Topic: Has anyone run Neumann KM150's > Sound Devices 7xx

[hammerhorror]

Hi,

I am looking for opinions from anyone that has run:

Neumann KM150's > SD 7xx

or

Neumann KM150 > V3 > SD 7xx

I know alot of people tend to think the KM150's sound thin, but I am wondering if that would change with the added bass thump of the Sound Devices recorders.

I have already searched the archive for these combos and was not able to find a recording.

I did however listen to some KM150 > Apogee Mini-Me samples that sounded nice to my ears.

Thanks in advance for any responses!

-John

[danlynch]

The 150's are thin?  Jeez. 

Whomever is telling you that has not heard the full range of these wonderful mics.
I run 150s' > Minime (those might be the recordings you've heard), and the bass presence is not only rich and powerful, but its not muddy at all.  Sample the Dinosaur Jr. recording available for direct download from my site.  The venue, Irving Plaza, has a reputation as having as boomy and unclear PA signal, and D. Jr. is an extremely loud band--this would be a recipe for disaster.  However, the 150's recorded an extraordinarily clean signal with a nice sharp bass.

If you can get a hold of my Roger Waters recording from 2006-09-12, listen to the bass presence on that thing--teeth-rattling stuff!

Personally, I can't understand the criticisms of the 150's, and I believe they are completely invalid.  Any recording I've ever made with them has been truly satisfying on all levels, including a warm sound that you'd associate with Neumann's--that is, warm without being boomy.

[stevetoney]

Personally, I can't understand the criticisms of the 150's, and I believe they are completely invalid.  Any recording I've ever made with them has been truly satisfying on all levels, including a warm sound that you'd associate with Neumann's--that is, warm without being boomy.

Dan, beauty is definitely in the ear of the beholder, but I spent hours this past weekend doing sound tests of the recordings on the archive and there's simply no two ways about it, the many many samples on the archive provide a fairly convincing indictment of the 150s being quite sonically differently sounding than the AK40s or the KM184s.  They are just not as warm.  Now does that mean they're not warm at all, well that's where the subjective opinion comes in I guess.  I personally think they are too thin in really 100% of the samples that I listened to and there are LOTS of samples on the archive.

So, my point isn't to argue with your opinion because obviously your opinion is valid for what you and you alone believe to be the case.  But to my ears the 150s just don't cut it...and the reason I listened so much over the weekend is that I was REALLY trying to convince myself to like them because I had decided that I was gonna buy the 140s...but after not really caring much for the sound of the 150s, I ended up just going with the KM184s and I'm REALLY excited about that decision.

Take care man.

[danlynch]

Can you do me a favor and grab some of the 150's recordings from my site, that are not on the archive, and give them a listen?  I respect your opinion, and would like to hear your assessment of what I've been able to do with them.

[Todd R]

I can't help with the original query, but I owned and ran km150s and I totally see where people are coming from who say they are thin.  Or at least light in the bass -- again, depending on your tastes, what you're used to, who you're recording, what you're recording with, etc, etc.  AFAICT, this is by design, since Neumann clearly incorporated a noticeable bass roll-off.

It's not that there is no bass, but it isn't going to be too slamming, particularly if you're farther away.  I've used the ak50's FOB for Mule at the front drink rail of the Fox in Boulder and they had great bass response.  But for most bands taping with the cards at this location, I would've run the bass rolloff on the V3.  I've used the ak50's in a number of different small clubs, including FOB, and they sounded great.  But if you want to use hypers from far back in larger venues where you'll already be far away from the sub cabinets and thus have a thinner bass to start with while at the show, the ak50's aren't the ticket, to my ears. 

Bottom line, for me anyway, is that if you want hypers for a small club that can be chatty or that has bad room sound, the km150s can be great.  But if you want hypers for taping from far away in the taperssection in a large venue, you'd want a mic with a flatter low end response curve like the AKG 483 or schoeps mk41.

[danlynch]

Nice post.  Your explanation fits perfectly with the results I've been able to obtain, since my best 150's captures have been FOB or in small halls.

[stevetoney]

Can you do me a favor and grab some of the 150's recordings from my site, that are not on the archive, and give them a listen?  I respect your opinion, and would like to hear your assessment of what I've been able to do with them.

Yeah, I will.  I might not have the time tonight though.  It's almost bedtime over here in Slovenia.  I simply CANNOT wait to get home next Tuesday.  One, give my wife and dog and hug and a kiss.  (Wife does not equal dog BTW).  Two, will have about $1500 worth of new recording gear waiting for me.  Three, hit the golf course!!!  YESSS!

[jnorman34]

well, i know that scott fraser uses km150s as live mics for the kronos quartet.  that speaks pretty loud to me.

[F.O.Bean]

they might work better with the 7xx like he originally mentioned. thats why i like em so much with the 48x, because they add that lil bit of lowend punch so they might be a nice combo just like the mme is. but personally, most combos ive ehard are a bit brittle or thin. but those were also with v2/v3's.....

[DSatz]

hammerhorror, I own a pair of Neumann KM 150 supercardioids and have used them a number of times (with a V3, in fact) when recording classical vocal recitals where the point was to highlight the singers especially, not so much the piano or the room. The KM 150 is very good in unfavorable acoustical conditions, where excessive room reverb would otherwise produce a muddy sound.

"Thin" strikes me as too strong a word, and too negative; it all depends on how and where you use the mike, and what kind of sound you want to hear. But there's definitely some reality to what people are saying when they compare it to the cardioid or wide cardioid or (especially) omni capsules of the Neumann KM 100 series, all of which have considerably more low-frequency output than the KM 150 does.

A classic "speech cardioid" microphone type would be about 12 dB down at 50 Hz (e.g. Neumann KM 85 or KM 145, Schoeps MK 40, etc.) so that proximity effect at about 6 inches will bring the low-frequency response up to near-flatness. The KM 150 is 10 dB down at 50 Hz so it is undeniably closer to being a speech capsule than not. The attached frequency response curve was clipboarded from Neumann's current product literature on their Web site.

It's a characteristic that compensates well for excessive proximity effect or "room gain." For recording music with significant low-frequency material of interest in a well-balanced hall of adequate size, I'd choose a different type of microphone. But the KM 150 should handle a shelving bass boost very nicely, since its directional pattern remains smooth and consistent at low frequencies even as its amplitude response rolls off.

--best regards