Topic: Neumann KM185 vs AK50

[stevetoney]

There have been many discussions and debates in the past about whether there's a sound difference between the Neumann km184's and the AK40 > km100, but what about the 185's vs. AK50?

There a plenty of archive samples of both models of cardioids and of course the AK50s, but I see no archive samples with 185s, so wondering if anyone out there has done any sampling of their own and reached any conclusions.

Thanks.

[Nick's Picks]

no difference

[Tim]

well there is a sonic difference between the 184 and ak40/lc3 setup

so logically it would follow that there would be a sonic difference between the 185 and ak50/lc3 setup

but I don't know if anyone has actually done a comparison with this setup like they have with the 184/ak40 so

[Nick's Picks]

there is?
not one I can hear.

i've given myself enough little 140/184 tests to see if I can hear any difference.
my results...., i'll never pay for 140s' again when 184s can be had for a grand less.

[AlexG]

there is?
not one I can hear.

i've given myself enough little 140/184 tests to see if I can hear any difference.
my results...., i'll never pay for 140s' again when 184s can be had for a grand less.

Makes sense, heck you could have 184s and 185s for the price of the active set up and have two sets of mics instead of one.

[Tim]

there is?
not one I can hear.

i've given myself enough little 140/184 tests to see if I can hear any difference.
my results...., i'll never pay for 140s' again when 184s can be had for a grand less.

ToddR did a comp several years ago and noted a difference. I've used both recently and I think the 184s are a touch brighter

does it justify the huge difference in costs? Probably not   I've made nice tapes with both.

[GDfan]

I have listened to some ak-50 sources from some WSP fall tour that are on etree currently, http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=511241 , for instance.I really enjoyed how they sounded, 184 seem to heavy(bassy) for me; I can get 185's and get the approx same sound?

[Tim]

Yes

[Nick's Picks]

185>MME 
totally punchy, in your FACE FOB type sounding rig.  always loved that combo.

in any case, dispite what people claim to hear / not hear (myself included).  Let your own ears be the judge.  although, impossible really w/o a really good comp into something like an R4 w/4 channels of the same preamp/AD.

Neumann says "same".  good enough for me.  they have no reason to lie.   They could easily say "the km100/akXX does sound better than the straight KM series due to...? ", but they dont.
that tells me something.

[Tim]

185>MME 
totally punchy, in your FACE FOB type sounding rig.  always loved that combo.

yep, I ran ak50/minime for a time and really enjoyed the combo

[stevetoney]

Crap, I was hoping this wouldn't get back into the 'do they sound the same or not' debate, but I guess the question prompted it.

The electronics aren't the same...they can't be exact since one set of electronics is packaged in an active setup with 15 feet of cables in the mix and the other has nothing between the capsule and the electronics.  So, it's not a stretch to also say that theres a sonic diff.  I definitely hear differences in the 184 samples and the ak40 samples on archive and I thought those same differences existed in the recordings I made when I ran 184s.  Course, I wasn't running 140's to comp, so can't prove anything.

I do wish though that I had a pair of 185's to play around with so I could see if they even a touch more warmth than the ak50's. 

[stevetoney]

Neumann says "same".  good enough for me.  they have no reason to lie.   They could easily say "the km100/akXX does sound better than the straight KM series due to...? ", but they dont.  that tells me something.

It could be that Neumann doesn't want to state publicly that they believe that the 140 sound, at double the price, isn't up to the sound that is obtained from the 184 product.  Whatever... I'm not saying that I don't believe Neumann or that Neumann is lying.  I'm just throwing out that maybe what they say in public is tainted by PR considerations.  OTOH, maybe not.  This group has different opinions on this same subject, so it's no stretch to say that Neumann also would be in one or the other of the 'opinion' camps.

FWIW, even though I just bought Harrisons 140s, I like the sound of the 184s better than the 140's, so that's why I was asking if anyone had comped the 185s against the AK50's.

[Nick's Picks]

neumann says the 184s are quieter, less distortion.  which some transcribe as "brighter" as that distortion is typically in the lower registers.  all that noise is what makes the km84 sound soo warm and smooth.

the 184 is the "state of the art" design for this model. 
If you want to add the active cable and its electronics into the mix for comparrison, that is another story.  but w/o those...they are basically the same.

[DSatz]

> neumann says the 184s are quieter, less distortion.  which some transcribe as "brighter" as that distortion is typically in the lower registers.  all that noise is what makes the km84 sound soo warm and smooth.

Sorry, no. Neumann says the 184s are quieter than the 140s because, well, they are--by some 3 dB, for the ones produced since 2002. But they've never claimed that the 184s have lower distortion than the 140s, because, well, they don't.

What makes the KM 84 sound warm and smooth compared to a KM 140 or a KM 184 is that again, it really is smoother in the entirely objective, measurable sense of its frequency response being less bumpy up top. Neumann consciously moved in a certain direction in the design of the KM 140. That model has the same capsule as the KM 84 as far as the membrane and internal parts go, but it is set in a capsule head arrangement that includes a slightly differently-dimensioned rear sound inlet. This causes an increase of about 1 - 2 dB in sensitivity in the region around 9 kHz. That tweak gives these microphones an attractive "sparkle" under the right circumstances--but there are also circumstances in which the emphasis can be undesirable.

