Neutral to darker sounding mics

[uncle duncan]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Oktavamod K47 LDC capsule head assembly, which screws onto common 22mm sdc bodies. I sent Michael a $50 CAD GXL1200 sdc for the premium electronics mod ($95) and bought the capsule assembly ($329) and now I've got a LDC that totally blows away my $1500 tube LDC's, and the usual array of AT 40 mics, including a 4047 and a Geffel MT71 S, which both sound tinny in comparison to the K47.

This mic is freakin' amazing. It's natural sounding with no hyped high end and no bumped up low end. The detail is stunning - 3-D sounding - without being harsh. The compatible sdc bodies are transformerless, so if you want color, you just run it through a colored pre.

The K47 head assembly is cardioid only, but you can send in common LDC's like the Rode NT-1a or the Apex 460 tube mic for a capsule replacement mod and get multipattern if your mic supports it.

This mic is going to become the new standard by which all other so-called flat mics will be judged.

OktavaMod - Shop

Frequency response graph here:
OktavaMod - Shop

(No, I don't work for Oktavamod, I'm just totally blown away by this capsule, which also beats the modded 319 I got from him a while back.)

[Piedpiper]

Ditto on Joly's work. You might also consider (the unthinkable) modifying your KM184 by opening up the vents just behind the capsule to get rid of the high frequency peak. Joly has done this as well although unpublicized. Ask him, or if you're handy... His Gomez is a great value for a ribbon.

[Piedpiper]

You can put in a search here and you'll flush up your samples. Or just go to his site.

[JEGG]

I hesitate to prolong this thread indefinitely, but I guess I will a little......

Regarding the "brightness" of the Shure 137/141 v the SM81, I believe the issue is being confused because of the character of the lower registers of the SM81.

In the examples posted earlier with guitar, the 137/card141 seems to me to be less bright, and a bit cleaner than the SM81.

However, at first listening, the SM81 may make a considerably darker impression, because of its elevated low end registers, which I've always thought are a little out of control.

I believe it is the low end of the 81 which is coloring the perception of its high end.

(Does anyone here remember the SM81's of yore, which used an iron or steel pipe for the body and the whole thing painted a very bad "period Cadillac metallic sparkly gold"?)

And speaking of cosmetics, why are mic makers still furnishing bright semi-shiny eye distracting mic's, such as the KSM137/141, MKH800, Rode NT5's and so on?

Now back to the thread topic...which wasn't the KSM137/141 nor SM81, but rather dark LD condensers.

But then the U89/TLM193/170 mic's aren't LD's, they're more "MD's."

And the 137/141 are a bit larger than SD's...? Or not..?

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by JEGG

I hesitate to prolong this thread indefinitely, but I guess I will a little......

Regarding the "brightness" of the Shure 137/141 v the SM81, I believe the issue is being confused because of the character of the lower registers of the SM81.

In the examples posted earlier with guitar, the 137/card141 seems to me to be less bright, and a bit cleaner than the SM81.

However, at first listening, the SM81 may make a considerably darker impression, because of its elevated low end registers, which I've always thought are a little out of control.

I believe it is the low end of the 81 which is coloring the perception of its high end.

(Does anyone here remember the SM81's of yore, which used an iron or steel pipe for the body and the whole thing painted a very bad "period Cadillac metallic sparkly gold"?)

And speaking of cosmetics, why are mic makers still furnishing bright semi-shiny eye distracting mic's, such as the KSM137/141, MKH800, Rode NT5's and so on?

Now back to the thread topic...which wasn't the KSM137/141 nor SM81, but rather dark LD condensers.

But then the U89/TLM193/170 mic's aren't LD's, they're more "MD's."

And the 137/141 are a bit larger than SD's...? Or not..?

Sorry to prolong, since it is not the original topic, but SM81 is a quite linear mic, uncontrolled low end might be more due to the room than the mic.
KSM series sounds a bit "leaner", therefore perceptual effect can be also "brighter" or "thinner" - but not for all sources and in all the situations / rooms... I am glad I can use both. But for close micing acoustic guitar I would reach for SM81 first - yet better for the Gefell..

SM81 freq.chart:




KSM 137 freq chart (both official from Shure):



You can clearly see that low end start to roll of higher in KSM137 and there is an obvious high frequency bump. SM81 doesn't have that, therefore it is objectively not brighter.

I am not saying which is better, only that KSM 141/137 cannot be considered "dark" mics.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Sorry to prolong, since it is not the original topic, but SM81 is a quite linear mic, uncontrolled low end might be more due to the room than the mic.

Leaving a SD cardioid "linear" into low regions means compromises have to be accepted. The cardioid pattern deteriorates, and the lower end is flabby and slow. Rooms do make a difference, more so when the cardioid turns into a bad omni at lower frequencies. In many of the same cases, a real omni reveals a much tighter and linear bass without the extreme blooming of the SM81. Paradoxically, many SD cardioids with a naturally occurring roll off deliver results more resembling a real omni in those circumstances, even when those mic's are used without benefit of the proximity effect. (ORTF, etc.)

It is true the graph for the SM81 is a straight line, more or less.

However, none of the SM81's I've used sounds much like the graph. Especially the low end. And it's that low end which can lead to false impressions about the upper end. The upper end of the SM81 is flatter than on paper, it sounds to my ears a little bumpier. I may be confusing bumps with brightness.

It may seem that I'm bashing the SM81. That's not my intent. It's a very good mic that's withstood the test of time without significant design changes. (I was reintroduced to the SM81 by a "super channel" TV crew using lots of SM81's over strings in a classical situation. I thought it was going to be a disaster. It was fantastic. It was, well, rather dark! I was stunned. The 81 has my respect.)

I agree that the 137/141 cannot be considered a dark mic.

(Lucky you. I only wish I had Gefells to make decisions more difficult.)

[The Listener]

I agree, and that was a very good post, also made clear why sm81 could have uncontrolled low end in some cases.

Originally Posted by JEGG

Leaving a SD cardioid "linear" into low regions means compromises have to be accepted. The cardioid pattern deteriorates, and the lower end is flabby and slow. Rooms do make a difference, more so when the cardioid turns into a bad omni at lower frequencies. In many of the same cases, a real omni reveals a much tighter and linear bass without the extreme blooming of the SM81. Paradoxically, many SD cardioids with a naturally occurring roll off deliver results more resembling a real omni in those circumstances, even when those mic's are used without benefit of the proximity effect. (ORTF, etc.)

It is true the graph for the SM81 is a straight line, more or less.

However, none of the SM81's I've used sounds much like the graph. Especially the low end. And it's that low end which can lead to false impressions about the upper end. The upper end of the SM81 is flatter than on paper, it sounds to my ears a little bumpier. I may be confusing bumps with brightness.

It may seem that I'm bashing the SM81. That's not my intent. It's a very good mic that's withstood the test of time without significant design changes. (I was reintroduced to the SM81 by a "super channel" TV crew using lots of SM81's over strings in a classical situation. I thought it was going to be a disaster. It was fantastic. It was, well, rather dark! I was stunned. The 81 has my respect.)

I agree that the 137/141 cannot be considered a dark mic.

(Lucky you. I only wish I had Gefells to make decisions more difficult.)