Topic: Continuing KM184 discussion

[stevetoney]

...continuing discussion from an ISO in the yard sale...

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=130691.msg1720622#msg1720622

[stevetoney]

dgale and taperj...addressing a couple of points from your latest responses in the YS thread discussion on the km184 vs km140...

I really don't know what are the real sonic differences between a km184 and km140 with active electronics.  However, my earlier comment was from a simplistic perspective; that putting a 15 foot cable and additional electronics in between the mic and the body makes it a different microphone.  That may or may not lead to a difference in sound...I just don't know.  My earlier point was simply that I could accept that the active components COULD be a reasonable explanation for why I have experienced what I believe to be a different sound between the 184s and the 140s.

Having said this, it's my understanding that active electronics in alot of mics are much more than simply a cable and a couple of connectors (thus the high price for a set of actives).  Seems I read that Neumann and Schoeps actives have some basic differences in how they function, but the basic concept, as I understand, is that the electronics components inside the connectors helps to stabilize (and perhaps amplify?) the signal along the 15 foot length of cable. 

OK, so taking my initial hypothesis forward, I can't understand how it can be stated that a km184 is the same microphone as the km140 with actives, when there's additional cables, connectors, and electronics in the 140 signal path.  To me, that makes them different microphones with the possibility of having differences in sonics due to the additional components (albeit those differences may be slight).

Heck, even Grace acknowledges that the V2 and V3 can sound different (with the V3 in analog mode) because even though the V3 is the same preamp design, they acknowledged that some materials were changed inside the V3 box (can't remember details.)  Another example is that alot of ts.com people hear a difference between silver cables and copper cables.  So, if changing materials inside a preamp or cables can make a sonic difference to people, shouldn't it stand to reason that a 140 could sound different from a 184 if you add cables, connectors, and electronics between the capsule and body?  Logically, I'd say 'of course', but realistically, I'd like to hear some controlled comps.

[taperj]

^^ Yeah, I think this is about what I was getting at in my last response. Agreed on all counts.

[F.O.Bean]

I agree w/ you Steve. I have often wondered this between the MBHO 603 and the MBHO 63A(Actives/Extentions) and have wondered if the 603(just like a 184) sounds different than my 603A's, which have silver-clad es between the capsule and the mic preamp body. So I would DEFINITELY say that my 603a's sound different than a regular 603 w/ the addition of my silver "Active" cables.

For anyone who doesnt know a 603 is a body and capsule just like the 184 and the 603a's are a mic body and capsule w/ silver cabling inbetween just like a 140 except Neumann makes an "official" "Active" cable and not just an "extension" just like it is on the MBHO's.

[burris]

I really don't know what are the real sonic differences between a km184 and km140 with active electronics.  However, my earlier comment was from a simplistic perspective; that putting a 15 foot cable and additional electronics in between the mic and the body makes it a different microphone.  That may or may not lead to a difference in sound...I just don't know.  My earlier point was simply that I could accept that the active components COULD be a reasonable explanation for why I have experienced what I believe to be a different sound between the 184s and the 140s.

In the Neumann KM-100 system, the capsule head contains essentially the complete microphone and the connection to the "body" is a balanced microphone level signal.  The "active cables" are just cables/connectors and don't have any additional electronics.   The body houses a dc-dc converter and the connectors plus the pad switch.  When you run the Neumann active cables you're not introducing additional electronics and the microphone is designed to drive 50 meters of cable between the capsule head and the body.

[DSatz]

Let me just add my vote to what Burris just said. The Neumann KM 100-series microphones do NOT have active cables; they have active capsules and passive extension cables.

That's why their capsules are so expensive (you're paying for the active electronics each time you buy one) and their cables are relatively inexpensive--as compared with Schoeps, whose extension cables really are active (i.e. they have an impedance converter built in to the capsule end, and that circuitry requires powering, which is provided by the microphone "body").

Unfortunately, a lot of people around here use the word "active" to describe any cable that goes between a capsule and amplifier. But that's a complete misuse of the term.

--best regards

[taperj]

^^ thank you for a good technical description DSatz, I always do find your input useful, complete and objective. Cheers.

J

[fleish]

Let me just add my vote to what Burris just said. The Neumann KM 100-series microphones do NOT have active cables; they have active capsules and passive extension cables.