Now that, I have to say, isn't Neumann's fault. They didn't make the laws of the universe--one of which is that no possible tweak or gadget can ever make everything sound better. If that were possible, whatever tweak it is (in this case, a little EQ boost that's achieved acoustically rather than electrically) would, by definition, continue to make even its own results sound better and better and better as you continued to apply it a second, a third, and a 473rd time to the same recording. Since that is obviously absurd, so is the idea that any "feelgood box" or anything other than flat frequency response, low distortion and low noise can ever be inherently euphonic all the time.

What Neumann quite reasonably did--because those dear people had this crazy idea that they wanted their company to exist for a few more years if possible--is gamble on how best to succeed in an audio marketplace which is, how shall I say this diplomatically, largely driven by people who have more disposable income than engineering experience. If you listen to a "comp" and you aren't comparing the recording to the live, original sound, a KM 140 compared with a KM 84 will seem to have higher "resolution" and its sound will definitely "cut through a mix" better and so forth. That's a lot of what sells microphones nowadays, and Neumann decided not to turn their backs on the opportunity.

OK, but finally now to face the original question, though, prepare for the anticlimax: There is no difference in sound between the KM 185 and the KM 150 as a series. Sorry, it's really that simple; no contorted explanations are in order. The KM 185 is 3 dB quieter but you will rarely be fortunate enough to hear that difference because the noise of most recording venues covers it up.

--best regards

[illconditioned]

> neumann says the 184s are quieter, less distortion.  which some transcribe as "brighter" as that distortion is typically in the lower registers.  all that noise is what makes the km84 sound soo warm and smooth.

Sorry, no. Neumann says the 184s are quieter than the 140s because, well, they are--by some 3 dB, for the ones produced since 2002. But they've never claimed that the 184s have lower distortion than the 140s, because, well, they don't.

What makes the KM 84 sound warm and smooth compared to a KM 140 or a KM 184 is that again, it really is smoother in the entirely objective, measurable sense of its frequency response being less bumpy up top. Neumann consciously moved in a certain direction in the design of the KM 140. That model has the same capsule as the KM 84 as far as the membrane and internal parts go, but it is set in a capsule head arrangement that includes a slightly differently-dimensioned rear sound inlet. This causes an increase of about 1 - 2 dB in sensitivity in the region around 9 kHz. That tweak gives these microphones an attractive "sparkle" under the right circumstances--but there are also circumstances in which the emphasis can be undesirable.

Now that, I have to say, isn't Neumann's fault. They didn't make the laws of the universe--one of which is that no possible tweak or gadget can ever make everything sound better. If that were possible, whatever tweak it is (in this case, a little EQ boost that's achieved acoustically rather than electrically) would, by definition, continue to make even its own results sound better and better and better as you continued to apply it a second, a third, and a 473rd time to the same recording. Since that is obviously absurd, so is the idea that any "feelgood box" or anything other than flat frequency response, low distortion and low noise can ever be inherently euphonic all the time.

What Neumann quite reasonably did--because those dear people had this crazy idea that they wanted their company to exist for a few more years if possible--is gamble on how best to succeed in an audio marketplace which is, how shall I say this diplomatically, largely driven by people who have more disposable income than engineering experience. If you listen to a "comp" and you aren't comparing the recording to the live, original sound, a KM 140 compared with a KM 84 will seem to have higher "resolution" and its sound will definitely "cut through a mix" better and so forth. That's a lot of what sells microphones nowadays, and Neumann decided not to turn their backs on the opportunity.

OK, but finally now to face the original question, though, prepare for the anticlimax: There is no difference in sound between the KM 185 and the KM 150 as a series. Sorry, it's really that simple; no contorted explanations are in order. The KM 185 is 3 dB quieter but you will rarely be fortunate enough to hear that difference because the noise of most recording venues covers it up.

--best regards

Thanks for the great explanation.  So, the main point is that the capsule itself is common between 84, 184, and 140, right?

I gotta ask.  Where did you learn this stuff?  I'm truly amazed.

  Richard

[DSatz]

illconditioned, yes, the capsule is the same in the KM 84, KM 140 and KM 184. But in Neumann's terminology there's a difference between a "capsule" and a "capsule head." A capsule head contains a capsule (though it may actually contain more than one in some cases, such as stereo microphones), and it provides part of the acoustical environment in which that capsule operates. Think of a U 87--it has this screened, sort of pyramid-shaped capsule head with its own internal acoustical goings-on to some extent. The capsule is the circular thing inside it, and both are separately available replacement/repair parts.

The design of the capsule head--and sometimes, the way in which the capsule head is seated on the body of the microphone--affects the sound. Neumann has often used the same capsules in several different acoustical and electronic designs to get different sounds or feature sets--once they have a capsule design that has proved successful, they tend to find new uses for it.

