KM184 vs KM140 shootout coming...

[sonare]

Whatever difference that can be heard COULD be accounted for by the fact that the setups are not identical and the top pair is closer to the low ceiling-- even though it is slight.

Rich

[slimboyfat]

Originally Posted by sonare

Whatever difference that can be heard COULD be accounted for by the fact that the setups are not identical and the top pair is closer to the low ceiling-- even though it is slight.

Rich

true

[jnorman]

thanks for the comments. i wonder what it might cost to tear out my ceiling and open it up to the height of my roof...

[Uncle Russ]

Tearing it out would cost nothing; you could do it yourself in an afternoon.

Oh, that's not what you meant? Never mind.

[jnorman]

ha!! - just moving all the gear, computers, cabinets, book cases, furniture, and the piano out of the room to start work would take me a year...and i would probably NEVER get it all hooked up the same ever again (i get a headache just looking at all the cables routed all over the place).

[jnorman]

i just got another email regarding the price differential on these two pairs of mics. i paid about $1100 for the used pair of km140s, and i paid $900 for the used pair of km184s. the clips have gotten over 1900 listens now, and opinions are still split pretty evenly between those who prefer the 140s, those who prefer the 184s and those who cant tell any significant difference between the two pairs

[Brackish]

I just started doing a listening test of your samples, jnorman.

I noticed that the channels are swapped as compared to
looking at the supplied picture of the subjects.
in the pictue, you see the flutist on the left and the pianist
on the right but this is switched in the recording.

No big deal really but what I'm doing is looking at the picture
while listening to the recordings in order to see which
recording sounds more "realistic". It has helped me in my
initial listen to swap the channels in post so that what
I'm looking at (in the picture) matches what I'm hearing.

[imaginaryday]

i ran the two samples through an analyzer. here is a a graph showing both frequency responses:

[jnorman]

imaginary - very cool - the two mics track very very closely. thanks for posting that. no wonder it is hard to hear much difference...

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by BrianHanke

I can hear a clear difference in Daniel's clips. However, it looks as if in that particular shootout the mics weren't in quite the same location. How much does that account for the difference we hear?

I'm not familiar with that test but having the mics not in the
same position nearly invalidates any conclusions that may be
drawn, in my opinion.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

I applied -2.5 dB gain to the KM184 track for better balance against the KM140 track.

I ended up applying in the area of +1.8 to +3.2 dB of gain to the 140
in order to get the volume levels as close as possible. I suppose the
average gain I used was about +2.2 dB.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by imaginaryday

i ran the two samples through an analyzer. here is a a graph showing both frequency responses

What is your opinion of the mics based upon the analyzer results?

[Plush]

I think the graph shows that the mics will reliably pick up the sound of what is in front of them.

When you get to the high end and are using mics designed to be neutral, the microphone is not making the sound. The playas, the instruments and the room are making the sound.

140's have been used reliably for decades here. The first ones we got are serial #'s 007 and 008.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by Plush

I think the graph shows that the mics will reliably pick up the sound of what is in front of them.

When you get to the high end and are using mics designed to be neutral, the microphone is not making the sound. The playas, the instruments and the room are making the sound.

My question is: does the graph show that the 184 and the 140 are
the same mic, as Neumann claims.

[Plush]

Hello Brackish,

That graph is a very good representation of the similarity of the mics. It IS a non smoothed graph and essentially you have the two mics tracking each other very closely indeed.

If someone does not need to change mic heads, then just use the less expensive KM184 instead of the KM 140, its equivalent.

Also to more boldly state my case---I believe that any quality mic (engineered to be neutral) will work for any recording. That means generally, to me, EURO mics that we all talk about here. Neumann, AKG, Schoeps, Haun, etc. That leaves out ALL far east mics. They don't love you long time.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Plush

Also to more boldly state my case---I believe that any quality mic (engineered to be neutral) will work for any recording. That means generally, to me, EURO mics that we all talk about here. Neumann, AKG, Schoeps, Haun, etc.

Bold but true...
May I add Beyerdynamic to this list (and needless to say, Sennheiser also belongs there...)?

Originally Posted by Plush

I think the graph shows that the mics will reliably pick up the sound of what is in front of them.

Correct - but an interesting aspect may be what a mic will pick up off-axis. There are marked differences in graphs I've seen e.g. between an MKH 40 and an MK4... I have a slight suspicion that this could be part of the reason why I've never liked the latter much, e.g. when tested close up on a haprsichord.

I'll stop here, I don't wish to engage in Schoeps-bashing here. Great mics without doubt, but one can work without them...

