers they are working with?

The directivity of the omni will depend on diaphragm size and mic housing design, the amount and location of the rise (peak or shelf) depends on the capsule design and/or mic equalization.

Kind of basic stuff-point the mic's for the sound you want. If the mic is flat at 90 degrees, and you want flat to the source, then, well-you'd point your mic 90 degrees up, down, or to the side wouldn't you think?

For that matter, it's usual to point any mic in a manner that gives you the sound you're after.

The 183/130 has such an narrow peaked 8kHz "beam" that pointing it most anywhere can still sound unnatural. Sometimes it works.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by Boll

interesting. never heard of this trick. i shall try it next time. thanx

Not a trick. Standard operating procedure.

[angelo]

Here some links with more information. On the Neumann forum actual Neumann engineers give more details.

neumann km 184 vs km 140

All Aspects of Neumann Products - Re: KM100 v. KM180 series

All Aspects of Neumann Products - Re: KM 84 vs. KM 184 capsules...

All Aspects of Neumann Products - Re: KM 140 compared with KM 84

All Aspects of Neumann Products - KM 84 vs. KM 184

[Boll]

Thanks!

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by JEGG

The 183/130 has such an narrow peaked 8kHz "beam" that pointing it most anywhere can still sound unnatural. Sometimes it works.

Interestingly, the "legendary" M50 (or, now, M150/TLM50) are way more directional in the treble range and legendary exactly for that "beam".

Originally Posted by jnorman

the edginess of 184s only seems apparent to me if i try to use them on-axis as close mics (which can actually be beneficial on some souces such as acoustic guitar, piano, etc) - when i use the 184s as an ORTF pair at some distance (8 feet and out), the distance and the off-axis configuration smooth them right out for me.

184s (and 140s, too!) should be placed a little farther away than one would normally place a cardioid. They WILL tell when they're too close...