The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Mercenary KM69s Condenser Microphones
Old 28th December 2010
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Mercenary KM69s

Has anyone here purchased and used Mercenary MFG KM69s? Still happy with them?
Old 29th December 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 

bump
Old 29th December 2010
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Daedalus77's Avatar
Overwhelming yes. Find myself using them more than our Gefell M300s. MAGIC on acoustic guitar.
Old 29th December 2010
  #4
Lives for gear
In my opinion, any product that doesn't provide even basic specs like noise, frequency response, and pair matching criteria is a ****ing joke, and I won't buy it for that reason.

Mercenary has never had the decency to publish any specs on these mics, so I say **** 'em. There are plenty of other mic manufacturers who let me, as a professional, know whether I've got a particular dip or boost or phase shift or some other such issue that I've got to deal with in the mix.

I cannot get over how a company that sells such good, expensive gear from other reputable manufacturers can be so horribly ****ty with its own product. All that I can conclude, based on what they know about both product lines and their users, is that they've got something very, very bad to hide with these mics.
Old 29th December 2010
  #5
Gear Maniac
 
joelgtrnut's Avatar
 

Just a got a pair a few weeks ago. They sound stunning. Do yourself a favor and demo a pair. I really enjoy them on cymbals and acoustics. The only thing I don't like about them is that I now need to buy another pait because I like them so much.

p.s.

Who cares about tech specs... plug it in, does it sounds good? Yes or no. These mics slay.
Old 29th December 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Yes, specs can be made to be anything that "sells". I don't really care too much about polar plots, etc. Most plots are really not resolute or complete. Most mic manufacturers A-weight. Most only measure noise at the diaphragm and do not include the electronics, or all of the electronics. So, it can be a mixed bag.
Old 30th December 2010
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Daedalus77's Avatar
To Confusionator (there is something apropos, or faintly ironic, in your GS screen-name):

The published specs on most high-end, pro-audio products are at best unhelpful and at worst misleading.

Perhaps because this microphone is a bit pricier than other SDCs reported to be as "good" (see the Beyers); perhaps because the mic is not as well-known as others; perhaps because it doesn't bear the badge of a traditional company no-longer associated with that company's former, historic lineage—or perhaps because the GS hype-machine hasn't (yet) caught on to its virtues—the KM69 tends to fly under the radar.

Ultimately, I'm not terribly concerned about the mic's published data, its supposed provenance (or lack thereof), or the degree to which engineers here (or elsewhere) laud its performance. This is because I've used it.

Do yourself a favor: Put aside your irrational, visceral response to the store that produced the KM69 and demo one of them. I sense that if you put more faith in your ears than the data, you will find this product quite salutary to your recordings.

Best of luck.
Old 30th December 2010
  #8
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

they are indeed excellent.

Bargain as well .... for what they deliver.
Old 30th December 2010
  #9
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator View Post
In my opinion, any product that doesn't provide even basic specs like noise, frequency response, and pair matching criteria is a ****ing joke, and I won't buy it for that reason.

Mercenary has never had the decency to publish any specs on these mics, so I say **** 'em. There are plenty of other mic manufacturers who let me, as a professional, know whether I've got a particular dip or boost or phase shift or some other such issue that I've got to deal with in the mix.

I cannot get over how a company that sells such good, expensive gear from other reputable manufacturers can be so horribly ****ty with its own product. All that I can conclude, based on what they know about both product lines and their users, is that they've got something very, very bad to hide with these mics.
You can tell how something sounds by reading a spec sheet? I'm impressed.

Have you ever noticed EVERY condenser mic claims a freq response of 20Hz-20Khz. Do they all sound the same? NOPE. Conversely, most dynamic mics DON'T spec 20Hz-20Khz, yet many of them sound great.

This is but one example.
Old 30th December 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
Dudes, don't get me wrong: I like Mercenary, the store. I've purchased from them before and likely will again.

But, are you kidding me? Specs don't matter?

You can't tell from looking at the high-end rolloff on a U87 graph that you're likely not going to have weird problems in the high end with that mic?

You can't tell from looking at a graph of a Chinese mic with a high-mid bump that, if you overdub a lot of tracks using that mic, you're going to need to apply some correction in that range?

You can't tell from the noise spec of a small diaphragm mic whether it might not be suitable for distant mic'ing of a classical chamber ensemble?

You can't tell from a polar plot whether you might have some bleed problems based on a mic's position?

What is this--amateur hour at Gearslutz? I don't care whether I'm buying a very expensive Gefell, a Neumann, an AKG 414, or a $100 Chinese mic--and I've got 'em all. I use those plots to make my initial decisions on application and placement. Sure, from there I continue exploring, but I rarely if ever find that the published specs are anything other than helpful. For Mercenary not to publish them for its mic is a snub in the direction of Schoeps, DPA, and all the fine companies that do take the time to provide technical information.

Then again, maybe you guys are so non-technical that you don't know which side of a soldering iron is the handle....
Old 30th December 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Daedalus77's Avatar
I think you (again) miss the point.

(And, by the way, I imagine most of us can certainly handle our own on with a soldering iron. This is beside the point.)

You have argued that the data produced by various manufacturers is a valid means of evaluating—at least initially—their products' potential.

Most of the rest of us are arguing that relying on such data is often misleading—or at least not entirely relevant to how a given piece of gear might be used in the myriad applications we all encounter daily in the studio.

We are simply saying that you would be better advised to order and LISTEN to a given piece of gear before dismissing it out-of-hand—which is precisely what you did with the KM69.

I'm tickled pink that you can read polar plots. Most of us can. That's not really the point—nor what the OP asked, actually.

Carry on...
Old 30th December 2010
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Tone Laborer's Avatar
I've heard one on acoustic guitar and it was stellar. I'd be interested in any comments on outside the norm sources- string quartet, orchestras, upright bass, piano, horns etc.
Old 30th December 2010
  #13
"if it sounds good, it is good" should hands down, without a doubt, definitely be what's most important when recording; there's no better metric.

however, it makes me nervous when a common consensus on a website made for gear fanatics (with many 'professionals') don't embrace, understand, or maybe just simply not care about the specs for different pieces of equipment. knowing why things work should be a close second in importance to knowing if they work; it's the difference between making something great once or making things great always.

even ignoring the uses or benefits one can get from a spec sheet, doesn't it seem like manufacturers should include them just to show they put in their due diligence in creating the product?

i've never used the mic myself so i can't comment on it's usefulness or musicality, but just from a marketing perspective, it seems like mercenary would greatly benefit from making the specs on it's products available. (that is, unless the specs don't look that great)
Old 30th December 2010
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Audio Hombre's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator View Post
You can't tell from looking at the high-end rolloff on a U87 graph that you're likely not going to have weird problems in the high end with that mic?
i used the u87 for 20 years before i finally looked at the plot. when i finally looked at it, i realized why everything i recorded with it sucked and how amateur i'd been thus far. i've now learned to mix by referring to data sheets first, and using my eyes. i can now mix a whole song by simply inserting analyzers on each track.
Old 30th December 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator View Post
Dudes, don't get me wrong: I like Mercenary, the store. I've purchased from them before and likely will again.

But, are you kidding me? Specs don't matter?

You can't tell from looking at the high-end rolloff on a U87 graph that you're likely not going to have weird problems in the high end with that mic?

You can't tell from looking at a graph of a Chinese mic with a high-mid bump that, if you overdub a lot of tracks using that mic, you're going to need to apply some correction in that range?

You can't tell from the noise spec of a small diaphragm mic whether it might not be suitable for distant mic'ing of a classical chamber ensemble?

You can't tell from a polar plot whether you might have some bleed problems based on a mic's position?

What is this--amateur hour at Gearslutz? I don't care whether I'm buying a very expensive Gefell, a Neumann, an AKG 414, or a $100 Chinese mic--and I've got 'em all. I use those plots to make my initial decisions on application and placement. Sure, from there I continue exploring, but I rarely if ever find that the published specs are anything other than helpful. For Mercenary not to publish them for its mic is a snub in the direction of Schoeps, DPA, and all the fine companies that do take the time to provide technical information.

Then again, maybe you guys are so non-technical that you don't know which side of a soldering iron is the handle....
Speaking of amateur hour, there's a lot of histrionic hostility in your posts on this thread. Can you tone it down a little?

For everyone else who doesn't want to tread through the bile, I will translate and summarize:

"I would like to read specs on these mics. Reading specs is important to me."

Done.

- c
Old 31st December 2010
  #16
Lives for gear
Quote:
Personally I've always thought that matching pairs was over rated. The idea behind stereo is that the two channels are different.
Rob, I'm just curious: do you record live classical, jazz, or other acoustic music concerts? The standard for those of us who do this type of work is to use matched pairs. We derive both the stereo field and mono compatibility through careful placement, not mismatching of levels and/or frequency response.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
Speaking of amateur hour, there's a lot of histrionic hostility in your posts on this thread. Can you tone it down a little?