[Plush]

Nope--I don't subscribe to any of the above. Each high quality mic is sufficient to render a beautiful recording. Schoeps commentary above is superfluous isn't it?

People need to get to work on their recordings making sure that the playas have played ALL the right notes and that they have enough recorded in the can to craft an outstanding edited version.

The editing room---THAT is where the record is made.

Discussing these mics and their minutiae is for internet recordists.

When listening and marking the score during a recording I never think about the mics once they are in position. I disdain producers who say that they can't work without a certain mic.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Plush

Nope--I don't subscribe to any of the above.

Not even to Beyer and Sennheiser added to your list?

Each high quality mic is sufficient to render a beautiful recording.

No doubt at all. But wouldn't you agree that off-axis response will influence the way a mic picks up a given hall's acoustics (or, for that matter, neighbouring instruments)?
I'm sure you are not implying that there is no difference in sound whatsoever between an MKH40 and an MK4 on a given source? "Better" is a matter of taste, of course.

Schoeps commentary above is superfluous isn't it?

Purely subjective personal impression to illustrate point about off-axis sound. I've not seriously worked with Schoepses, because (agreeing with your statement below) I don't believe I can't do without a specific microphone. My first set of pro mics were AKG 460s, and I still like their results. If I've progressed since then, it's more in terms of the way I use my mics and the number of mics I use - from ORTF plus maybe one soloist's spot to setups with 20 or more mics.

The editing room---THAT is where the record is made.

How would you compare the influence on the mix (including possibly added reverb) to that of the room and the actual mics?

I disdain producers who say that they can't work without a certain mic.

Valid point, IMHO... That said, don't you have certain preferences, i.e. certain mics on certain instruments? Or will you vary randomly?

Concerning the mics in question, I have one KM 140, and I always know it will give me a good result wherever I put it. I did, however, sell my sole KM184. I just wasn't using it much for some reason. I would usually reach for a Beyer or Sennheiser first.

D.

[Brackish]

jnorman,

Here's my results of comparing both using the flute and piano comparison you posted ...

I cut your file up into 10 smaller segments. I went through comparing them one segment at a time. I made it so I couldn't tell which mic was which when I was listening, so it was truly a blind test. (I didn't even have a waveform to look at.)


So the results of going back and forth between those 10 smaller segments
and picking the favorite out of each of those 10:

KM184 was the favorite 6 times

KM140 was the favorite 3 times

TIE between them (couldn't pick a favorite) 1 time


In conclusion, I can't really say with any confidence that they are NOT the same mic.
They may BE the same, like Neumann says.

[jnorman]

brack - i think your results and opinion are shared by most who listen to these clips. thanks.

[David Spearritt]

I am amazed that this non-thread and completely non-subject is still going. GS users have far too much time on their hands. Get out and do some recordings!

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

I am amazed that this non-thread and completely non-subject is still going. GS users have far too much time on their hands. Get out and do some recordings!

Evidently you find this "non-thread and completely non-subject" engaging enough read and to leave your commentary as well, despite not having time on your hands-or would that be too much time on your hands?

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by Plush

Discussing these mics and their minutiae is for internet recordists.

I'm a little confused. What exactly are "internet recordists?" Evidently, those are people who discuss mic's and their minutiae on internet forums such as this one.

So you, like others here, are an "internet recordist"-but, in context, it seems you use the term in a pejorative sense. Your many posts about microphones, and everyone else's, too; seem like a perfectly normal activity to me. Most of us do use microphones, right?

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by d_fu

an interesting aspect may be what a mic will pick up off-axis. There are marked differences in graphs I've seen e.g. between an MKH 40 and an MK4... I have a slight suspicion that this could be part of the reason why I've never liked the latter much, e.g. when tested close up on a haprsichord.

I'll stop here, I don't wish to engage in Schoeps-bashing here. Great mics without doubt, but one can work without them...

I don't think you are Schoeps bashing. All "conventional"cardioid condensers have off axis HF peaks. The MKH40 doesn't, because the of the equalization design. The MKH40 has roughly parallel lines (in the polar plot), and HF falls smoothly as a source moves off axis- In contrast to the rather pronounced off axis peaks of other designs, usually between 6 and 10k. Often the elevation begins as early as 50 degrees off axis. Schoeps goes as far as reminding the user of the MK4 that elevation of those frequencies will be especially heard when the MK4 is used in a diffuse field-IOW, where an equal or more amount of sound is arriving off axis than on. Relative to other conventional cardioids, though, the MK4 has superior off axis HF performance-and that's been one of its hallmarks.

