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
Tags: , ,

Shure KSM 141...are they good? Condenser Microphones
Old 19th May 2009
  #31
Lives for gear
 
suedesound's Avatar
 

We have one at the studio I work at and sleeper mic is the best way to describe it!

I never used it for the first year I was there, then someone busted it out for acoustic and I loved it. Now our go to for live in studio sessions on AG. I'm not much of a HH mic fan but it seems to work there well. I've heard good results with it used on amps (not my sessions).

I seriously think I have to try it on bottom snare now too!
Old 19th May 2009
  #32
Lives for gear
 
rockstar_josh's Avatar
 

I have a pair of the KSM 137s (cardioid only) and they are great on acoustic instruments!
Old 23rd September 2009
  #33
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
I am really enjoying my pair... I use them on acoustic guitar, drum overheads, and the other day got a really great percussion sound in omni, while playing an assortment of hand drums and things. I used it also on an electric guitar track that got high praise from a friend of mine. really solid mic (the oktavas seemed fragile, to me), great sound, agree that these seem versatile. I liked it on snare drum too, but I usually have them in the overhead position on drum kits
Old 24th September 2009
  #34
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grockvt View Post
would these be good for recording piano?
I have a pair of 141's that I have tried on a lot of sound sources. Like the other posters I do not use them for distance miking. They are, however, among my favorite "inside the piano" mics for jazz and pop piano (my other favorite being the C414buls). Try them in omni for close miked piano.
Old 24th September 2009
  #35
Arrow

Speaking of 141 in omni on jazz piano...

Here's a sample from last night. It's a symphonic band performing with a guest jazz rhythm section and trumpet soloist. My main array caters to the band, so I used some spots to make sure I'd have enough control over the special additions. I went with 141s for both the trumpet and piano, primarily because of their size.

I taped a 141 to the inside of the piano (a la https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remot...sted-2.html#35) quickly during the last set change and didn't want to worry about a larger mic. The other 141 was taped to a Sennheiser dynamic of some sort being used by the house sound techs. I didn't want to clutter the stage with another mic stand, but I also didn't want to use their signal, if it was even possible. I had the 15db pad on, as well as the "less steep" low cut (-6 db/octave below 115 Hz). Both mics were in omni. The piano lid was open full-stick.

I've attached a sample of the signal from the mics. Trumpet on the L, Piano on the R. No processing. Signal Chain: 141s -> Grace -> R44
Attached Files

141_PianoAndTrumpetSpots_Sample.mp3 (1.06 MB, 6005 views)

Old 25th September 2009
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Corran's Avatar
 

Christian, you should post this in the other 137/141 thread too.

I like the trumpet sound a lot, and am surprised at how good it sounds (I always use a ribbon for trumpet, just because they always seem to work). The piano is okay but there is a little too much bleed from the drums and bass to make a judgement call. I wouldn't mind hearing the whole mix. I've recorded this tune before but the title eludes me...
Old 25th September 2009
  #37
Joy Spring by Clifford Brown

(Mix in progress.)
Old 25th September 2009
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Corran's Avatar
 

Of course!!
Old 13th October 2009
  #39
Post

For those of you who were curious about mic placement, I have some pictures. In one picture, you can see the 141 taped to the house mic. In the other shot, you can see the gaff tape and mic in the piano if you look closely.

Other mics in the picture include my 4050 on drumset, the house's black KSM32 (I think) on the piano. And can you spot AT4050 on bass?

Cheers.
Attached Thumbnails
Shure KSM 141...are they good?-ksm141_trumpet.jpg   Shure KSM 141...are they good?-ksm141_piano.jpg  
Old 3rd February 2011
  #40
Lives for gear
 
initself's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nu-tra View Post
I like it for snare bottom.
What do you like for snare top?
Old 21st January 2013
  #41
Lives for gear
 
MickeyMassacre's Avatar
I am diggin up this old thread as i found my 141's last week. I decided to try them on toms, and they sounded great!
Old 21st January 2013
  #42
Gear Addict
 
Tousana's Avatar
 

I responded to this post when it first appeared, and I am still impressed with the Shure KSM 141. Having used the original Neumann KM84 for many years, I am convinced that this is the closest mic out there to the KM84. I say this because the original KM 84's are becoming harder and harder to find and the KM184 is a weak copy of the original with top end that is a little off putting and a frequency response that is far from even. Still love the 141, it is very underrated.
Old 21st January 2013
  #43
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
I have a KM-184 now and I'd say they're a nice compliment. I do like the KM-184 quite a bit. It's good on a lot of the same things as the KSM.
Old 29th December 2014
  #44
Gear Maniac
 

One poster recommended not using them for distance mic'ing. Why not?
Old 29th December 2014
  #45
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickcrisp View Post
One poster recommended not using them for distance mic'ing. Why not?
perhaps because they do not accentuate the highs. Sometimes at a distance a high boost can be desirable. I do like my pair of 141's, good value for the money.
Old 29th December 2014
  #46
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
perhaps because they do not accentuate the highs. Sometimes at a distance a high boost can be desirable. I do like my pair of 141's, good value for the money.
Aha! Thanks. So you mean a small diaphram mic with a better high frequency response might be more desirable for distance mic'ing?
Old 29th December 2014
  #47
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickcrisp View Post
Aha! Thanks. So you mean a small diaphram mic with a better high frequency response might be more desirable for distance mic'ing?
Yes, if you call an enhanced high freq response "better". Right tool for each job. I find the "dry" nature of the 141 to suit some environments very well, i.e. when you want to "filter out" some nasty's. In a great acoustic space however, at a distance they can be too "dull", slightly, at a distance.
141 does have rather low self noise, usually a problem with other SDC's, so watch out for that. Unless you're only recording loud sources.