For everyone else who doesn't want to tread through the bile, I will translate and summarize:

"I would like to read specs on these mics. Reading specs is important to me."

Done.

- c
Silver Sonya,
Point taken. I am especially adamant with Mercenary because, unlike some two-bit, fly-by-night operation, they should know better. Mercenary's opinions affect a lot of newbies on this site, and even some more experienced people here.

As Mercenary goes, many will follow. If they take the lead in marketing microphones without specs, then we'll likely see more companies do the same. The hard work that our colleagues in AES have done for so many decades--attempting to create standards that are of some value to recordists--will be trashed.

Mercenary invites being held to a higher standard than that.

I apologize for being overly emotional about this earlier. You're right: civility always beats aggression in these types of discussions.

I don't doubt, from what other posters have written, that the mics are great for acoustic guitars (most likely in a rock and roll context). But what about live classical recording, or overheads, or mandolin, or hi-hat, or violin, or nature sound recording, or opera singers? Specs can help me gauge these possible applications. Having a few people tell me that their acoustic guitar recordings sound great doesn't help me begin to assess these mics for broader applications.

I don't know the mic's max SPL, which means that I don't know if I can use the mic under a rock snare drum. I don't know the sensitivity, so I don't know whether I might need to pad it down for some applications, or use preamps with more clean gain than I might with, say, an SM81.

Add this stuff up, and I don't see a reason to even try out this mic. But that's just me. Clearly, I research my equipment differently than some other posters here.
Old 31st December 2010
  #17
great mics!

i do agree though that there should be specs. It is a standard with quality mics and hold the manufacturers to a type of standard. I have used specs to get a rough feel for a mics dif. patterns before using them.
Old 31st December 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator View Post
Then again, maybe you guys are so non-technical that you don't know which side of a soldering iron is the handle....
OK this must be one of those trick statements ? The handle is the "handle side" ... duh heh !! and BTW I am soooo non technical ta boot.

But I can tell you this. I did a pre purchase shoot out of 6 sdc's with my acoustic gtr at a studio and the KM69 came in second only the to the Schoeps CMC6 MK4 for twice the money and damn if I didn't look at a single spec sheet.
Old 31st December 2010
  #19
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Confusionator - I'm wondering what's truly fueling you - certainly something more than specs. Deal gone wrong, etc.?

I'd love to see what your music looks like. Maybe you could post a pic so we could all check it out?

Also, I have some early 20th century oil paintings for sale. If interested, provide your email address and I'll send an MP3. They sound wonderful.
Old 31st December 2010
  #20
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator View Post
I am especially adamant with Mercenary because, unlike some two-bit, fly-by-night operation, they should know better. Mercenary's opinions affect a lot of newbies on this site, and even some more experienced people here.

As Mercenary goes, many will follow. If they take the lead in marketing microphones without specs, then we'll likely see more companies do the same. The hard work that our colleagues in AES have done for so many decades--attempting to create standards that are of some value to recordists--will be trashed.

Mercenary invites being held to a higher standard than that.
Hi there anonymous Confusionator guy - good to meet you. Before I was with T-funk I did about 245 months [± a few days] working at M-A and kinda spearheaded the KM-69 project so perhaps I can give you a bit of background on why there is no published specifications...

There was no way to generate them.

There is nothing to hide [that anyone knows about] - there is nothing sinister or disrespectful lurking about - just the lack of availability to get proper test data generated. If you know of an available anechoic chamber, I'm sure the management at Mercenary [and while I don't speak for them - I think I know them well enough to make this statement] would be happy to have proper plots and graphs made.

While the company I work for currently has access to a proper anechoic chamber - they're not likely to share that access. While Neumann, Gefell, AKG [and many others] have chambers, they're not likely to grant access or perform the testing. While there are Universities that have them, nobody at Mercenary had any contacts at those Universities [at least during my tenure there] and couldn't arrange to "slide in after hours" and get testing done.

The simple fact of the matter is lack of access, nothing more - and nothing less.

FWIW - the mic went through a myriad of proto-types until it did what I wanted it to do. If you go to ma-mfg.com it'll tell you the whole story of how the development went - it was more like a "Forrest Gump" thing than anything else - and while I work for a microphone manufacturer [that does have access to a proper anechoic chamber, and does publish graphs - etc.] - the fact of the matter is that the KM-69 is a damn fine tool -- but was entirely developed "by ear".