In the case of the KM 140 for example the capsule head includes the rear sound inlet; it has to, because the capsules of that series are "active" and can be detached from the body of the microphone so that they can be mounted on extension cables, goosenecks or tubes. The KM 184 on the other hand relies on the hemispherical reflector arrangement that is part of the microphone body, somewhat as the KM 84 did, but it's still rather different.

--best regards

[Nick's Picks]

I was just quoting what the neumann engineer said in that link posted (from the neumannusa.com web site forum) on the first page.
which anyone here can go and read for themselves.  I figured my paraphrasing might just save some time.

but, thanks for the clarification any way.

[DSatz]

nick's picks, sorry, I didn't mean to step on your toes. But I really don't see any link that you've posted in this thread to where a person could find the message you're referring to.

I remember some discussions on Neumann's Pinboard about distortion in fet 80-series microphone amplifiers vs. the transformerless fet 100 microphones (including the KM 180 series), and the idea that the transformer introduces some amount of distortion at the lowest audio frequencies when it is driven hard. By any chance is that what you're referring to? If so, I suspect that I was one of the people involved in the discussion, since I actually have looked into this issue and used a Neumann MA 80 test head to make careful measurements of this distortion in the amplifiers of various KM 84s, and I've certainly discussed it on the Neumann Pinboard.

As it turned out, Neumann's specifications were quite conservative, and the circuitry of the microphone (including its output transformer) could be driven some 5 - 6 dB beyond the rated maximum SPL before there was any steep rise in distortion. The lowest audible frequencies (though the KM 84 was only specified down to 40 Hz, not 20) were no exception. The transformer wasn't contributing color to this particular microphone "when used as directed," though of course transformers certainly can do that; in some equipment their sonic flavoring may even be essential. It's just that there's no justification for assuming that "transformer = coloration" on a blanket basis.

But the question in this thread isn't whether the KM 140 (or its budget counterpart, the KM 184) sounds different from the KM 84--everyone agrees that it does, and Neumann has explained the reasons again and again (they were asked to make it a little shinier sounding, and so they did). The question in this thread is (or was) whether the KM 185 sounds different from the KM 150, and since Neumann never had a superish-/hyperish-cardioid small microphone in any of their earlier series, this whole side branch of the discussion is kind of off-topic.

And let me say, I don't tolerate a single word of off-topic discussion, and isn't it amazing that AKG has the nerve call that electret with non-interchangeable capsules a re-issue of the 451? (Just kidding. But seriously, they've got a lot of nerve doing that.)

--best regards

[Nick's Picks]

http://www.neumann.com/forums/view.php?bn=neumann_mictec&key=1098635571&v=f


toes ?
hell, i've got 10 of those suckers.  plenty to spare.


perhaps I just paraphrased/interpreted incorrectly.  i've been known to be "aint often right"

[grayp]

http://www.neumann.com/forums/view.php?bn=neumann_mictec&key=1098635571&v=f

nice.

Author: David Satz
Send Email
Date: 10/24/2004

[DSatz]

Nick's Picks, please note that in that Pinboard discussion, the claims about distortion were made by Erik Sikkema, not anyone from Neumann. Erik is someone I know from both the Neumann Pinboard and from Klaus Heyne's forum; he's a smart fellow and a very good recording engineer from what I can gather; he also has strong opinions which he likes to state as if they were established facts which merely require sufficient repetition. This should perhaps be taken into account when reading his messages--otherwise you might think that you'd missed reading a few years' worth of AES Journals.

For example, Erik is thoroughly convinced that phantom powering is the cause of many ills in today's microphones. (It is true that it places certain limitations on the design of microphone circuits, but whether designers have been able to do well within those limits is another question entirely.) And to his credit, Erik has gone farther than most people do who have such theories--he has actually had some of his microphones rebuilt so that the powering is carried on a separate wire in the cable. He claims that those microphones sound clearly better than the stock models. Sitting here on the other side of the world I can hardly dispute what he hears over there--but I can say for certain that his explanations make very little sense and don't fit the known, basic facts; also, that he changed other variables in the equation beyond the manner in which powering is delivered, such that the comparison became apples vs. oranges. (And we all know how that lawsuit came out.)

Now just because someone's explanation doesn't make sense to me, doesn't mean that they're not hearing what they say they're hearing, so that's all the farther I can take the matter. But my point is, Mr. Schneider (the moderator of the Neumann "Pinboard" or forum) is unfailingly polite, and would almost never contradict someone outright or risk embarrassing them (or himself or his company) by behavior that was anything less than gracious. (He has also replied to people in, at last count, four different languages, and made sense in all of them.) As a result, when someone posts an opinion with which he doesn't necessarily agree, most often his rejoinder (if any) will be quite indirect. You can see that happening in this thread; the person being "not exactly agreed with" may not even notice the lack of agreement, his expression of it is so mild.

--best regards

[Nick's Picks]

as I said, ZEN POSTER of the year!
+T D