Last edited by edva; 29th December 2014 at 04:50 PM.. Reason: more
Old 29th December 2014
  #48
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
Yes, if you call an enhanced high freq response "better". Right tool for each job. I find the "dry" nature of the 141 to suit some environments very well, i.e. when you want to "filter out" some nasty's. In a great acoustic space however, at a distance they can be too "dull", slightly, at a distance.
141 does have rather low self noise, usually a problem with other SDC's, so watch out for that. Unless you're only recording loud sources.
Thanks for the tips. I'm actually no fan of high freqs at all. I prefer that they're always rolled off a la classic ribbon micss but I'm looking for a stereo pair to record a group in a nice room, not too distant. Didn't realise sdcs suffered from self noise.even transformerless?
Old 29th December 2014
  #49
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickcrisp View Post
Thanks for the tips. I'm actually no fan of high freqs at all. I prefer that they're always rolled off a la classic ribbon micss but I'm looking for a stereo pair to record a group in a nice room, not too distant. Didn't realise sdcs suffered from self noise.even transformerless?
absolutely, it is mostly a function of the small size of the membrane. Exacerbated by less than ideal electronics in many cases.
Old 29th December 2014
  #50
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
absolutely, it is mostly a function of the small size of the membrane. Exacerbated by less than ideal electronics in many cases.
Thanks again
Old 29th December 2014
  #51
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickcrisp View Post
Thanks again
BTW, a good transformer usually _reduces_ noise, not adds to it. They are seldom used because a good transformer costs money, and also takes up some space in the mic body.
Old 29th December 2014
  #52
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
BTW, a good transformer usually _reduces_ noise, not adds to it.
Do you mean that a transformer can increase the signal-to-noise ratio ? Because of the low-pass filtering that removes noise beyond some cut-off frequency ?

Anyway the lowest noise microphones are transformerless.
Old 29th December 2014
  #53
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
Do you mean that a transformer can increase the signal-to-noise ratio ? Because of the low-pass filtering that removes noise beyond some cut-off frequency ?

Anyway the lowest noise microphones are transformerless.
Generally yes, on both ends of the spectrum actually. Plus, you get some "isolation" from noise. In terms of pure spec, you are also correct though. Good post.
Old 30th December 2014
  #54
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
BTW, a good transformer usually _reduces_ noise, not adds to it. They are seldom used because a good transformer costs money, and also takes up some space in the mic body.
So what sdc's have a transformer then? Sorry, should I start a new thread or is it ok to post within this one?
Old 30th December 2014
  #55
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickcrisp View Post
So what sdc's have a transformer then? Sorry, should I start a new thread or is it ok to post within this one?
Ha ha, good questions. As to the first, off the top of my head at 4 in the morning, Shure Sm 81, Rupert Neve SE, possibly Miktek, Mojave, Peluso.....not sure about those......probably a few others........not sure if you need a new thread......
Old 13th January 2015
  #56
Gear Nut
 

Just another +1 on the KSM141 from me. They are very balanced mics and you can make fantastic recordings with them. The electronics used are quite good and contribute to the low noise and balanced sound.
Old 13th January 2015
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
BTW, a good transformer usually _reduces_ noise, not adds to it. They are seldom used because a good transformer costs money, and also takes up some space in the mic body.
From an article on "Reducing Noise":

"Where possible, choose a minimum signal path. All electrical circuitry, no matter how well designed, adds a little more noise to your signal, so the less circuitry there is between source and destination, the better."

This applies in both the macro and micro. Whether the noise matters or comes into play is situational. But if dealing with self noise, a transformer at best causes no change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
Do you mean that a transformer can increase the signal-to-noise ratio ? Because of the low-pass filtering that removes noise beyond some cut-off frequency ?

Anyway the lowest noise microphones are transformerless.
This is more to the point, I think. When checking specs on various mics with/without transformers, the mics with lowest self noise do indeed tend to be the transformerless.

Whether or not you like or find a particular mic usable sort of depends on the application. In live sound it is arguably less critical to have the lowest noise floor. In recording with a pair of mics or any of the myriad arrays, I always go for the lowest self noise of all the mics in my locker. Whether they have transformers or not is moot. Go for low...
Old 2nd February 2015
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Omicron_9's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
Ha ha, good questions. As to the first, off the top of my head at 4 in the morning, Shure Sm 81, Rupert Neve SE, possibly Miktek, Mojave, Peluso.....not sure about those......probably a few others........not sure if you need a new thread......
The AKG C 460 also has transformers.
Old 3rd February 2015
  #59
AB3
Lives for gear
 

They can be VERY good in omni mode.
Old 3rd February 2015
  #60
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AB3 View Post
They can be VERY good in omni mode.
Can you please clarify which mic you are referring to? The KSM 141 in the thread's title or the AKG C460 mentioned in the preceding post (presumably with the CK 62 capsule)?
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
Teddy Gee / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
6
Teddy Gee / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
canadiansteve / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
C/G / So much gear, so little time
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump