Topic: Neumann KM185 vs AK50

[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