(IMO) This phenomena partially explains the rising interest in subcardioid designs in conventional condensers, which have a "warmer sound" (again, Schoeps' own words) due to their more omni like HF performance with more parallel polar plots and HF falling smoothly as a source is moved further off axis. While subcardioids have a bit more (but not that much) on the bottom, it is the top end that is more different. The MKH40 has HF performance similar to a conventional subcardioid, but it has rear null of a cardioid.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by JEGG

The MKH40 has roughly parallel lines (in the polar plot), and HF falls smoothly ... Relative to other conventional cardioids, though, the MK4 has superior off axis HF performance-and that's been one of its hallmarks.

Anyone know what is the "smoothest" card off-axis in the diffuse sound field and, therefore, is least inclined to suffer from comb filtering in the diffuse field?

[Plush]

Originally Posted by JEGG

I'm a little confused. What exactly are "internet recordists?" Evidently, those are people who discuss mic's and their minutiae on internet forums such as this one.

So you, like others here, are an "internet recordist"-but, in context, it seems you use the term in a pejorative sense. Your many posts about microphones, and everyone else's, too; seem like a perfectly normal activity to me. Most of us do use microphones, right?

Hello Esteemed JEGG,

An Internet recordist, as I use the term, is someone who does not do recording every day or maybe even much at all. They are someone who mostly talks about recording on an Internet forum. I am not an Internet recordist for a different reason as well. Mainly that is because I do not concern myself with non pertinent minutiae.

[jnorman]

plush - while i agree with your assertion that in general, any good quality mic can produce good results, i do not consider the selection of a main pair of mics to be minutiae. selection of a main pair may be one of the most crucial choices an engineer makes, and it is worth the time and effort to make, and listen to, direct comparisons of possible choices.

over the years, i have owned DPA 4011s, Schoeps CMC6/mk4's, AKG C480/ck61's, royer r-121s, coles 4038s, neumann km184s and km140s, along with a variety of geffels, audio technicas, etc, etc. after much testing and listening, i finally settled on mics that suit my ears and sensibilities.

i have posted a number of mic comparison threads, and i believe they have helped open up a few opinions which had previously only been formed by written testimonies rahter than actual recorded results. it is all too easy to believe that, for example, the AT4051 is inferior to DPA 4011 or schoeps cmc64 based only on the sometimes elitist opinions of others, when in reality, the 4051 actually holds it own quite easily with anything made, IMO.

likewise, it is all too easy to believe that the neumann km184 is "harsh" or gritty or whatever, just from reading the opinions of lots of inexperienced engineers on GS - when in reality, the km184 is competitive with any SDC on the planet when used correctly by someone who knows what they are doing.

at any rate, the whole point of threads like this is to allow anyone to actually listen to some mics side by side and make their own decisions based on what they hear rather than what they read from others.

[Plush]

Bravo, JNorman,

I agree with you. The boggling minutae discussions
I was talking about had to do not with main pairs. Instead I
was referring to the running on at the mouth about off axis
response and other things that the internet recordist
talks about.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Plush

Instead I was referring to the running on at the mouth about off axis response and other things that the internet recordist
talks about.

IMHO there is a definite difference in the polar patterns between an MK4 and MKH40, see attached picture (taken from a test in a renowned german magazine, measured at Schoeps). If you think this makes no difference to the sound (esp. of ambient signals) whatsoever, please explain why. In his interesting posting above, JEGG has agreed with my point and linked it to the rising interest in subcardioids. The graph of the MKH 40 looks almost like sub already... To me, the graph explains my existing personal preference for the MKH. Is it ok to have personal preferences?

My point was that when you said "I think the graph shows that the mics will reliably pick up the sound of what is in front of them", I think that possibly the 0° repsonse is not the only thing that matters.... You seem to consider that minutiae.


D.

[Plush]

Thank you for your posts. My response was not aimed at your comments. Instead my commentary is for those who talk on an Internet forum and who read graphs in recording magazines. They don't do much recording. I have always pretty much just used the various mics without soul searching thought. All of the mics used here are of high quality so any of them will do the job. We are a house of Schoeps for many years. Also Pearl, Gefell, Soundfield, Neumann, EV, Shure, FLEA, etc. Our largest investment is in mics since picking up the source is the most important aspect of recording.

There are obviously tonal differences in mics and aspects of performance such as the reach of the mic and it's output level. One of the reasons the number and frequency of recordings is important is that with a heavy recording schedule one gets to use and hear all their mics over and over again. Thereby the engineer becomes intimately familiar with all the sound and performance aspects of each microphone.