The manufacturing consistency is very [VERY] good - so while there isn't a formal "matching" process [Neumann doesn't formally match mics either] in my not the least bit humble opinion [which is still nothing more than an opinion] - the level of consistency is high enough that stereo use / applications are not a problem in the slightest.

Again - I do NOT speak for Mercenary in any way, manner, shape or form [and haven't since 1 July 2009] - but I was there during the creation and approval of the final [production version] of the product and can tell you with all certainty what was going on at the time.

Peace.
Old 31st December 2010
  #21
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletcher View Post
Hi there anonymous Confusionator guy - good to meet you. Before I was with T-funk I did about 245 months [± a few days] working at M-A and kinda spearheaded the KM-69 project so perhaps I can give you a bit of background on why there is no published specifications...

There was no way to generate them.

There is nothing to hide [that anyone knows about] - there is nothing sinister or disrespectful lurking about - just the lack of availability to get proper test data generated. If you know of an available anechoic chamber, I'm sure the management at Mercenary [and while I don't speak for them - I think I know them well enough to make this statement] would be happy to have proper plots and graphs made.

While the company I work for currently has access to a proper anechoic chamber - they're not likely to share that access. While Neumann, Gefell, AKG [and many others] have chambers, they're not likely to grant access or perform the testing. While there are Universities that have them, nobody at Mercenary had any contacts at those Universities [at least during my tenure there] and couldn't arrange to "slide in after hours" and get testing done.

The simple fact of the matter is lack of access, nothing more - and nothing less.

FWIW - the mic went through a myriad of proto-types until it did what I wanted it to do. If you go to ma-mfg.com it'll tell you the whole story of how the development went - it was more like a "Forrest Gump" thing than anything else - and while I work for a microphone manufacturer [that does have access to a proper anechoic chamber, and does publish graphs - etc.] - the fact of the matter is that the KM-69 is a damn fine tool -- but was entirely developed "by ear".

The manufacturing consistency is very [VERY] good - so while there isn't a formal "matching" process [Neumann doesn't formally match mics either] in my not the least bit humble opinion [which is still nothing more than an opinion] - the level of consistency is high enough that stereo use / applications are not a problem in the slightest.

Again - I do NOT speak for Mercenary in any way, manner, shape or form [and haven't since 1 July 2009] - but I was there during the creation and approval of the final [production version] of the product and can tell you with all certainty what was going on at the time.

Peace.
Fletcher, I appreciate your response, but how can you say "The manufacturing consistency is very [VERY] good" when the company doesn't have the equipment to prove that? How can you tell whether, 10 mics apart, there's not a dip in the sensitivity of mic 10 vs. mic 1? What's more, how can you tell that you're not drifting away from the original spec over time due to inevitable changes in component lots?

I wonder if there's even equipment for tuning the capsule.

If the mic was never tested, that means that there may not even be a "golden sample"--an ideal version of a product against which subsequent production is judged.

I don't get it. Mercenary wants me to spend big money on a mic that's tested by what--by ear? And who's ear? I trust that your ear is not bad, but you're not there any more. So who is doing the testing? And does he/she listen the same as you do?

Sorry, this just doesn't sound like a "pro audio" product to me. Part of being "pro audio" is sucking it up and renting Audio Precision equipment, anechoic chambers, etc. as necessary in order to validate consistency. This testing is baked into the product's pricing. (Testing and validation is a major reason why Neumann mics cost so much.) This makes me wonder: if the KM69 is so expensive, and yet testing isn't being performed, where is the money going?
Old 31st December 2010
  #22
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
OK - FIRST - let me say again that I do NOT speak for M-A in any manner, shape or form. What I can attempt to do [without stepping over an imaginary line] is explain what occurred during my tenure. I will do my level best to refrain from any other comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator View Post
Fletcher, I appreciate your response, but how can you say "The manufacturing consistency is very [VERY] good" when the company doesn't have the equipment to prove that? How can you tell whether, 10 mics apart, there's not a dip in the sensitivity of mic 10 vs. mic 1? What's more, how can you tell that you're not drifting away from the original spec over time due to inevitable changes in component lots?
The mic is not built in Foxboro, MA [home of Mercenary Audio]. It is built in the United States at a facility that does have most of the proper test equipment - though no anechoic chamber - but the great majority of the proper test equipment. Their level of attention to detail is usually rather high. During my time [and I should imagine now] the final product was checked by ear prior to shipment. They were judged against a "benchmark" example of the product.