That's why their capsules are so expensive (you're paying for the active electronics each time you buy one) and their cables are relatively inexpensive--as compared with Schoeps, whose extension cables really are active (i.e. they have an impedance converter built in to the capsule end, and that circuitry requires powering, which is provided by the microphone "body").

Unfortunately, a lot of people around here use the word "active" to describe any cable that goes between a capsule and amplifier. But that's a complete misuse of the term.

--best regards

+T Dsatz ... learning is good!

[waltmon]

I thought there was a big difference between running actives and using a really nice silver core cableand the complete microphone.

         Also...sonically, the 184's and 14's I think sound completely different.  Although I made some great 184 recordngs, I thought the best ones I made were using an AT attenuator between the mic and mic cable...the 184's seemed to be really hot in certain musical situations and definitely need attenuation....esp bassy acts ( ie MMW, etc)

[DSatz]

waltmon, it's not really the best idea to put an attenuator between a microphone and its output cable. Better to place the attenuator at the input of the preamp, mixer or recorder that the microphone is connected to. That way, the signal voltage in most of the cable's length will be that much higher (whatever the amount of the pad is), and it will be that much better able to overcome any noise from interference.

--best regards

[jnorman34]

fyi, i posted a couple of clips over on the gearslutz forum doing a head to head shootout with a pair of KM184s and a pair of KM140s on some flute/piano material.  might be worth a listen:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/468786-km184-vs-km140-shootout-coming.html

[it-goes-to-eleven]

That's why their capsules are so expensive (you're paying for the active electronics each time you buy one) and their cables are relatively inexpensive--as compared with Schoeps, whose extension cables really are active (i.e. they have an impedance converter built in to the capsule end, and that circuitry requires powering, which is provided by the microphone "body").

It should probably be noted that the Schoeps "active" parts (KC5, for example), though exceptionally well engineered, consist of very basic components that cost only a couple dollars.  I assume the guts of the Neumann circuit are not much different.  Including them in the capsule design should not necessarily increase the cost much.

In terms of audio quality, I never run actives (Schoeps) unless it is required.  It adds a buffer, and an unbalanced cable, to the signal path.  No good can come from either.

[illconditioned]

That's why their capsules are so expensive (you're paying for the active electronics each time you buy one) and their cables are relatively inexpensive--as compared with Schoeps, whose extension cables really are active (i.e. they have an impedance converter built in to the capsule end, and that circuitry requires powering, which is provided by the microphone "body").

It should probably be noted that the Schoeps "active" parts (KC5, for example), though exceptionally well engineered, consist of very basic components that cost only a couple dollars.  I assume the guts of the Neumann circuit are not much different.  Including them in the capsule design should not necessarily increase the cost much.

In terms of audio quality, I never run actives (Schoeps) unless it is required.  It adds a buffer, and an unbalanced cable, to the signal path.  No good can come from either.

I agree that the cost of the "active" parts is not that much.  Maybe it is a marketing decision.  If people realized they could buy KM140 capsules for quite cheap, they would (maybe) just build their own battery box!

As far as sound quality goes, I'm sure the mic designers have worked it out.  The only (possible) disadvantage I could see is the possibility of picking up radio interference on the (unshielded) run between the mic and the bodies.  I can't imagine it degrading the sound.  Hmm.  Maybe DSatz can say something about that.

  Richard

[stevetoney]

WRT actives, perhaps the term to use is 'different sound' rather than 'degraded sound'.

[DSatz]

Freelunch, the active circuit components in a Schoeps active (cable, gooseneck, extension tube) are by no means cheap, and the use of active accessories adds only a minute amount of noise that is measurable under carefully controlled conditions but isn't really audible. Nor is Schoeps' circuit generally or in any other way similar to "the Neumann circuit" which is simply a wire connection between an active capsule and the output/powering circuitry in the body of the mike.

Rather than spell out chapter and verse, I would suggest that you check out what you have been led to believe, and ask the person where they got their so-called information. Nearly every material statement in your message is just not factual to begin with.

People: The only valid test of whether something is audible or not is WHETHER ANYONE CAN HEAR IT. Anything else is just speculation, which I see a fair amount of in this thread and elsewhere--people pretending that they can tell in advance WITHOUT LISTENING TO SOMETHING that they will or won't like the sound of it, solely on the basis of a circuit description that in this case, also happens to be competely wrong information. But even a listening bias that is formed on the basis of correct information is still a listening bias, and still gets in the way of deciding what sounds good on a real rather than an imaginary basis. That's important.

--best regards