Quote:
If the mic was never tested, that means that there may not even be a "golden sample"--an ideal version of a product against which subsequent production is judged.
I prefer to call them "benchmark" examples - I have a twisted mind that goes to bad places when you insert the word "golden" in quotes in a sentence.

Quote:
I don't get it. Mercenary wants me to spend big money on a mic that's tested by what--by ear? And who's ear? I trust that your ear is not bad, but you're not there any more. So who is doing the testing? And does he/she listen the same as you do?
I can and will NOT speculate on current processes. FWIW - during my tenure the product [as with all products "on the roster"] was offered for purchase - nothing more, and as always - nothing less. If you didn't dig it - send it back. If you did dig it, then you were welcome to adopt it. Nobody wanted anyone to "spend big bucks" on something that wasn't right for them. While this smells like speculation, I doubt anything has changed in that regard.

Quote:
Sorry, this just doesn't sound like a "pro audio" product to me. Part of being "pro audio" is sucking it up and renting Audio Precision equipment, anechoic chambers, etc. as necessary in order to validate consistency. This testing is baked into the product's pricing. (Testing and validation is a major reason why Neumann mics cost so much.) This makes me wonder: if the KM69 is so expensive, and yet testing isn't being performed, where is the money going?
Does it have to be an Audio Precision? ... an H-P isn't good enough? Other than being the mighty "Confusionator" - do you have a background in in any form of manufacturing? You talk like you do and yet somehow I have a feeling you don't.

At the end of the day - if you don't want to buy one - don't. If you TRY one and don't feel its a tool that will serve your purposes then you've made that decision from a truly educated perspective. If you have summarily rejected the concept from an intellectual perspective, that is certainly your right - but understand this is a "personal perspective" that is not necessarily generally shared.

At this point I'm way to close to talking about stuff I have no business talking about. I have attempted to address your initial concern - I've gone way past that point. If you wish to engage anyone in debate on this topic - it can and will not be me, and it will definitely won't be here.

Please feel free to have the final word in our exchange - from what I have read so far, it seems like something you will find mandatory... along with misplaced faux moral outrage. It is what it is - and while I'm sure everyone would like to live up to the highest standards possible, it is not always feasible [at the same time, the product speaks for itself - so unless you listen to what the thing is saying, your projections remain "conjecture", and baseless in reality - though well founded on a utopian intellectual level].

Peace.
Old 31st December 2010
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletcher View Post
OK - FIRST - let me say again that I do NOT speak for M-A in any manner, shape or form. What I can attempt to do [without stepping over an imaginary line] is explain what occurred during my tenure. I will do my level best to refrain from any other comments.



The mic is not built in Foxboro, MA [home of Mercenary Audio]. It is built in the United States at a facility that does have most of the proper test equipment - though no anechoic chamber - but the great majority of the proper test equipment. Their level of attention to detail is usually rather high. During my time [and I should imagine now] the final product was checked by ear prior to shipment. They were judged against a "benchmark" example of the product.



I prefer to call them "benchmark" examples - I have a twisted mind that goes to bad places when you insert the word "golden" in quotes in a sentence.



I can and will NOT speculate on current processes. FWIW - during my tenure the product [as with all products "on the roster"] was offered for purchase - nothing more, and as always - nothing less. If you didn't dig it - send it back. If you did dig it, then you were welcome to adopt it. Nobody wanted anyone to "spend big bucks" on something that wasn't right for them. While this smells like speculation, I doubt anything has changed in that regard.



Does it have to be an Audio Precision? ... an H-P isn't good enough? Other than being the mighty "Confusionator" - do you have a background in in any form of manufacturing? You talk like you do and yet somehow I have a feeling you don't.

At the end of the day - if you don't want to buy one - don't. If you TRY one and don't feel its a tool that will serve your purposes then you've made that decision from a truly educated perspective. If you have summarily rejected the concept from an intellectual perspective, that is certainly your right - but understand this is a "personal perspective" that is not necessarily generally shared.

At this point I'm way to close to talking about stuff I have no business talking about. I have attempted to address your initial concern - I've gone way past that point. If you wish to engage anyone in debate on this topic - it can and will not be me, and it will definitely won't be here.

Please feel free to have the final word in our exchange - from what I have read so far, it seems like something you will find mandatory... along with misplaced faux moral outrage. It is what it is - and while I'm sure everyone would like to live up to the highest standards possible, it is not always feasible [at the same time, the product speaks for itself - so unless you listen to what the thing is saying, your projections remain "conjecture", and baseless in reality - though well founded on a utopian intellectual level].

Peace.



Wow! This guy is mental!
Old 31st December 2010
  #24
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator View Post
Sorry, this just doesn't sound like a "pro audio" product to me.
tutt
How do you know? You haven't HEARD said microphone.
Old 31st December 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
softwareguy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by passenger View Post
Wow! This guy is mental!
Seemed like a very fair response to me. Try it, see if it sounds like what you are looking for from a KM84 type mic. If not, send it back. No one today is actually buying a KM84 for its plot. Seriously. If you don't have an idea of what you were looking for from that type of mic, this probably isn't the doggie for your window.

Also, if you think that this seems like a hyperbolic response from Fletcher, you really, really haven't seen him when he gets wound up.
Old 31st December 2010
  #26
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Mercenary KM69s

Quote:
Originally Posted by Confusionator

Fletcher, I appreciate your response, but how can you say "The manufacturing consistency is very [VERY] good" when the company doesn't have the equipment to prove that?
This is easy to answer.

It's easy to build a small anechoic production test chamber.

You measure the “master" mic. in this chamber and then compare all the production ones to this.

This chamber is not good enough for producing the master frequency response and polar plots, but is perfect for comparing samples in production.

I would say most manufacturers would do it this way as it is far too expensive to take every mic. into the big chamber.

Sent from my iPhone using Gearslutz
Old 31st December 2010
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Voicing a microphone by ear IS the only way to go! The BEST ONES are done this way!

You want to look at a plot for a microphone and act like that can tell you anything about the sound... you're high! Yes, you can see a bump or a dip at a certain frequency but it tells you NOTHING about how the microphone SOUNDS!

Regarding the KM69 I've only read great stuff about it... do yourself a favor Confusinator and try one yourself... it's really the only way you'll know (and learn, which is not a negative!).

When I was buying mics for Black Dog studios a couple years back I got 4 KM84's in to try because I was trying to get a matched pair... or to match a pair as close as I could. They ended up sending me two more and out of the 6 I got two that were close but you would not believe the difference in the sound between all 6... so even with a certain microphone model it still comes down to the ears to define good sound. It's is both personal and subjective... trust your own ears as they're the only pair you'll ever own.
Old 31st December 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
EddieTheRed's Avatar
 

From Paul White's review in Sound on Sound magazine:

I don’t know if it is still true today, but at one time if you bought a Rolls Royce car and looked in the handbook for the specifications, the horsepower rating would simply be described as ‘adequate’. And that was all you needed to know — because if Rolls Royce said it was adequate, then it was. It seems to be a similar story with the KM69 microphone from Boston-based audio dealers Mercenary Audio: their web site shows no technical spec and there’s no spec sheet in the box. Mercenary have a reputation for talking key manufacturers into building specially tweaked versions of their existing products to bear the Mercenary Edition badge, and on occasions they get products specially built if they can’t find what they’re looking for elsewhere in the marketplace. They’re known for being extremely picky, so if they’re prepared to put their logo on a mic, there’s every chance that it is going to be a bit special.
Old 31st December 2010
  #29
Lives for gear
 
_Ludovico's Avatar
 

Im not going to take sides on this one... I'm sure Mercenary is not trying to sell you crap by hiding (or simple not having) the specs of these mics. In fact, i'm pretty sure they're awsome mics.

But my opinion is that if Mercenary wanted to have access to an anechoic chamber, they would sure have the means to find one and publish the specs.
Old 31st December 2010
  #30
I have a pair of these mice. I've used them on a number of sources from piano to strings, acoustic guitar to overheads, hi-hat, snare drum and even bbass. They are a truly high end product. They have detailed mids and unlike the harsh high end on many of their competitors they capture a beautiful sparkle.

If I had any criticism of them at all trhey are a bit hot and need padded down on louder sources. That's of course easily sorted.

As a slight aside I found it slightly ironic that someone publically and vociferously complaining about a lack of detail in respect of a product that they never even used should hide behind an anonymous user name and post no website address or in fact, any detail about themself or their background at all. Maybe I'm just old fashioned though...
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Doc Mixwell / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1
Fibes / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
hey_mavis / So much gear, so little time
3
AC Long / The Good News Channel
7
Dog_Chao_Chao / High end
39

Forum Jump
Forum Jump